I also think that the system is cruel to convince its cogs that it is acceptable to experience stress to the point of requiring hard drugs, and I think the person you're responding to has provided a valid counter example of what life can be like without such stress.
Except I don’t use “hard drugs” I use a dose of Adderall prescribed to children to correct a specific chemical imbalance that is exceptionally well documented. I could, and did for a while, live without such medication and my basic quality of life was significantly worse. Not because of society, but because of my brain.
I am the person being told that I don’t need a stimulant by the condescending rich person, and I have to say that mental health is far too nuanced for casual armchair debate about how society is forcing people to need this drug or that drug.
The point I wanted to convey is that this topic is incredibly specific to the individual, and “generalizations” MUST use extensive qualifiers to even come close to being accurate.
rather than attributing this to the brain or system inherently, it seems more accurate to focus on the position of the brain relative to the system. I think that's what the other person was trying to get at, but you're already aware based on how you specifically qualified this. I don't think it's fair to bring up a topic and then shut down resulting discussion as non nuanced, public forums probably aren't a good idea if youre not comfortable with receiving conflicting takes. like, amphetamine is a hard drug regardless as to whether or not a legal framework encourages its usage. and I have friends who immediately received their amphetamine script after a quick chat and an A4 questionnaire, which didn't involve any assessment of brain chemical imbalance, therefore brain chemical imbalance might be a valid theory but it's irrelevant practically. and this discussion may be individual specific, but amphetamine prescription rates are sky rocketing, so at some point the generalized conversation does need to take place as to how many people can get dosed before problems start happening (eg widespread heart issues due to long term hard stimulant consumption)
Oh I’m fine with receiving conflicting takes. I wouldn’t post any of this on e.g. reddit because it offers no value to the users there. HN is a different crowd. I am “shutting down” comments here based on their perceived merit, not because they personally offend my sensibilities. I am comfortable holding people here to a higher standard of rigor, and accept when my own comments are responded to in kind, because that is the type of discourse I come here for!
Pharmacologically speaking, classifying Adderall as a hard drug by industry terminology standards requires taking the patient into account, the dosage, and its effects on the patient. In the case I was referring to (mine) it is not a hard drug.
The chemical imbalance I refer to isn’t something that is easily and REPEATABLY tested for and prescription of the drug itself is heavily guided by the individual respondent because that is how most psychiatric diagnostics are performed. The chemical imbalance is not the exact same between patients, and ADD/ADHD could be classified as multiple physiological conditions that all overlap into a single group of symptoms. For the purposes of treating it, prescribing a medication that treats a large subset of the underlying causes with no permanent adverse side effects if you treat the “wrong one” is largely good enough for most medical systems. Follow up appointments with providers checking with patients to find the right medication for their brain is part of that process.
So yeah, you can fill out a questionnaire and get amphetamines you don’t need, or don’t treat your specific condition. That doesn’t invalidate the scientific research that has linked the symptom to the one of n chemical causes in the brain.
So in discussions of both philosophical introspection of our society as well as academic discussion of drugs, my original comment is entirely relevant to those informed on this ONE specific mental disorder, of which there are MANY more that are equally as nuanced.
hard drugs wreck the body and cause dependency. amphetamine does both those things regardless as to whether an accredited body claims otherwise.
if you think it's ok to dose swathes of the population with hard drugs because it's 'good enough' then we completely disagree and I start to move more towards the other guy's viewpoint where it seems you are supporting the system over individuals.
it isn't easy for non amphetamine users to parse long extracts. maybe if I was also on speed I'd be interested in continuing, as is I will probably bid you farewell and wish all the best.
Lol, I’m not on amphetamines today this is pure and genuine ADHD “hyperfocus” and my co-occurring “autism special interest” it makes communication on technical subjects hard, causes a lot of mischaracterizations like the one you just did, but I accept who I am and am happy with it.
I don’t think it’s okay to dose a large swathe of the population with amphetamines because it’s “good enough” and neither does the global academic medical community.
Individual practitioners I’ve found to be overworked and disinterested to the point of negligence in the united states. The correct manner of prescribing amphetamines is finding the lowest therapeutic dose for a patient (assuming you have already found the right drug) and checking with them every 30 to 90 days to make adjustments as needed.
