4 ms·

As an individual who was diagnosed with ADHD, but whose parents refused to acquire medicine based on superstitious 'but isn't adderall just basically cocaine?'

by clicks 14y ago

As an individual who was diagnosed with ADHD, but whose parents refused to acquire medicine based on superstitious 'but isn't adderall just basically cocaine?' grounds, I assure you I've got an axe about 3,000x bigger than yours to grind at individuals like those who wrote this NYTimes article. I'm sorry to hear that you were diagnosed by an incompetent psychiatric physician, but I would hope you don't use your misfortune as fuel for spreading superstitious, anti-science anti-ADHD-medicine hysteria, there's enough of that out there already.

adrianbye 14y ago
your parents did you a favor. this is a diagnosis which is politically motivated. here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
- myko 14y ago
  What does this have to do with the OP and ADHD?
  - cwzwarich 14y ago
    Many critics of institutional psychiatry hold that the construct of mental illness is often used to medicalize nonpathological behavior that doesn't meet social norms, putting a scientific stamp of approval on judgements regarding human behavior, morals, and ethics. Given the uncertain pathophysiology of ADHD, the degree to which symptoms resemble moral judgements, the dramatic increase in diagnosis following advocacy in the psychiatric community, and questionable improvement of long-term outcomes for patients treated with medication, ADHD is seen by them as a good example of this point of view. I assume that's what he was alluding to.
    - adrianbye 14y ago
      very well said
killerdark 14y ago
In case drapetomania doesn't tickle your fancy, try hysteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
nawitus 14y ago
>anti-science Is debate allowed about in science anymore? It seems that everyone who disagrees with the status quo is branded as anti-science, therefore destroying all chances for a constructive discussion.
- tomrod 14y ago
  Huff! Puff! That's antilogic because I disagree! /s I've always seen debate as the fundamental principle of advancing science (and have no idea what Popper may think on the subject).
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  In the context of the comment, anti-science was correctly used. There was nothing scientific about it. > Is debate allowed about in science anymore? Of the type we are discussing? It's never been allowed. It's always been discouraged. You can see similar types of debates when people talk about teaching the controversy. In fact, science is not about debate. It's about presenting facts in support of an argument. Merely arguing is pointless.
  - nawitus 14y ago
    "In fact, science is not about debate. It's about presenting facts in support of an argument. Merely arguing is pointless." What science "is" is a subjective opinion, and there are many different claims what science really is. In my opinion debate is important to science. In addition, 'presenting facts in support of an argument' is debating in my opinion.
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      Pedantic comments like this are worthless. You know what I meant. And rather than discuss that meaning, you decided to take a trip on anal train. Anyways, I'm not about to explain why allowing holocaust denialists equal time is a silly proposition.
jpxxx 14y ago
While this is an op-ed being run by a web tabloid, there's no superstition or anti-science on display that I can sense. So let's find some quieter common ground: A class of prescription psychoactive drugs are increasingly being used by tens of millions. They substantially alter the motivation systems of the human brain, have a poorly understood method of action, are extremely easily and inexpensively sourced from the graymarket, and are being issued to children as young as five. Off-label use is increasing to the point where it's omnipresent in high-pressure social arenas. There are no social rituals or consumption contexts that retard use of these amphetamines - they're privately consumed as "medication" (therefore perceived as "undangerous" and "acceptable") in a way that street drugs would never be considered. But the results are the same. They're the same for ADHD folks, they're the same for non-ADHD folks, they're the same for the habitual user, and they're the same for the occasional user. Ferocious forever focus! ...for a while... with a comedown. And then: more? The end-game for every single one of these users is potentially the same. Five years old with ADHD, 24 years old trying to make it in NYC, whatever. It's habit forming, excessive use comes with a boatload of major side effects, and it's directly monkeying with a core part of the human psyche for a sprawling number of reasons, all of them social in nature. We're doing something new and big here as a society, and it's worth discussing.
- JohnBooty 14y ago
  > But the results are the same. They're > the same for ADHD folks, they're the > same for non-ADHD folks... It's certainly worth talking about, but I'm not at all sure that's true. Our understanding of Adderall's mechanism is incomplete but our current understanding is that, in those with ADHD, appropriate doses of stimulants can boost some functions to where it would be in a non-ADHD brain. It's kind of like saying that platform shoes make everybody taller. Yes, they do, but some people need platform shoes just to reach an "average" height.
  - schrodinger 14y ago
    Does it truly affect people with ADHD differently than someone without? My understand is that this is a misconception...
glesica 14y ago
So because you had a bad experience, no one else can share their bad experiences if those experiences somehow conflict with yours? You sound like a cry baby. This woman shared her negative experiences related to abusing Adderall. Note that she was never even really diagnosed with ADHD (and she makes mention of this fact). This is clearly an essay about the dangers of addiction and substance abuse, not about the dangers of Adderall. Perhaps secondary themes might be the disturbing "performance at all costs" attitude found in many workplaces and the ease with which legal drugs can be obtained without proper diagnosis. These are real problems for society. The fact that the illiterate take the wrong message from something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be published.

