3 ms·

As one who takes methamphetamine (generic Desoxyn) for ADHD, I can't help but take issue with the sensationalism in this article. If someone takes the same low

As one who takes methamphetamine (generic Desoxyn) for ADHD, I can't help but take issue with the sensationalism in this article. If someone takes the same low dose I do but doesn't actually have ADHD, how could they be considered "cracked out?" simply because they are faking a diagnosis? We know that low-dose amphetamines improve cognition in healthy individuals regardless of whether or not you have ADHD. We also know that amphetamines are very safe at therapeutic level doses and that you can take them your entire life without any problems. We also know that stimulant therapy actually reduces the chances of someone abusing drugs, even stimulants. Why shouldn't all healthy people have a chance to reap the benefits from them? Why should you have to have a disability in order to be able to access the benefits from these drugs? There's just no logic to the way society currently views stimulants. It's safe for me to use amphetamines to help with my ADHD symptoms but if someone without ADHD uses them in the same manor, then it's dangerous.

joe_the_user 10y ago
If someone takes the same low dose I do but doesn't actually have ADHD, how could they be considered "cracked out?" simply because they are faking a diagnosis? "Cracked out" or not isn't quite the question. Amphetamines in low doses have measurable benefits in terms of increased ability to concentrate and work longer hours and definite drawbacks in terms of longer term health effects and risks of actual serious addiction. When the job market creates such pressures that a significant portion of workers are working 12 hours days, not receiving particularly higher compensation, and using amphetamines to manage the situation, it seems that employers are repeating the benefits while the workers only get the drawbacks.
- ta_339393 10y ago
  There are no negative effects on health by taking them at prescribed doses unless you already have an existing cardiac condition or something similar. You can safely take these drugs your entire life without complications. There is a potential for abuse but studies have shown that people on stimulant therapy are LESS likely to abuse drugs, including stimulants.
Synaesthesia 10y ago
They're physically safe unless taken in hugh doses an have many side effects like mental and emotional problems which can occur at any dosage level but of course get worse with increasing dose. Having used amphetamines I can attest they have positive and negative properties and we should be aware of both. There is also physical tolerance and they are addictive. They need to be well regulated and controlled. Read "A history of Speed" - it's a very interesting pharmaceutical story.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>but if someone without ADHD uses them in the same manor, then it's dangerous. While people on both sides of the argument are guzzling coffee and tea.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Anecdata: Once I started ADHD treatment I went from drinking 5-6+ pints of builder's tea[1] one after another into the afternoon, to one, maybe two, in the morning. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder's_tea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder's_tea
  - rwmurrayVT 10y ago
    I have a similar anecdote. I have no appetite for coffee anymore. I've also got very little appetite for alcohol. I think in someways I was self-medicating with coffee/tea, which in turn, was causing me to self-medicate with alcohol/marijuana to sleep. In my opinion, anyone claiming that it's a "personality trait" or a made up condition is a moron. It's absolutely turned my life around. After getting my dosage lined up correctly I feel as if I'm finally living normal.
MichaelGG 10y ago
Wow, how did you get an rx for that? Did they try tons of amphetamines and finally go for Desoxyn? I agree: It's incredibly something (classist?) that only certain people can legally get amphetamines. I'm sure if you have lots of money, it's far easier to convince a doctor to RX. Whereas if you don't, you can even afford the doctor to diagnose, let alone RX (plus the risk of being labelled a "seeker"). Having essential medications behind professional, for-profit gatekeepers is a violation of human rights. It's reprehensible and an affront to personal liberties.
- ta_339393 10y ago
  I asked my psychiatrist about it after doing a lot of research on my own. I have tried all the other ADHD stimulants and formulations but it wasn't that none of them worked for me or that I required a high dose (I take what is considered an average therapeutic dose). If you think meth is way more potent than dextroamphetamine, you'd be in for a big surprise. Meth is a very subtle and gentle stimulant, so subtle I often forget I even took a stimulant. This is probably because of the lack of PNS stimulation at these low doses. It's also a little bit more effective than dex because of slightly higher CNS stimulation but the lack of side effects is probably the best feature of meth. It just feels really natural, hard to describe completely. It is considered a second line medicine because it's thought to be more addictive but I can assure you this is completely unfounded and has to be due to the stigma created by illicit meth abuse. IMO, it is a superior medicine and should be a first line treatment for ADHD.

