I don't have cognitive dissonance to overcome here as I'm not reflexively recoiling at the term "drugs". If someone is unable to acknowledge that drugs are drugs, how are they supposed to analyze the intended effects, possible side effects, the actual effects, etc? Or are we just supposed to blindly trust the overworked bureaucrat in the white coat?
And sure, I understand if someone needs to just trust a bureaucrat to bootstrap themselves to the point where they can make decisions. But your original comment was talking about parents making these decisions for kids, which is quite dodgy if they're in denial that these are mind altering substances.
Something can be mind altering without producing a recreational high for the user. Isn’t it strange that people don’t chime in on threads about anti depressants with “don’t you know you’re taking drugs?!?!”…
"Recreational high" has nothing to do with it. Medicare part D is literally referred to as "prescription drug plan".
If people have the same denial about anti-depressants, then my critique applies as well. But an allowance for the need to bootstrap would seem to apply more, plus the generally more complex mechanisms and nuanced effects making it harder to understand the effects for yourself.
You are clearly and deliberately "arguing" aka. rage-baiting from an angle of bad faith.
You seem much more pre-occupied with vague conspiracy theories about how bureaucrats work to the detriment of society than an actual topical discussion about medication or the article linked here.
Drugs (as used by you and colloquially as something to get high and negatively connotated with health outcomes) and medications are not the same thing.
Yet you pretend they are, without taking into account the contrasting realities of how medication is vetted and approved.
Nobody is trusting a overworked bureaucrat, because that's not how this works.
People far more qualified than you can imagine using standardized processes and thousands of people vet medication before it becomes available to the public.
Ritalin hs been around for decades.
I am all for informing the public and empowering people to make autonomous decisions for their health.
I am against people playing moral superiority when actually all they're doing is spouting non-scientific conspiracy theories about some bad bureacurats following an evil plan drugging the populace.
I thought the idea that individuals should be advocating for themselves (and their families) in the modern medical establishment is just basic table stakes in 2026, not a "vague conspiracy theory."
I don't see how calling out someone's reaction to the word "drugs" is "an angle of bad faith". If someone has an emotional reaction to the reality that a doctor is proposing giving their kid mind-altering substances, that indicates they haven't gotten to the point where they're able to judge it rationally. The answer isn't to shy away from the reality!
So yes, unfortunately the first step to making an informed decision is getting past the fearmongering propaganda pumped out by all the anti-illegal-drugs campaigns. And yeah that sucks, but it's certainly nowhere near the biggest hurdle to self-actualization that our society perpetuates.
And sure, I understand if someone needs to just trust a bureaucrat to bootstrap themselves to the point where they can make decisions. But your original comment was talking about parents making these decisions for kids, which is quite dodgy if they're in denial that these are mind altering substances.