I'd bet the number of surgeries significantly increased after we discovered anesthesia and sanitation. Not because more people were needing it, but because the outcomes were suddenly much better.
I'd bet the number of surgeries significantly increased after we discovered anesthesia and sanitation. Not because more people were needing it, but because the outcomes were suddenly much better.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much-mo...
That's quite the mischaracterization. Stimulants even at low doses increase the dopamine in the brain and lead to a mild high. I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever call Adderall "boring" before either. That's like calling alcohol boring, maybe someone may not like the experience, but they both have immediate and noticeable effects and it's not just "I love studying" either.
Even Scott's article has examples of this, here's a story of a little girl becoming very high from a prescription stimulant:
"A spontaneous report from the manufacturer of Strattera (atomoxetine) described a 7-year-old girl who received 18 mg daily of atomoxetine for the treatment of ADHD. Within hours of taking the first dose, the patient started talking nonstop and stated that she was happy. The next morning the child was still elated."
I can't speak for every person who abuses prescription stimulants but I've met people that do and they always had a meth or other addiction in their past and were either buying from dealers or seeing multiple doctors/pharmacies. It's been a while since I've run into someone with that problem though so I don't even know if the latter strategy is effective anymore. I assume the feds maintain some kind of database these days.
Not disagreeing with you wrt atomexetine but really should compare apples to apples.
A lot of people are critical of prescription stimulants without presenting a comparable alternative that will allow disordered people (particularly adults) to maintain the ability to function, be productive and maintain happiness in our current society with it's expectations and capability requirements.
I don't think that would be that hard to disprove, but I was trying to pull a quote from the article they linked.
Wikiopedia says Strattera can lead to increases in dopamine, whether that's relevant to that case I don't know.
Saying that appropriately dosed amphetamine and methamphetamine don't have a "big" difference is like saying appropriately dosed chocolate and coffee don't have a "big" difference. The difference is clearly massive.
Pointing to the methyl group is completely missing the point; I am not talking about the absolute chemistry, but the pharmacology.
Exactly. The diagnosis is a tool for the system to give it a veneer of scientific legitimacy. There is no truth only power. In living memory, being gay was a diagnoseable disorder. In some countries political dissidents would be deemed insane and committed to institutions. Psychiatrists used to hand out lobotomies and electric shocks to anyone they felt like.
It's quite obvious when a troublesome kid has been misdiagnosed: they act as you would expect a child on stimulants to act. The behavior changes are mostly only useful if the child does have adhd. A non-adhd problem child on amphetamines is a powerful source of chaos.
The flip side of this is that being unable to thrive in the system they're in is effectively dooming them to a substandard, more difficult life. If you think the system is broken, fix it, but ripping off the bandage before you have any sutures on hand is the opposite of a solution.
If I had started on medication younger, I undoubtedly would have done better in high school. If I had done better in high school, I would have gone to a better college, better college, better job etc. On the flip side, had I not gotten medicated in college, I very well could have flunked out.
So, yeah, it's a fucked up that the system doesn't accommodate for people slightly outside neurotypical-ness, requiring stimulant use to thrive, just like it's fucked up that it doesn't accommodate deaf people, making cochlear implants an extremely valuable treatment. But so long as that system is in place, restricting access to harm mitigation from that system because the system is fucked is unquestionably wrong.
So - you're wrong. And with that stupid insult you added at the end, you look even dumber.
In the field of biochemistry, this is virtually meaningless. A single substitution group is capable of producing wild changes in pharmacokinetics. The left and right-handed enantiomers of these molecules don't even act the same way in the body, and these aren't even positional isomers. The similarities with AMP and MAMP begin and end with being TAAR1 agonists. Off the top of my head, MAMP is also a potent agonist for sigma 1 & 2 receptors, and is generally more promiscuous.
Methamphetamine is a substituted amphetamine, not a "derivative". They're both simple substituted phenylethylamines, another TAAR1 agonist that is extremely prolific in your neurochemistry as we speak, and an incredibly diverse family of monoamines that range from lethal neurotoxin to serotonergic hallucinogen. The difference between the two is often as simple as a single atom moved 2 or 3 substitution points over. When you lack basic domain knowledge, please don't call other people dumb as you try (and fail) to correct them.