joe_the_user 10y ago

If someone takes the same low dose I do but doesn't actually have ADHD, how could they be considered "cracked out?" simply because they are faking a diagnosis? "Cracked out" or not isn't quite the question. Amphetamines in low doses have measurable benefits in terms of increased ability to concentrate and work longer hours and definite drawbacks in terms of longer term health effects and risks of actual serious addiction. When the job market creates such pressures that a significant portion of workers are working 12 hours days, not receiving particularly higher compensation, and using amphetamines to manage the situation, it seems that employers are repeating the benefits while the workers only get the drawbacks.

ta_339393 10y ago
There are no negative effects on health by taking them at prescribed doses unless you already have an existing cardiac condition or something similar. You can safely take these drugs your entire life without complications. There is a potential for abuse but studies have shown that people on stimulant therapy are LESS likely to abuse drugs, including stimulants.

Synaesthesia 10y ago

They're physically safe unless taken in hugh doses an have many side effects like mental and emotional problems which can occur at any dosage level but of course get worse with increasing dose. Having used amphetamines I can attest they have positive and negative properties and we should be aware of both. There is also physical tolerance and they are addictive. They need to be well regulated and controlled. Read "A history of Speed" - it's a very interesting pharmaceutical story.

forgetsusername 10y ago

>but if someone without ADHD uses them in the same manor, then it's dangerous. While people on both sides of the argument are guzzling coffee and tea.

rhizome 10y ago
Anecdata: Once I started ADHD treatment I went from drinking 5-6+ pints of builder's tea[1] one after another into the afternoon, to one, maybe two, in the morning. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder's_tea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder's_tea
- rwmurrayVT 10y ago
  I have a similar anecdote. I have no appetite for coffee anymore. I've also got very little appetite for alcohol. I think in someways I was self-medicating with coffee/tea, which in turn, was causing me to self-medicate with alcohol/marijuana to sleep. In my opinion, anyone claiming that it's a "personality trait" or a made up condition is a moron. It's absolutely turned my life around. After getting my dosage lined up correctly I feel as if I'm finally living normal.

MichaelGG 10y ago

Wow, how did you get an rx for that? Did they try tons of amphetamines and finally go for Desoxyn? I agree: It's incredibly something (classist?) that only certain people can legally get amphetamines. I'm sure if you have lots of money, it's far easier to convince a doctor to RX. Whereas if you don't, you can even afford the doctor to diagnose, let alone RX (plus the risk of being labelled a "seeker"). Having essential medications behind professional, for-profit gatekeepers is a violation of human rights. It's reprehensible and an affront to personal liberties.

ta_339393 10y ago
I asked my psychiatrist about it after doing a lot of research on my own. I have tried all the other ADHD stimulants and formulations but it wasn't that none of them worked for me or that I required a high dose (I take what is considered an average therapeutic dose). If you think meth is way more potent than dextroamphetamine, you'd be in for a big surprise. Meth is a very subtle and gentle stimulant, so subtle I often forget I even took a stimulant. This is probably because of the lack of PNS stimulation at these low doses. It's also a little bit more effective than dex because of slightly higher CNS stimulation but the lack of side effects is probably the best feature of meth. It just feels really natural, hard to describe completely. It is considered a second line medicine because it's thought to be more addictive but I can assure you this is completely unfounded and has to be due to the stigma created by illicit meth abuse. IMO, it is a superior medicine and should be a first line treatment for ADHD.