[N]o other class of medications in virtually all of medicine inspires more baseless fears, intentional disinformation, and wild beliefs as do the stimulants used to treat ADHD.
Interestingly, these fears are almost entirely an American phenomenon that hardly exists elsewhere in the world.
[H]aving ADHD lowers a person’s estimated life expectancy by 12.7 years.
From other articles on the site:
-
ADHD medication use lowers risk of death by 19%, risk of overdose by 50%, and it reduces hospitalizations
-
[T]he risk of substance abuse decreases substantially when [ADHD] patients are treated with stimulant medication
I'll give this one a shot because I wrapped up my responsibilities for the day.
The most common medication for ADHD afaik is amphetamine. Amphetamine doesn't just sound like methamphetamine, it is very similar in effects. Meth and similar stimulants were used at high rates up through WWII. Germany, the US, Japan, and presumably many other countries relied on them heavily for their soldiers. Then broken soldiers came home and the use of stimulants among the general domestic populations became "problematic." Part of this was based in reality - addiction, stimulant psychosis, having energy to oppose the state - and part of it was the need to appear consistent in anti-drug propaganda against other substances such as cannabis.
An additional factor is that stimulants can be easily be made clandestinely, and that reality is inconvenient for strong states that desire economic control and the dependence of their residents on government-sanctioned revenue streams. Amphetamines are stronger than coffee and yet much easier to produce at home. Cartel financing is extremely effective in opposing orthodox power structures. And to be fair, homebrew amphetamines can be very dirty meaning that there are risks to the user that do not exist when using substances created by
officialregulated producers.We're probably thinking about the medication from the perspective of medicating neurodivergent individuals to improve their quality of life, and in that sense you are correct that the evidence supports them strongly. However the rules are made by the states, and the states want a monopoly of authority. Such power structures generally care very little about patients as opposed to controlling "human capital." Their concerns are more about weakening the argument for a war on drugs (which was never about the drugs themselves), individual economic independence and state loss of tax revenue, loss of donations and lobbying from pharmaceutical producers, and similar "risks" that would occur if their population accepted such drugs. The best way to turn individuals against their own interests is propaganda, and so a ton of anti-stimulant propaganda was created post-WWII.
We are still dealing with the consequences of those choices. The propaganda has pervaded pop culture. It even affects drugs that were never used recreationally such as SSRIs (although they can be criticized from different angles such as questionable efficacy, as opposed to earlier medications [TCAs and MAOIs] for example). As a result we have also become more worried about manageable side effects vs. the deleterious primary effects of the untreated conditions themselves. We are now in a state where "common sense" says that no drugs is better than some drugs even though that viewpoint relies on erasing the consequences of untreated conditions.
Are these treatments perfect? Are they free of side effects? No. Criticisms along these lines can be valid if properly evidenced. But that's not in anyway a priority for society at large. It's not what is really driving the Puritanical anti-drug sentiment imo.
Iirc blitzed says meth was very common among the German populace before the war.
Yeah I think it started being used as a drug around the 1920s. Attitudes changed after the war.
Meth and similar stimulants were used at high rates up through WWII. Germany, the US, Japan, and presumably many other countries relied on them heavily for their soldiers.
Pervitin!
Show
There's an interesting and easy read on amphetamines used in Nazi Germany titled Blitzed by Norman Ohler. You know where to find the ebook but TankieTube has the full audiobook here
Fun fact: doctors in the US still occasionally prescribe methamphetamine for ADHD. It goes by the trademark name Desoxyn.
There's an interesting and easy read on amphetamines used in Nazi Germany titled Blitzed by Norman Ohler.
Blitzed is a great reference, it was one of the sources that opened my eyes to the bigger picture iirc
Fun fact: doctors in the US still occasionally prescribe methamphetamine for ADHD. It goes by the trademark name Desoxyn.
Because it works lol. I've never tried it but it's clear why it does: One of it's two metabolites is amphetamine itself. At best you get additional therapeutic effect from the original form and the additional isomer, at worst (since the additional metabolite is not extremely toxic) you just have a prodrug for amphetamine.
