Hacker News Reader

Comment by luxuryballs | Hacker News Reader

I still wouldn’t risk obtaining them legally, discretion is paramount for controversial medicine. One tiny data leak and your reputation is tarnished in certain circles, and that doesn’t even get into why the government knowing about it could be risky.

View on HN

It's an uncomfortable in-between area as laws shift towards common sense but social values among certain cohorts remain defiantly anchored in the past. We've seen it a million times before and we always get past that in-between area, though not without casualties.

Do you have serious depression with persistent suicidal thoughts? If not then this isn't designed for you. If you do then the last thing you'd be worried about is someone at work finding out because the alternative is to kill yourself.

How could one possibly harm their reputation by using a legal medication

Loss of us ts/sci for use of controlled substances

I thought the reason ts/sci people weren't allowed to have any drug use in their history was because using illegal drugs could open them to blackmail? If you're taking an above-board medicine that wouldn't be a factor. I can't imagine one would lose their clearance if they were taking prescription amphetamines for ADHD treament, for example.

Bluntly, using psychiatric medication is an indicator of mental illness. And some people judge such people very negatively, presuming they are unfit to handle serious responsibility. This perspective is sometimes official; in Canada, commercial airline pilots can't take antidepressants without informing the government, and Transport Canada routinely suspends such pilots. [1] Physicians are subject to similar, if less aggressive, restrictions.

Being honest, if I found out a person has a long, serious history of depression, I would probably think they are less reliable. That is probably prejudiced. But I think that's a common attitude. If it were a position where lives or a lot of property were on the line, maybe I would think twice in hiring?

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/aviation-canada-pilots-ment...

You’re in for a big surprise when you find out how many people you know take medication for their mental health.

Sure. Me! Please don't mistake this as advocating it as just. I'm just describing.

I believe SSRIs are among the most prescribed medicine in the US. They’re certainly a blunt instrument. I’m all for MDMA or psilocybin research. From my own experience they are certainly very potent and can cause longer term changes in your mental well-being

> Being honest, if I found out a person has a long, serious history of depression, I would probably think they are less reliable.

Being honest, I hope you never come close to managing a sizeable team.

Self-admitted prejudices likes yours should never be remotely close to an authority and/or mentorship role.

As a person with mental health issues: people with such opinions are the vast majority, and therefore are also the majority of people managing sizeable teams. They aren't bad people, it's just how the world works.

It's also how people with mental health issues judge others with mental health issues: over how productive they are. For example, you have probably heard a lot about a functional, high-achieving person with ADHD person (because they are better at self-marketing, and because others easily see their value), but probably next to nothing about the low-functioning ADHD person who may never be able to hold down a job and has a patchy career. When a high-functioning "disabled person" is campaigning for greater workplace inclusivity, for instance, they're usually campaigning for other high-functioning people, not the low-functioning ones.

Functional people find low-functioning people less reliable. :( Partially because it is true, partially because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and partially because our society worships functionality (because it's what wins resources, at the end of the day).

Maybe they aren't bad people[1], but they are people doing a bad thing.

[1] Whatever that means.

I saw it as them admitting to having a psychological bias, not necessarily saying they would act on it.

We all hold biases which are not arrived at through reason. It’s possible to notice one in ourselves without agreeing that it’s right.

If someone could not list a bunch of things that would prejudice them for or against an individual, then they're probably more prejudiced than the average person.

We all have prejudices. For example, I know I am biased against speakers of some regional accents of English. (All speakers of English are biased for or against various accents, if the studies are to be believed.) If someone produces a southern American drawl, I assume things about them. Those assumptions are not fair. But they're also automatic. The only way I know to correct such errors in thinking are to consciously reflect on it like that. How am I potentially prejudiced against or for this person? Are those prejudices even remotely reasonable? If not, am I potentially treating someone unjustly based on stereotypes and assumptions?

And don't worry. I understand myself well enough to know I'd be terrible in a management role.

> Self-admitted prejudices likes yours should never be remotely close to an authority and/or mentorship role.

Sorry for the snark in advance. Would you prefer leadership being oblovious to their own biases?

Perhaps wanting control over the lives and property of others is the real mental illness, as it results in quite unreliable things happening in the world and throughout history.

Because one’s reputation is not based purely on the legality of their actions.

It’s legal to insult someone, that doesn’t mean your reputation remains untarnished. Reputation has little to do with legality.

Where insulting someone is causing harm to another, is taking a medication going to harm someone?

It could cause me some reputational harm if my buprenorphine injection was to become common knowledge (in theory, in practice my family, friends and boss are well aware of my treatment for opioid use disorder).

the most obvious example is people who still think it should be illegal and would look down on you for using it, it was never about the legality for them, the legality was just a side effect of their stance

Reply on news.ycombinator.com