
America’s First Amphetamine Epidemic 1929–1971 (2008) - tintinnabula
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281
======
jjgreen
When Ronald Graham, a concerned friend and fellow mathematician, bet him
[Erdos] $500 that he couldn’t stay off his drug of choice for a month, Erdos
accepted and easily won the challenge. When the 30 days was up, Erdos said to
Graham, “You’ve showed me I’m not an addict. But I didn’t get any work done.
I’d get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I’d have no
ideas, just like an ordinary person. You’ve set mathematics back a month.”
Erdos resumed taking amphetamines and did so for every day of his life until
his death 17 years later.

[https://turningpointtreatmentcenter.com/why-are-
intelligent-...](https://turningpointtreatmentcenter.com/why-are-intelligent-
people-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs/)

~~~
desks_dos
Does this amphetamine use constitute abuse? Drug abuse is typically defined as
use that creates negative effects to the person's social and/or personal
health. It seems to me his drug use gave him the ability to work at a high
level and allowed him to derive self-worth from that work. He was also able to
discontinue the drug use at will. Even if there were some negative health
side-effects, I wonder if abuse should be the term used here.

~~~
LocalH
"Use" vs "abuse" is generally an ideological choice, not really related to the
actual use of a substance. If someone uses the word "abuse" in situations like
that, it's clear that they are a prohibitionist, to whom _all_ use is abuse.

Of course, egregious examples can very well be classed as abuse. But if
someone classifies examples like the one you reference as abuse, then they're
a prohibitionist, plain and simple.

------
ehmish
Perhaps this is the answer to this question
[https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)

~~~
galaxyLogic
I tried to read it but didn't get the answer, I did get the good question: WTF
happened in 1971?

I have a dark suspicion that it has something to do with the rise of
computers, of information economy. When some people can take advantage of
computers and others can't that leads to income disparity.

~~~
rpiguy
Primarily the site implies moving off of the gold standard in 1971 was main
trigger. This decouples the growth of money, value of assets, wages,
productivity, etc. which all tracked together in the preceding thirty years.

~~~
mntmoss
The years around 1970 are one of those inflection points that is a lot like
the causes of the Industrial Revolution: it can't be summed into a few easy
factors.

For me the defining thing is the emergence of the USA from the postwar
politics and policies and into more of an assumed administrator of the
globalization project, a status that it retained until just recently.

Besides the information systems, international containerization standards were
settled around this time and jet travel was becoming more affordable. A lot of
pieces were in place to renegotiate trade and labor deals. And there was a
break with numerous social policies; the calls from think-tanks to reinstate a
stratified society started coming out at this time too. Big public
infrastructure projects mostly died out in the 70's, and the narcotic drug
trade from Mexico and the resulting "drug wars" picked up in the late 60's,
conveniently just in time for amphetamenes to fall out of favor.

So, the move away from gold is just one of numerous things that changed in a
surpisingly short time frame.

~~~
rpiguy
Gold was the inflection point. It wasn’t just the US economy you will find a
similar inflection point around the world. Even if all the other factors
remained the same but the world had stayed on Breton Woods, the economic
change that could have occurred since 1970 would have been orders of magnitude
less.

------
rmbryan
Definition of iatrogenic : induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or
by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures

------
zafka
One thing I hardly find documented is: what is the daily usage of the hard
core users? How does it compare to the 10-60 mg daily dosages prescribed for
ADHD

~~~
refurb
With high doses every day you can develop an insane tolerance to amphetamines.
500mg in a day wouldn’t be that unusual.

~~~
chaorace
Even at low, prescribed, dosages, I find myself needing to take a day or two
off each week to avoid building a tolerance.

I'm not sure if others experience the same thing, but I can absolutely feel
the effects slipping away, even after just 10 days of continuous use.

~~~
AcerbicZero
For what its worth I've had good luck switching to Modafinil (And extra
caffeine) on the weekends, to keep my tolerance down. I also like to take ~4+
day breaks every ~3 months or so, which helps a ton.

------
PragmaticPulp
Interesting read. I've always assumed that prescription drug pushing and
addiction problems were a modern phenomenon, so it's interesting to read about
drug companies developing and pushing addictive drugs almost a century ago.

~~~
saalweachter
In addition to Coca-cola famously using coca leaves in its original recipe, 7
Up contained lithium citrate, a mood stabilizer.

~~~
krilly
Believe me when I say lithium isn't particularly enjoyable

------
refurb
It’s always interesting to me how illegal drugs wax and wane in popularity.

We like to blame opioid over-prescribing for the surge in opioid use, but
there was also a heroin “epidemic” in the 1970’s that slowly petered out as
cocaine became the focus in the 80’s.

