The Optimist

Man up and don't use medication...

ns9908

How is using stimulants any different from winning the genetic lottery or being sent to a private school? The latter two are unfair because they benefit from chance and circumstance. If you can't find amphetamines online, you're just not looking hard enough. They are absolutely available to everyone provided you put forth the effort into looking for them. Having 2 Mensa parents and attending a charter school are opportunities not granted to everyone, and the former is impossible no matter how much you work at it. At least you can work at getting MOAR ADDERALL!

augustuscaesar

^
Are you suggesting that since I'm not a Kennedy, then I should start stealing money since it's "not fair" that I have less money? Obviously, the answer is no. However, the issue here is not simply about fairness. It's about ethics. It is simply not ethical to take a medication designed for the ill to temporarily boost your academic performance (not even 100% proven).

freshman1990

ns9908- If everyone started taking adderall then it would no longer help people with ADHD(who it is intended for) because everyone would be benefiting from Adderall. The more trouble they have with the drugs, the more of a hassle it is for those with ADHD to get. Seriously, somethings in life aren't fair. Some people are just smarter than others. How would you feel if you had ADHD and took medicine just so you could preform at the same level as everyone else and then everyone started taking your medicine.

ns9908

augustuscaesar: I wouldn't argue for theft, but I'd argue for change of the system that allows such things to occur in the first place. I would argue for you to work harder for more money, which is something I doubt you'll disagree with. Working harder for more adderall and working harder while on it harms nobody (because the kids who need it can get it if they try and the new curve that you set is justified by your effort), so theft is an improper comparison. As far as the ethics of the argument, I would say that there is nothing wrong with doing something to boost your performance as long as it harms nobody else. Nobody argues that reading a textbook designed for college students in high school to "temporarily boost your academic performance (not even 100% proven) [sic]" is unethical and the same should apply here because it's not the use itself that matters--it's the intention. It's true that Adderall is not a panacea for all problems of mental concentration, but there are dozens of amphetamines on the market and there has never been a single human subject whose dopaminergic receptors did not respond to amphetamines by producing more dopamine.

Freshman: If you and I can find ADHD meds online, then so can those who have the medical condition for which they are prescribed. In the Marines they have a saying: "you can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". Depriving the strong of the potential for productivity is the same as weakening them through say, harsher grading standards. Your tragedy of the commons argument fails because there is no harm done to anyone else.

Your first sentence is completely inane--how can there be a loss of benefit if everyone starts benefiting? Would your health be affected if everyone started eating more vegetables? Only on a relative basis, but on an absolute basis, EVERYONE would be healthier and you wouldn't be worse off because of it. The same applies here--especially with grading standards (the only relative instrument of measure) going down, those who have ADD currently will not have difficulty maintaining their grades (many of which are already "artificially" high because of their use of amphetamines). Everybody doing better than me doesn't harm me, and it doesn't make me feel worse because I know that I can't be best at everything. Just like when others take steroids to boost their weight-lifting capabilities, I don't feel like a failure when I can only lift a fraction of the weight they can. Instead I try harder and use steroids (hypothetically) to boost the product of my effort.

I know that the only comparison that I can make of my success is with my potential--the relative success of others is unimportant--all that matters is how hard I try.

Dr.Horse

what some people will put in their bodies. Its ridiculous. Only the biggest dumbass in the world would take any of these medications. if you are taking them, get off them. If you are interested, research them, see what drugs of this nature due to the brain. These drugs are not safe.

ns9908

^ Clearly they're not safe for you.

Dr.Horse

All it takes for most people to shun medications of this type is to research how prozac got into the market and what it has done and still does to people. Yes I know they are different types of drugs, but they work very similarly on the brain.


The FDA and the doctors would have you believe these drugs are actually safe.

ns9908

No they do not. Prozac works on the serotonergic system and amphetamines (with a few exceptions, most notably the methylenedioxyamphetamine series) work on the dopaminergic system. Further, Prozac does not stimulate the release of the chemical that it acts upon but instead potentiates the neurons upon which it acts, thus providing an unnatural happiness. Amphetamines perform via a totally different mechanism--by releasing dopamine (which is typical during tests, creative thought, etc.).

Certain drugs are allowed onto the market due to their cost/benefit ratio. If you look at the people that have benefited from Prozac you'll see that the benefits far outweigh the risks and the same is true with amphetamines of most varieties. Along with the FDA and every single doctor in the Western world who is in on this conspiracy to market drugs as safe, the vast majority of patients who have used these substances would also have you believe that they are safe. But what do they know?

