4 ms·
You probably don't need meth. I once tried meth out of panic when I had an overwhelming pile of work and really too little time to do it (I had to design and d
by qwerty456127 5y ago
You probably don't need meth. I once tried meth out of panic when I had an overwhelming pile of work and really too little time to do it (I had to design and develop a comparably serious app from scratch alone in a week to production + do a lot of accounting-related paperwork). It helped great and I had no problem quitting (but it felt a way making me sure most of the people will so I strongly recommend to stay away from it). I tried amphetamine in about a month and it had almost no effect so I concluded the medicine I would have to be taking if legally could is Desoxyn.
A couple of years passed, my brain chemistry recovered from the damage (tolerance in particular) meth does and now a minuscule speck of black market amphetamine dissolved in the morning tea is enough for amazing, satisfying full-day productivity and happiness. And it is many orders of magnitude less harmful than meth is.
Don't take meth. Also don't take amphetamine if you can. An alternative I actually use when I really need productivity is simple nicotine in form of a vape - it's not nearly as good but also helps significantly (if you only use it a couple of months a year). But I still recommend everyone to avoid starting with nicotine either.
- quantum_magpie 5y agoJust to clarify, I'm not going to look up drug dealers and risk a charge forbidding any future international travel, etc. Also, if I would, it wouldn't be in the 'get high' dosage -- 20 mg for amphetamines, 10 mg for meth, typical dosage in ADHD medication would be the ceiling. Basically, legalizing them would allow me actual therapeutic experimentation. I used to smoke 10 years ago, so going back to nicotine in this case is a big nono. :)
- qwerty456127 5y agoYes, I think all the substances should be legal for qualified medical use. Even the substances with serious adverse effects in cases in which they do more good than harm. But a patient should have a right to opt-out and ask for an alternative treatment when there actually is any harm probable to expect. > forbidden to diagnose it in adults. This is plain outrageous.