~~~
smileysteve
> as cocaine became the focus in the 80’s

Well, we know more about this one now, thanks Reagan and Iran-Contra.

~~~
blackflame
That cocaine didn't buy itself.

~~~
akiselev
That cocaine that people purchased didn't manufacture and distribute itself
across international borders.

------
npo9
Do you want to reduce drug addiction? Make the world a better place. Everyone
suffers so much. Loneliness, depression and anxiety and becoming more
prevalent. These are increased risk factors for addiction.

~~~
justwalt
Are you familiar with the rat park experiment? You’re making claims directly
supported by its findings.

One of the most interesting was that happy rats who had pleasant quarters and
social interaction would choose not to take drugs (morphine, iirc) even if
they had used them previously. Pretty interesting stuff.

~~~
blackflame
The opposite of addiction is connection.

~~~
npo9
Addiction is a disease of loneliness.

~~~
bduerst
Avoiding and staying out of HALT situations is an addiction recovery motto:

Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired

~~~
strbean
Working on quitting nicotine right now, the only problem is when I don't have
it I'm all of those besides Lonely.

------
throwaway141851
(throwaway just in case, although i do not keep it a secret from friends)

tl;dr; No, amphetamines are not pleasant/euphoric for everyone. Not everyone
get high/wired/"sped up" on it. Not a wonder drug for everyone. May help with
depression induced by anxiety induced by not getting shit done (not
necessarily by getting something done, but instead switching attention away
from things not done).

My whole life I was not able to do much of mental work during the day, with my
most productive time being around midnight +- 3-4 hours. I kinda just lived
with it considering it being due to the way I grew up. I got my first full
time job at around 25 yo (before that it was freelancing) and got hit hard
with a "normal" schedule (be at work at 8am, leave office at 5pm, try to fall
asleep at 11pm to be ready to wake at 7am next day). That was a time I started
drinking coffee. It used to give me goosebumps, even at a small sip from a
typical office low-end brewing machine. Did not really helped much, but I
think it gave me that initial boost and I stuck with it. Nowadays I almost
never drink tea (used to be my exclusive brewed beverage) and mostly drink
coffee.

Fast forward in my earlier 30ties. I get quite regularly severe depression-
like (never diagnosed) periods. Trying different things, reading a lot online.
Eventually meeting with psychiatrist explaining what is going on (can't do
stuff during the day, getting depressed quite regularly about it, bunch of
other shit) suspecting all of that causing anxiety which metamorphosing into
depression. Honestly, I wasn't quite sure if it is true physiological
condition or just some period in my life where my habits and life stage got in
conflicts with each others. I read about ADHD and it seemed quite familiar. I
also considered bi-polar condition, but psychiatrist ruled it out.

As for ADHD, psychiatrist was very reluctant to write such a diagnose given
that I had relatively good life (good income, lack of destructive impulsive
actions affecting life quality, family, job, etc). He started me at 5mg
extended release. It did literally nothing. Over months trying he bumped it to
25mg XR and after that failed to produce any noticeable effect, he suggested
to try 20mg instant release twice a day. Safe long-term maintenance dose
accordingly to FDA is 70mg. At that point I certainly felt some effect, but I
am not quite sure it is what everyone think it feels like.

First of all, very counter-intuitive - amphetamine often makes me sleepy and
tired. But if I try to take a nap, I almost never can truly fall asleep. Most
of the time I just end up laying in the bed with closed eyes. The whole
experience doesn't feel energizing or euphoric at all.

Secondly, on many days it appears to reduce anxiety about "getting something
done" to the point where I did not experience my regular depression episodes
this year.

With instant release, I have to take it twice a day. I often forget to take
second pill. Sometimes I forget to take a first one. I tried nicotine vape
earlier, and i dont think i ever forgot to take vape mod with me, or keeping
it full and charged.

With 20mg instant release I sometimes experienced "locked down" feeling, which
I found quite unpleasant. Not sure if it is that "focus" feeling everyone is
talking about, but it certainly was different from focus I get when I am "in
the zone" (the pleasant one). My solution was to break 20mg in half and take
10mg each 2hrs. Downside - I get more chances to forget about it during the
day.

Going higher than 20mg twice a day seems to be pointless, as I already prefer
to break 20mg twice a day to 10mg four times a day. It also raises blood
pressure noticeably, and I would expect higher dose will do it even more.
Effects of it are certainly not pleasant enough for me to even consider taking
it recreationally. But it seems to help with depression/anxiety episodes - so
far one year, will see how it will feel next spring, as it is the time I had
the most of these episodes. So it seems this crutch is helping me somewhat.

------
HocusLocus
What's next, "America's caffeine epidemic"?

Interspersed with all this pedantry is a smarmy judgement towards stimulants
and COMPLETE LACK of context of the times, and a lack of any societal or
species context that recognizes the BREATHTAKING ACHIEVEMENTS during said
times of "Oh so bad bad we should be ashamed it's an epidemic!" There's an
undercurrent here that is almost criminal.

The sin is not excess, certainly at 5mg a dose. The sin is not 'euphoria',
which often turns out to be psych-speak for 'a simple will to live'. What
people crave with caffeine and amphetamine is mental alertness. Caffeine
delivers, speed delivers more. And with that people can do, have done,
incredible things.

Aside from the specific physiological effects like chronically overbearing
hearts that also plagues athletes, the worst mental effects of stimulants are
often blamed directly on the drug -- not abusers' lack of discipline -- and
result from a LACK OF or DISRUPTION OF sleep. Stimulants do NOT, in
themselves, make you crazy.