Dr.Horse

Well being that there is Zero scientific evidence for any claim on any psychoactive medication, il remain a skeptic.

if somebody has diabetes we can see that they have a problem with insulin. There are scientific based tests to check for such. In psychoactive medication's there is zero evidence of any scientific claims. Medical doctors are supposed to be scientists and base there diagnosis on science. When they prescribe this medication and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that it does anything, then that is a problem. So yeah what do they know? Whether it be doctors getting paid by pharmaceutical companies or doctors not keeping up to date on new medicines and getting all there data from pharmaceutical reps. So no doctors really don't know what they are talking about. As for the FDA, the board that approved medication is usually consisting of the same members of the companies who want their drug approved. Like I said look at the Prozac Case.

freshman1990

ns9908- what I meant was that when someone with ADHD takes adderall they take it so that they can function better and more normally. If everyone took adderall then the normal standards would be higher and someone even if someone with ADHD took adderall they would be competing against a bunch of students on speed. It would no longer help them function and focus at a normal level because everyone would be on adderall. It also is NOT SAFE for someone without ADHD to take Adderall. You do know that Hitler was addicted to speed and actually explains some of his behavior. I have ADHD and take medication for it, and find what your saying completely offensive. It is not fair to those who the medication is intended for. If you understood what it was like to have ADHd then maybe you would understand.

ns9908

Currently ~80% of the effects of prozac are due to placebo, but a) that's not the specific substance we're talking about, b) that gives you no license to apply this specific data to all other substances, and c) yes, all psychoactive substances that have been tested with effects greater than placebo in multiple peer-reviewed journals will have effects correlating to those described in the literature. I take it you're not a scientist.

I already replied to this:
It's clear that decent grades won't become bad grades overnight if at all.

Then what makes it safe for somebody with the disease to take it? Amphetamines don't cure anything and they don't reduce symptoms directly; they increase dopamine and norepinephrine production and thus cause higher rates of concentration. There is little physical difference between the dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems of ADD vs. non-ADD students. It's true that drug abuse is never safe, but your point here could apply to any substance whether it is abused by those with the condition for which it is prescribed or otherwise.

Yes, Hitler received daily injections of methylamphetamine, which is far more addictive than the watered-down substances that are available on the market today. Further, the substances available today assist with cognitive function far more than the overly-euphoric methamphetamine, and they don't even come close to acting upon the serotonergic system like methamphetamine does, and they have a much lower potential for addiction because of it. In fact, Mein Kampf was actually written long before Hitler took methamphetamine, so if you were referring to "some of his behavior" as his initial views and not his actions during the Third Reich, you've also succeeded in having your history out of order.
You need to lighten up. Ask your doctor for stronger meds--ones that grant the capacity for relaxation after you're done concentrating.
Perhaps, but since I don't have the condition and the rates of attaining it at my age are slim to none, your best bet to make me understand will be through rational argument, of which I have seen little.

Shrinkrap

ns9908; You wrote "Currently ~80% of the effects of prozac are due to placebo,"

Interesting.... I thought I was familiar with the literature. How did you arrive at this figure?

And can you rephrase this;

c) yes, all psychoactive substances that have been tested with effects greater than placebo in multiple peer-reviewed journals will have effects correlating to those described in the literature.

I'm not sure what your getting at.

I am not disagreeing with you but...

"Then what makes it safe for somebody with the disease to take it?"

Underscores the difference between a prescription and OTC drug. You (should) need a doctor to (help you) decide if the benefits outweigh the risk.

freshman1990

ns9908- fine if you want to take it it's a personal choice. I still don't get why people without ADHD want to take medication. I hate taking, but if I don't the amount of time I spend studying in the library and re-teaching myself what I missed in class is overwhelming. I by no means enjoy taking it, I get tons of side effects and am more quite. I just don't understand why someone would want to feel like that.

ns9908

This guy told me. I'll admit I did no research because it wasn't a fact that was central to my argument. I may change my opinion if offered evidence that says otherwise, but like I said, it's really not that important because we weren't really talking about Prozac anyway.

Every substance that has a well-documented history of effects (greater than placebo) will show effects.

That or you could research it and decide cost/benefit for yourself through independent means. The problem is that there are mental disorders and performance gaps that could be improved with the help of these drugs, but no doctor will prescribe them unless you lie about your condition. A private individual has the potential to be more educated than a doctor about certain substances, and this is especially the case with family practitioners, from whom many Americans receive their health care.

What gave you the impression that I take it? I just support its wider use; many kids with ADD don't seem to be suffering because of it.

You and me both, partner.