by clicks 14y ago

adrianbye 14y ago

your parents did you a favor. this is a diagnosis which is politically motivated. here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

myko 14y ago
What does this have to do with the OP and ADHD?
- cwzwarich 14y ago
  Many critics of institutional psychiatry hold that the construct of mental illness is often used to medicalize nonpathological behavior that doesn't meet social norms, putting a scientific stamp of approval on judgements regarding human behavior, morals, and ethics. Given the uncertain pathophysiology of ADHD, the degree to which symptoms resemble moral judgements, the dramatic increase in diagnosis following advocacy in the psychiatric community, and questionable improvement of long-term outcomes for patients treated with medication, ADHD is seen by them as a good example of this point of view. I assume that's what he was alluding to.
  - adrianbye 14y ago
    very well said

killerdark 14y ago

In case drapetomania doesn't tickle your fancy, try hysteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria

nawitus 14y ago

>anti-science Is debate allowed about in science anymore? It seems that everyone who disagrees with the status quo is branded as anti-science, therefore destroying all chances for a constructive discussion.

tomrod 14y ago
Huff! Puff! That's antilogic because I disagree! /s I've always seen debate as the fundamental principle of advancing science (and have no idea what Popper may think on the subject).
jasonlotito 14y ago
In the context of the comment, anti-science was correctly used. There was nothing scientific about it. > Is debate allowed about in science anymore? Of the type we are discussing? It's never been allowed. It's always been discouraged. You can see similar types of debates when people talk about teaching the controversy. In fact, science is not about debate. It's about presenting facts in support of an argument. Merely arguing is pointless.
- nawitus 14y ago
  "In fact, science is not about debate. It's about presenting facts in support of an argument. Merely arguing is pointless." What science "is" is a subjective opinion, and there are many different claims what science really is. In my opinion debate is important to science. In addition, 'presenting facts in support of an argument' is debating in my opinion.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    Pedantic comments like this are worthless. You know what I meant. And rather than discuss that meaning, you decided to take a trip on anal train. Anyways, I'm not about to explain why allowing holocaust denialists equal time is a silly proposition.

jpxxx 14y ago

While this is an op-ed being run by a web tabloid, there's no superstition or anti-science on display that I can sense. So let's find some quieter common ground: A class of prescription psychoactive drugs are increasingly being used by tens of millions. They substantially alter the motivation systems of the human brain, have a poorly understood method of action, are extremely easily and inexpensively sourced from the graymarket, and are being issued to children as young as five. Off-label use is increasing to the point where it's omnipresent in high-pressure social arenas. There are no social rituals or consumption contexts that retard use of these amphetamines - they're privately consumed as "medication" (therefore perceived as "undangerous" and "acceptable") in a way that street drugs would never be considered. But the results are the same. They're the same for ADHD folks, they're the same for non-ADHD folks, they're the same for the habitual user, and they're the same for the occasional user. Ferocious forever focus! ...for a while... with a comedown. And then: more? The end-game for every single one of these users is potentially the same. Five years old with ADHD, 24 years old trying to make it in NYC, whatever. It's habit forming, excessive use comes with a boatload of major side effects, and it's directly monkeying with a core part of the human psyche for a sprawling number of reasons, all of them social in nature. We're doing something new and big here as a society, and it's worth discussing.

JohnBooty 14y ago
> But the results are the same. They're > the same for ADHD folks, they're the > same for non-ADHD folks... It's certainly worth talking about, but I'm not at all sure that's true. Our understanding of Adderall's mechanism is incomplete but our current understanding is that, in those with ADHD, appropriate doses of stimulants can boost some functions to where it would be in a non-ADHD brain. It's kind of like saying that platform shoes make everybody taller. Yes, they do, but some people need platform shoes just to reach an "average" height.
- schrodinger 14y ago
  Does it truly affect people with ADHD differently than someone without? My understand is that this is a misconception...

glesica 14y ago

So because you had a bad experience, no one else can share their bad experiences if those experiences somehow conflict with yours? You sound like a cry baby. This woman shared her negative experiences related to abusing Adderall. Note that she was never even really diagnosed with ADHD (and she makes mention of this fact). This is clearly an essay about the dangers of addiction and substance abuse, not about the dangers of Adderall. Perhaps secondary themes might be the disturbing "performance at all costs" attitude found in many workplaces and the ease with which legal drugs can be obtained without proper diagnosis. These are real problems for society. The fact that the illiterate take the wrong message from something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be published.