• 2 Posts
  • 231 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle
rss



  • Both of these guys are ancient. I wouldn’t care if any of them used drugs (as long as they don’t pose long-term risks for their health) because they might as well be medication. Or are we going to be so dense that the idea that two 80 years olds are likely taking some medication is going to fly over our heads? Furthermore, where do we draw the line of what a “drug-enhancing drug” is? Coffee? Most adults take it to function under inhuman schedules. Adderall? If you do have ADHD, you do also need it to function; if you don’t have it, it’s going be even less useful than coffee. Anything else that they bought at a pharmacy? I don’t care.

    All in all, this looks like a talking point made up by people who want to treat politics like a sport, where we’re supposed to watch “athletes” compete with equal opportunity for performance, which is definitely not what a presidential debate should be about.













  • Adderall is a drug that:

    • If your brain typically produces very reduced amounts of dopamine (as it’s usually the case with people with ADHD), it helps your brain achieve more standard levels of dopamine. This usually means that you go from a need for constantly get new, interesting stimuli (so that your brain generates dopamine until it reaches standard levels), to actually become capable of focusing on what you want to do, which usually means in not getting fired and being capable of putting your life in order.

    • If your brain typically produces standard amounts of dopamine (as it’s usually the case for neurotypical people), it acts as an stimulant, gets you high and is potentially addictive.

    There are countries that have extremely tight regulations on Adderall, to the point of enforcing how much it should be produced based on old data from doctors’ prescriptions who may or may not be predisposed against believing their patients, for the sake of protecting morons who want to irresponsibly get high, even if it provokes shortages that may potentially destroy the lives of people who do need the drug in order to function without issues.

    Do you see the problem with priorities here? If you have to choose between protecting people consistently choosing to behave irresponsible until they need treatment, and people who, beyond their own capacity to choose one way or the other, do need treatment now in order to have a good life, choosing to restrict its production and distribution provokes widespread healthcare issues (with ramifications at the economical, social, and most importantly, human level) in order to prevent another that may or may not actually take place. It’s completely moronic.