Amphetamines and methamphetamine are closely related drugs, as methamphetamine is a type of amphetamine. They both work in a similar way by increasing the release and blocking the reuptake of certain neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, in the brain. As a result, they both have similar effect.
All you're doing is microdosing a terrible drug and calling it treatment. Addicts defend this, not logical healthy people.
> Methamphetamine is not a substitution for amphetamine.
I did not say it was a "substitution" which means something entirely different in this context, I said it was a substituted amphetamine. The rest of this comment reads like boilerplate drivel that completely ignores everything I actually wrote.
So are ethanol (vodka) and methanol (poisonous fuel). The difference is exactly the same - one methyl group (CH3).
If you think that it's a small difference, try drinking methanol instead of alcohol, and see for yourself.
(Or, rather, not see for yourself, given the side effects of methanol poisoning).
This is the bottom line. It’s a drug, it’s not good for you. That euphoria is not treatment, your being drugged. Only addicts defend long term use
This is what the problem was for you. It's quite a leap from there to assume that all children on ADHD medications also happen to have the same problem.
For many people with ADHD, the difficulty is beyond "the system they're in". Being regularly late to events, zoning out when talking to someone, living in a chaotic/messy living space etc. (common problems with those with ADHD) will still be a problem in a hypothetical better school system or post-scarcity communism society.
>take meth
Ah yes, the good old "Adderall is meth" ridiculousness.
Sure, Adderall is amphetamine, and meth is methamphetamine, just one methyl group of a difference - practically the same thing, right?
Just like ethanol (aka vodka) and methanol (deadly poison, makes you blind) - one one ethyl group difference, practically the same thing!
Please stop referring to medication[1] many people rely on as "meth".
Or if you must do so - consider having a shot of methanol next time you go for a drink.
If it's the same to you, then why not?
Just. Like. Oxy.
If you told me I was going to take a standardized test where only the top 10% make the cut, and everyone serious about winning is taking a mental PED, then yeah I am going to feel intrinsic pressure to step-up and also engage in that mental arms race. I would've been just as happy to not do that if I were given a more level playing field.
It's no secret that there is a war going on to commoditize attention. I want to live in a world where people hone their ability to push back against having their attention leeched not one where everyone raises their baseline to cope temporarily.
I also have to think that, long term, it's kind of disrespectful to those with ADHD. If expectations of attention rise due to uptake in mental PEDs then where does that leave those who were originally disadvantaged? They lose their ability to exist on a more level playing field.
Bit of a tangent, but many years ago when I was wrapping up college, I was in a Calc III class over summer. The course was being taught at an advanced pace and basically everyone in the class was struggling after the first exam. The professor addressed the class about the poor performance and then called out a student in the front row. The professor said, "You! You did well on the exam. What was your secret to studying?" and, not missing a beat, the student responded, "Adderall!" I took the hint, bought some from a friend, and suddenly found myself passing the class with flying colors. It felt good in the moment, but honestly only because I wasn't being graded on a curve. It would've been wildly demoralizing if I'd been in direct competition with my peers.
I know life isn't fair and it's a pipedream to clamber on about desiring a level playing field, but surely we can agree that physical fitness competitions are more interesting when they are separated between "natty" and "enhanced" competitors? And that if we eliminated that separation that those without PEDs are disadvantaged? I don't see society making that sort of separation for mental fitness and so I am concerned about letting stimulants loose on the population.
They already have been. It's not hard at all to get an Adderall prescription. Just Google "ADHD symptoms" (the main one being trouble focusing) then go to your doctor and tell them you have those.
I want to move on with my life, instead I need to play games every couple weeks filling my prescribed meds because people are resentful that their peers back in college might have studied longer for a test? Are you fucking kidding me.
That's not a thing. Nobody is getting grilled coming in early for their stimulant medications. They just say "come back in a couple days" and "have a nice day." I've filled multiple stimulant meds in a period of 2 weeks from the same doc and same pharmacist. Neither care (I dumped out a drug that had side effects so I needed something else).
If people double up, after they run out they just don't have pills for a few days until they get another fill.
