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.
These kind of questions regarding the benefits of kids can be exceedingly difficult to answer. From a moral perspective, like you I take the hardcore an-cap kind of viewpoint that the family has the right to inject hard drugs for fulfilling what they view as industrial output needed for survival. Ultimately perhaps we have to trust the parent is making the best choice for their own family and try to defer to the family in this kind of gray area. Personally I would never give my kid amphetamines unless it was unambiguously life and death like they were unable to perform day to day activities without it.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?