~~~
irscott
I dated someone with a meth problem for five years and would disagree with
you. Meth completely changes a person's personality.

I think all drugs should be legal and think humans have done amazing things
with/on drugs. I've also seen this go horribly awry and witnessed some
absolutely insane things from people on speed. There's a lot more to it than
simply a lack of sleep.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis)

~~~
drewsmahgoos
Sorry, but that's just one person. In what situation would you trust a study
based on one person?

I know, lots of people go crazy on meth. There is also god knows what else in
street meth. There are so many people taking amphetamines that are successful
and there are people taking prescription methamphetamine as well.

Personally I wouldn't want to be on stimulants, long term, on a daily basis.
But just because you know one person(or maybe more) that went crazy and had a
personality change on meth, does not mean that there isn't successful use.

There are also plenty of people successfully using opiates as well. So many
people use drugs daily and live a normal life.

~~~
throwaway_tech
>In what situation would you trust a study based on one person?

Anytime someone else makes a blanket statement with no study (example:
amphetamine doesn't make you crazy)...all you need is n=1 to disprove that.

~~~
drewsmahgoos
But that goes both ways...

~~~
throwaway_tech
Proving and disproving a hypothesis are entirely different standards.

For example I have a coin with heads/tails, I hypothesis if I flip it it
always lands on heads and we flip it 1 time (n=1), and sure enough it lands on
heads that doesn't prove my hypothesis (its very weak support at best),
whereas is we flip the coin 1 time (n=1) and its tails that disproves my
hypothesis (or at least is strong support my hypothesis is wrong).

------
ydb
Most people would think the government is responsible for all these drug
epidemics: the DEA jailing minorities on minor infractions or the CIA hustling
cocaine between countries (look it up).

But really the true culprit is just the youth, and always has been. Ever since
the early 1900s traditional family values and social community/cohesion has
been seriously on decline. Say what you will about Ted Kaczynski, but his
essay/book _Industrial Society and its Future_ is a wealth of knowledge on
this subject (strange I know coming from a Christian woman).

But look at it this way: people resort to drugs because reality sucks. Why
does reality suck? Well, we live in a society, and this very society (and its
implicit social network) causes our youth to suffer.

Just look at how much the new Joker movie resonated with kids, teenagers and
young adults! Heck, my niece of 12 years was itching to put on a mask and
march in the street after she walked out of the theater. It was terrifying.

~~~
rayhendricks
I would disagree that today’s youth are suffering because ‘reality sucks’. If
anything the youth of today have it better than ever before. In 1950 [at least
in the USA] a youth would not have had access to reliable information on
possible career choices and outcomes apart from maybe a school counselor, now
that information is available instantly on the internet. Likewise reality
would have __really __sucked had the youth had the youth been female or LGBT,
as reliable contraception and abortion were not available. Likewise suicide
and crises services were not as available. Now we have things like the it gets
better project, texting to social hotlines. This has vastly improved the
options available to the youth of today for psychological support.

Of course reality will still suck for some, but it is vastly better than 50-70
years ago.

~~~
lainga
There is more to life than contraception and psychological counselling. A
chance at a steady job, the ability to save money, the opportunity to start a
family, the prospect of retiring with a Social Security check, and confidence
in the ecological future of the planet come to mind.

~~~
parasubvert
Meanwhile new CS grads are regularly getting $170k+ annual pay packages at
large tech companies.

There’s a disparity of experience out there.