Amphetamines in excess do the things you described, though for dependency it is more behavioral than chemical dependence, unless you’re referring to meth (not the same thing), while properly prescribed stimulants in general offer more benefits than drawbacks. It’s not perfect, but for me and many others it is better than the alternative of nothing at all.
Have a great day, I hope you refrain from ill informed personal attacks going forward!
I love async communication, it makes it a lot harder to leave a room in a huff after saying harmful things and then pretending you did not in fact say those things.
“Maybe if I was also on speed” was in fact, a personal attack. You chose to refer to my legally prescribed medication by the name used by drug dealers when selling it illegally for the purpose of drug abuse. The implication being that I am “on speed” being that it is incorrectly prescribed and I am abusing it recreationally.
It did not “have the same effect” in the sense that I am being overly sensitive, it had the same effect because it unequivocally was the same thing.
You can be lazy, that’s fine. I’m lazy all the time! In the cases where I do not feel like responding with the appropriate level of rigor and mutual respect I simply choose to not respond at all.
this is the first time I've continued a thread here after saying goodbye, I wouldn't compromise my own integrity unless it was for something worth caring about. lots of other people are gonna think the way I did and I wanted you to hear an honest perspective, that way if a future conversation is absolutely crucial to you, you can be more aware of how critical conciseness is in maintaining conversational momentum. tried sharing this respectfully by simply stating my viewpoint, because I sometimes take amphetamines (or speed or any other name) to treat the symptoms we share. i don't judge you for feeling disrespected here but yeah feel free to take something from individuality while it's on offer, otherwise i hope you are ready to back yourself lest the system ever fail you
On reflection of our entire exchange I do see that I failed to adequately acknowledge and address your point in favor of advocating for what I was initially trying to communicate, so I'll do it here:
Yes, absolutely society does cause people to feel the need to rely on medication that otherwise would not be required and has long-term harmful effects on their health. I would assert however that the reliance on medication is not, in itself, the problem, and sidesteps the original discussion, which is that someone claimed "people only need these two specific drugs" and I responded that the needs of the individual vary based on their specific environment and biology, using myself as an example.
Your assertion that society is causing these people to take hard drugs they don't need, or shouldn't need, re-orients the discussion away from the claim I was originally responding to. Personally I would love to not need Adderall, and sure, if I was rich and didn't have to work I wouldn't need to take Adderall. If I grew up in a supportive environment, provided behavioral strategies that fostered better coping skills, and a whole bunch of other favorable conditions were present, I would not need to take medication at all.
But medication is not prescribed because those things didn't happen, it's prescribed because in the life I am living right now, in the conditions I'm experiencing, and with the problems I face every single day, it is what I have found to be the best solution FOR ME.
Finally, on tone: "maybe if I was also on speed I'd be interested in continuing" was not a viewpoint, it was a swipe, and I would point to the site guidelines here ("Be kind. Don't be snarky." and "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says"). I engaged with every substantive point you raised, I would have done the same without the jab, and the conversation would have been better for it.
thank you for taking the time to disentangle and reorient the discussion. thanks also for explaining that my intentions are irrelevant when offense is caused. perhaps we shall discuss again another time, until then take care
The side-effects of any medication need to be weighed against the cost of the underlying medical condition going untreated. Sometimes that cost-benefit calculation works out in favor of the meds even when the side-effects are severe.
(Also worth noting that side-effects and effective doses are something clinical trials aim to establish. That gives you the data to make those kinds of cost-benefit decisions, which you can’t do with illegal drugs. So it’s not the same.)
which boy is going to spaz out more - the one in a shitty public school with no guidance, or the one provided with a diverse education and a litany of equally well educated role models? the one with a poor diet and no co curricular activity, or the one fed properly and provided with fertile ground for imagination? the lonely one forced to make friends with the wrong people, or the one whose parents' social circles provided networking opportunities from birth?
I think it's a great point to make, one that could help people to stop identifying so much with this condition. because that exact same person probably wouldn't be experiencing such a condition if the environment was different, therefore is it really their condition ?
You jumped on their troll hook, just look at their comments. Either that person is delusional on many fronts or just taking the forum for the lolz, in both cases don't get riled up and just ignore