For those whom it might benefit, a prodrug is a drug which does not have the targeted action but whose metabolite is the active chemical itself - these are sometimes used to bypass drug laws but they have other purposes too.
afaik there are two primary reasons why meth is seen so much worse than amphetamines even though they are both generally legal prescriptions where either is legal:
-
- Meth is what was common so meth was the focus of propaganda and other communications, and
-
- The big one imo: Meth is much, much easier to synth.
And so meth is relegated to a last-resort therapy in most cases.
There may be additional factors I'm missing here that aren't described in the research that I've done. There haven't ever been too many meth users in my social circles and science can often gloss over individual experiences. I don't mean to say meth is great or even that it's not bad for most people. I don't really know. I just know that a lot of the discussion around it is severely distorted which has created some undue prejudices when it is a legitimate therapeutic compound for an illness that plagues significant numbers of the population in Western-styled developed countries where ADHD traits can be strongly discriminated against.
I think methamphetamine is less neurotoxic than amphetamine at the equivalent dosage, although that's only what I heard - never looked into it to say that I know this for a fact.
Did you know that Ohler has a new book out called Tripped about psychedelics? It's also up on TankieTube as an audiobook here although I haven't read it yet but based on Blitzed I'd assume it's pretty good.
I think methamphetamine is less neurotoxic than amphetamine at the equivalent dosage, although that's only what I heard - never looked into it to say that I know this for a fact.
I can see how that could be the case. It's prodrug action through amphetamine is always going to be lesser on a per gram basis.
Did you know that Ohler has a new book out called Tripped about psychedelics?
Yes but I didn't know we have it on TankieTube! Maybe I'll listen to it this weekend. Psychedelics are very interesting to me.
-
Amphetamines are easier to synthesize than coffee is to brew? Really?
I suppose you mean once you have the precursors?
Hah great question.
I guess it honestly depends on what you have available to you. The reason why I phrased it this way is because:
-
- If coffee is not available then you aren't working with an intermediate stage. So you're going to be growing, harvesting, roasting, and brewing the bean yourself.
-
- If amphetamines are not available then reactants are still going to be widely available for the average individual who might be reading this. So you're going to be making a trip to the store and then you're going to shake 'n bake and you're done.
If you need to produce the lye, etc. yourself then you are right that coffee is easier (depending on your region I guess). But this was not the situation in most countries that developed a taste for speed.
Maybe I should add to my original comment that there are similar drugs with an effect between those of coffee and amphetamines, for example khat. While khat consumption has a long and storied history it is also more euphoric than coffee (khat releases dopamine directly while caffeine acts on adenosine and has a lesser downstream effect on dopamine) and it has been increasingly banned with the evolution of the modern nation-state.
-
Amphetamines are easier to synthesize than coffee is to grow I think is what they mean
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for interpreting my disorganized thoughts.
Also, great username.
e: Your money is on 2028? Can't say I'd bet against you.
If you’re talking about my bio, it’s just a reference to Bo Burnham’s Inside. But because it came out in 2021 I changed the number lol
I was, yeah. I should have caught that. I have a friend that was obsessed with Inside for a while. I guess I had the same reaction to your profile as I did to first hearing his song - this is just common conversation set to upbeat music, right? (I'm a climate change doomer if you couldn't tell.) He's super catchy - I ended up singing along, too.
Capitalism really do be making it hard to be on the right frequency doesn't it
It always feels like this sort of quandary is utterly defined by its existence in a world order that lets people who don't perfectly fit their groove starve. Like I can't even picture what the ideal substance relationship would be without capitalism to define why I would take them. I'm picturing someone with ADHD who, without anything to directly coerce them into doing labor, might just have ADHD and live in a way that is comfortable for them, bouncing between tasks and finding their own groove.
This is not at all to say these drugs are dubious, just that whenever I consider this question I wind up feeling especially asphyxiated by the current status quo.
(If I'm completely off the mark someone tell me, this topic is something I used to grapple with a lot before I personally decided against going on antidepressants in high school, and I sometimes wonder if I made a mistake)
Some ADHDers can probably live like that. Some, like myself, have pretty bad understimulation, but I guess I have yet to see if stimulants make me feel ok.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm implying that people shouldn't take meds, that's not how I feel at all. I just can't help but wonder how much of stimulant use (meds of all kinds really) is to help cope with capitalist reality vs to help manage disorders. In a way, it's an arbitrary distinction, since this is the reality we live in, but it just makes the status quo feel all the more opaque to me, like I can't even see what lies beyond.
