Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amphetamine use in America's workforce

daily.jstor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 261 posts

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#121

Post by shermanyo »

dcosson wrote: post #52
Vraxx wrote: post #9

I think this is a little bit sensationalized at the very least. This excerpt in particular caught me off guard. "Abuse by young professionals is distressingly common—Wall Street traders, software engineers, dentists, nurses, and lawyers, all cracked out of their minds trying to keep up with the competition." Yes, I was diagnosed with ADHD as a child, and yes I have an Adderall prescription. But I'd hardly call myself…

Another bit of sensationalism I noticed, the article mentions people have died after mixing adhd meds and alcohol. But the link was to an article about a person who died after mixing adhd meds, narcotic painkillers, and alcohol. It's well-documented that mixing narcotic painkillers & alcohol on its own is very dangerous. There may also be dangers of mixing adderall and alcohol, but it does everyone a disservice to ca…

My doctor told me to redose in the evening if I'm going to a social gathering, and it changed my interactions completely.

Instead of writing myself off with shots until I can handle the social side, I am able to carry conversations, am not overwhelmed by the stimulus (imagine trying to have a conversation, while playing pinball and reading a book in a loud room).

It was a huge factor in breaking a drinking problem, which was actually masking many of my ADHD symptoms. It's a highly personal anecdote, but does show the other side of the coin.

(for the record, I don't generally drink anymore, never on my meds. when I do plan a night out, its usually with close friends so many of the issues just aren't there.)

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#122

Post by forgetsusername »

ta_339393 wrote: post #54

As one who takes methamphetamine (generic Desoxyn) for ADHD, I can't help but take issue with the sensationalism in this article. If someone takes the same low dose I do but doesn't actually have ADHD, how could they be considered "cracked out?" simply because they are faking a diagnosis? We know that low-dose amphetamines improve cognition in healthy individuals regardless of whether or not you have ADHD. We also kn…

>but if someone without ADHD uses them in the same manor, then it's dangerous.

While people on both sides of the argument are guzzling coffee and tea.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#123

Post by andyjdavis »

jolux wrote: post #23
Havoc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>bit sensationalized...This excerpt..."Abuse by young professionals" I don't think so. I'm in one of those environments where long hours are common and it definitely does happen. There are also people using a mix of uppers & downers (need the uppers to be wide awake but then can't sleep when at home hence downers). Hell I'm doing a vaguely similar thing (just with coffee and melatonin). Add a bit of anti-depressants…

A lot of antidepressants are nowhere near as abusable as amphetamine and its salts are. SSRIs, for example, take weeks to have an effect. I take Remeron (mirtazapine) and it was nearly a month before I started to feel better. Amphetamines work much faster.

>SSRIs, for example, take weeks to have an effect.

I am not sure that the time it takes to have an effect is a good metric for whether or not something has potential for abuse. Sure SSRIs take a few weeks to have a noticeably effect but they also takes weeks to tail off. The area under the curve is not necessarily different.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#124

Post by forgetsusername »

aznpwnzor wrote: post #79

The comments in this thread seem to suggest a reasonable subset of people here partake. Is there any reason you feel the need to? I went to a pretty rough college where I had standard 24 hour straight homework sessions once or twice a week. And I used caffeine maybe once a week at most. I work at a startup where the work culture isn't as competitive as what I feel is the norm, but even listening to friends at there d…

>Is there any reason you feel the need to?

Everyone here is a misunderstood genius with ADHD.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#125

Post by HarryHirsch »

brbsix wrote: post #118
HarryHirsch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonderfully contrarian? I'd disagree, in fact I'd maintain that what the lady does is not science. How can you argue medical ethics, a subject firmly rooted in observable, shared reality, from first principles and then disregard outcomes? If you intend to do science uou can't omit to check dogma against reality, perhaps those dogmata are no good at all to describe the world. Very telling is another publication of her…

> states are morally required to provide citizens with access to affordable health care There may be other indications (I haven't checked), but that statement doesn't sound even remotely libertarian. The moral requirement to provide affordable health care is a positive right (something that obliges action). Contrast this to a negative right, something that obliges inaction, such as free speech or private property. Li…

I didn't check much either, but "economic liberty" is amongst the libertarian shibboleths.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#126

Post by linkregister »

chillingeffect wrote: post #68
_acme wrote: post #48

Why does this article describe these stimulants as "narcotics"? They are neither opioids nor illegal when prescribed, so it seems like a needlessly provocative, and factually incorrect, description.

Because the authoritarian state uses an in-language to signal virtue, overstepping denotations. These are the same people who call non-cops "civilians."

Calling non-cops "civilians" irritates me to no end. Occasionally you'll see journalists using this terminology as well.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#127

Post by dschep »

_acme wrote: post #48

Why does this article describe these stimulants as "narcotics"? They are neither opioids nor illegal when prescribed, so it seems like a needlessly provocative, and factually incorrect, description.

Also, it's counter to basic english/etymology. Narcotics are drugs with sleep-inducing properties. Easy way to remmber that: it's the same base as narcolepsy.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#128

Post by cs2818 »

Vraxx wrote: post #9

I think this is a little bit sensationalized at the very least. This excerpt in particular caught me off guard. "Abuse by young professionals is distressingly common—Wall Street traders, software engineers, dentists, nurses, and lawyers, all cracked out of their minds trying to keep up with the competition." Yes, I was diagnosed with ADHD as a child, and yes I have an Adderall prescription. But I'd hardly call myself…

I'm in the same boat as you and I am beginning to worry about the effects of these increasingly frequent and exaggerated articles about stimulant use.

I feel like a narrative is being constructed that will eventually lead to it being extremely difficult treat conditions which benefit from stimulant medications.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#129

Post by gozur88 »

fixermark wrote: post #30

I can't help but ask myself whether we should be wondering why Americans can't make it without drug-modified behavior, or whether this is better or worse than alternatives such as cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine, etc. Humans in societies have been chemically altering their moods since we discovered mood-altering chemicals. Stress occurs inside and outside civilized workforces, and people take measures to mitigate stres…

>I can't help but ask myself whether we should be wondering why Americans can't make it without drug-modified behavior...

Can't or don't want to? Drugs can make things easier, at least in the short run, and the stigma against pill popping is pretty much gone.

Re: Amphetamine use in America's workforce

#130

Post by jolux »

andyjdavis wrote: post #123
jolux wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of antidepressants are nowhere near as abusable as amphetamine and its salts are. SSRIs, for example, take weeks to have an effect. I take Remeron (mirtazapine) and it was nearly a month before I started to feel better. Amphetamines work much faster.

>SSRIs, for example, take weeks to have an effect. I am not sure that the time it takes to have an effect is a good metric for whether or not something has potential for abuse. Sure SSRIs take a few weeks to have a noticeably effect but they also takes weeks to tail off. The area under the curve is not necessarily different.

Yeah but you can't pop a Prozac if you're feeling sad and expect to feel better within a reasonable time frame. There's also no high, you just start feeling normal again if you're depressed and it's the right drug.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-SSRIs-typically-prescribed-bef...

"This last item makes SSRI's abuse-safe: contrary to benzodiazepines or opiate-based painkillers, there's no risk of abusing them for pleasure, as they're, once again not "happy pills" and there's no high. They even worsen symptoms for most people at first. That has to do with their mechanism and is their major flaw but serendipitously it strongly protects against recreational use."

Post reply on HN