So running out of meds is something that's highly disruptive to my life and I'll always try and minimize gaps if they do occur.
You said " Nobody is getting grilled coming in early for their stimulant medications" ?
Okay then.
Unlike, say, antidepressants, there's no real backswing on off days: you just revert to your pre-medication attention levels which, especially in the case of people who got diagnosed later than usual, they have coping mechanisms for.
This results in the average ADD-medicated patient having a couple pills leftover each month.
And honestly? Why is this even being discussed, as if college kids getting adderall to study for math tests is some societal scourge ruining lives or something? Who gives a shit and why is it an issue that justifies making life difficult for people who are prescribed it?
What possibly would be left over?
This is not "just. like. Oxy." in so many cases. Many of these were people in pain management with zero deceit involved on the side of the patient.
Basically all stimulants can be categorized by a level of euphoric rush, and a level of focus they provide. Caffeine sucks at both, methamphetamine rocks at both, cocaine's good for a body rush but isn't very good for focus, and amphetamine comes with relatively little euphoria for a methamphetamine-comparable level of focus.
Yeah, this is fear mongering; and I doubt any abuse you are seeing is actually happening on any sort of scale. To imply adderall is more fun than Cocaine/Cocaethylene is a completely strange assertion given cocaine's continued and greater penetration despite the fact it's a highly controlled schedule 2 drug. If you could have more fun with adderall, why would you spend more money on cocaine?
Not to take the wind out of your sails but adderall is also schedule II.
OP was correct, cocaine is much more highly controlled despite sharing the same legal category. It’s only used in certain surgical procedures. You can’t get a prescription for it.
I mean I'm sure your diabetes is horrible but try telling someone taking insulin to stop. They won't. They depend on not being in a diabetic coma too much! And not slipping into a diabetic coma becomes a part of their personality.
-
ADHD doesn't mean hyperactivity despite hyperactivity being in the name. For me not taking ADHD medication results in what your proclivity for drug abuse was gaining you: the super human ability to focus on one thing for hours and hours at a time.
The difference is when the drugs you were abusing wore off, you'd go back to being able to do other things. I'd just keep being prisoner of whatever I'm doing indefinitely. It's an awful feeling to know you have to do something else, you really need to switch tasks right now, but it's like you're a prisoner in your own mind, just stuck.
So subjecting myself to that isn't really something I'd willingly... is that surprising?
I mean I've personally requested lower doses of medications, leaned towards less "intrusive" delivery methods like metabolized extended release versions, and stopped when I was injured and unable to do much (being stuck mentally wasn't a big deal when I was physically stuck)
But even if someone else dealing with this doesn't want to do that, I don't blame them. It's an awful disease that deserves proper treatment. Some dumb drug abusing kid isn't going to change that.
The thing about the drugs being different is the results on people's lives. Off medication and unmanaged, people suffering from ADHD go into depressive slumps of executive dysfunction and are unable to perform their EDLs (EveryDay Living activities; showering, putting on clothes, feeding one's self, using the bathroom, exercising), never mind things like cleaning, holding down a job or paying rent. Most are able to keep at the same dosage for the majority of their lives.
That's not what people happens to people chemically addicted to Oxy. They need more and more to get the same effect, and chase after it to the point that many have become hooked on heroin, absent a prescribed supply of Oxycontin. While on the drug their lives turn to shambles, getting fired from work and losing their jobs and then their housing and end up living on the street.
That difference is entirely material to the discussion. If people are able to make more of themselves on a particular medication, society is able to accept that a medication is good, rather than bad. That may be a tough pill for some to swallow, especially those that want to reject traditional societal norms for judging a person's life. Another tough pill is that the idea that Adderall blunts a person should really be considered a fringe belief these days, given how many people use Adderall to better their lives.
Are their people that abuse Adderall? Sure. Are their many more people that don't, and live much richer lives thanks to prescribed medication from a doctor? Absolutely.
Additionally, Adderall and the like aren't just like +2 INT boosts - the stimulants have a different affect on most people with ADHD than it would on a regular person... so whatever you've experienced abusing the medication is probably quite a bit different from what I'll experience using it.