I totally agree. I tend to argue on your side, I am simply compelled to disagree with people.
because sometimes people take them and feel "high" and one of the pillars of global capitalism is the puritanical "suffering is virtuous" ideology that targets drugs that have any positive emotional effect.
It's why we so heavily target opiates*, cannabinoids, and amphetamines.
* yeah even if opiates aren't as safe as other drugs they're important for pain management and their stigma, not their safety, is what drives their repression.
all i know is adderall made me insanely fucking horny and really really good at Heroes of Newerth and League of Legends. It did not make me study or go to class
It still does all those things tho, it did but it still does
To be fair though my adhd assessment was basically going to a GP and saying "hey doctor, i can't read so good no more, it's hard to focus on the page" and he said "yup sounds like the adhd, here's your amphetamines my good sir"
i was 19
To be fair though my adhd assessment was basically going to a GP and saying "hey doctor, i can't read so good no more, it's hard to focus on the page" and he said "yup sounds like the adhd, here's your amphetamines my good sir"
Which makes it wild that im afraid of getting a legitimate script again, I lost my insurance for 6 years and idk how to ask for drugs without looking like im seeking drugs. I guess i have a medical record? Idk
I personally stopped taking mine because I felt my emotions where too flat.
Otherwise I think meds are fantastic for anyone with ADHD and have recommended people to look into them.
I think a lot of people’s fears come down to some combination of these silly reasons:
- Drugs bad
- Drug name is similar to methamphetamine and meth is bad
- I know someone who abused stimulants and it didn’t go well for them, so that’s what’s going to happen to you too, even if you just take them as prescribed
- ADHD is fake and you’re just taking drugs because you’re lazy
- ADHD is real, but if you can’t overcome it through sheer effort of will, you’re lazy. And a drug addict. And that’s bad
- ADHD is fake; it was invented by big pharma to peddle addictive drugs. So you’re being taken advantage of and you should stop taking your medication
Sadly, the last sentiment is somewhat common among leftists, such as the Hampton Institute.
I'm beginning to worry I may be one of those ADHD adults who needs a dosage higher than than the conservative limit set by the FDA. If that's the case then I'm fucked.
Maybe I should ask about combining it with a non-stimulant drug.
I keep my tolerance low by only taking meds 3–5 days a week. If not for tolerance I would take it every day.
ADHD lowers a person’s estimated life expectancy
You WHAT?!
So having ADHD under capitalism lowers your life expectancy, not like a biological consequence? I wasn't sure what you meant
Like being trans doesn't kill kids, being trans under capitalism kills kids
The FAA prohibits pilots from using ADHD medication for 90 days before getting or exercising the privileges of a pilot's license.
It's proven to lower the risk of auto accidents!
https://sci-hub.st/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0659
fuck america, god damn lol, even just having a diagnosis fucks you over, then if you treat it using the good and effective available treatments that's an outright ban?
I decided not to pursue diagnosis when I read that taking stimulants with high blood pressure is bad. I’d be happy to have this notion corrected.
I don’t have the medical knowledge to comment on the blood pressure thing, but I do know that there are several non-stimulant ADHD medication options these days.
It's not great, unfortunately. But there are also non-stimulant medications, and people can also respond differently to different stimulants. Even different isomers can have different effects (e.g. racemic amphetamine aka Adderal vs. L-isomer amphetamine aka Vyvanse).
e: You can always try a treatment and keep a BP monitor on hand to watch out for increased blood pressure. If you spy it, mention it to your doc and they'll try the next option.
I've had the fortunate/unfortunate experience of learning that personally lol
Wow this is crazy to me. I always believed I was just going to die sooner because I needed stimulants just to hold my job down.
I'd like to know more about these lobbying groups from the 1970s they mentioned.
I suspect that the Scientologists were a large part of this push. Obviously they are vehemently anti-psychiatry and they certainly jumped on the anti-ADHD bandwagon with great gusto but I'm not sure whether or not they were lobbying but I feel like they were a large part of the cultural zeitgeist that claimed that ADHD meds were turning the children into drugged-out zombies.
