Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Almost as much as you need a treadmill.
Adderall = Cheating?
- Thread starter puddlemonkey
- Start date
Almost as much as you need a treadmill.
Anyone else want to be insulted before I go watch porn?
yea fagtart.
You sound just slightly biased. On what do you base your accusation?
Weaken? That's really not how it's viewed. It's not exactly a degenerative disease of the brain tissue. Just because I have trouble sitting down for hours on end to read War and Peace doesn't mean I don't possess the cognitive ability to do so.
And the answer to your question is trivial. Such problems would naturally be found early in life, which is precisely when people are in school in this country. Children playing in the back yard won't necessarily display symptoms of ADHD because, well, they're playing in the back yard; not sitting down reading W&P.
The level of cognitive functioning required for public primary school isn't exactly that high.
The marketing is irrelevant per se; the market itself is the changing entity.
Doctors increase quality of life. BIGPHARMA is the manufacturing entity. Academia, peer-reviewed journals and R&D departments initiate research, discovery and hit-to-lead. Indeed, big players; begs the question who we think we are to question this group.
What you call, "bias", I call, "opinion". I think you are using loaded language in an attempt to undermine my argument by implying that I have some nefarious goal that I am hiding, yet you cannot name my goal. Kneejerk suspicion and vagueness do not constitute an effective rebuttal.You sound just slightly biased. On what do you base your accusation?
Weaken? That's really not how it's viewed. It's not exactly a degenerative disease of the brain tissue. Just because I have trouble sitting down for hours on end to read War and Peace doesn't mean I don't possess the cognitive ability to do so.
And the answer to your question is trivial. Such problems would naturally be found early in life, which is precisely when people are in school in this country. Children playing in the back yard won't necessarily display symptoms of ADHD because, well, they're playing in the back yard; not sitting down reading W&P.
The level of cognitive functioning required for public primary school isn't exactly that high.
The marketing is irrelevant per se; the market itself is the changing entity.
Doctors increase quality of life. BIGPHARMA is the manufacturing entity. Academia, peer-reviewed journals and R&D departments initiate research, discovery and hit-to-lead. Indeed, big players; begs the question who we think we are to question this group.
Concentration and vigilance are part of cognition. You are incorrect in your assessment using "War and Peace".
Your point about children playing in the backyard not being diagnosed with ADHD is false. My neice's school has an 'ADD Board' that has suggested that she be put on meds to treat her ADD. She's six years old.
I'm not supposed to question Doctors, big pharma, and academia? That's just an appeal to authority, not a rational argument. The rational man asks himself, "Who am I NOT to question these people who influence my life?" Should my brother hand my niece over to the state so they can place her on addictive stimulants without question? I think not.
I base my accusations on the very things you admit in your rebuttal. The purpose of the doctors prescribing the drug is to do what you call, "increase quality of life". ADD is not an organic disorder, yet to counteract it you are prescribed drugs that alter the organic function of your brain. I was given a diagnostic for ADD/ADHD. It was an inventory of multiple subjective questions where I basically rated myself on a scale of 1-4 taking in account how closely the question described me. It's a scam.
Insulting non-plat scum is below me. Now go find me somebody worthy.
? i'm not non-plat scum my monkey friend
There, not anymore.
FISHTALES
New member
Bingo...I can attest to this.
bunch of cheaters up in this bish
Me? I don't get addicted to shit. I probably take 1 Ambien a week, I use the OTC simply sleep stuff most of the time. 2-3 Hydrocodones a month, when my back is achy. Have methadone on hand and never tried it, not even once. Tons of Xannies and I think I've taken 3 total in the month or two I've had them. I have ECA galore, but I stopped taking those all together long time ago. I know of no addiction.
You have an addiction to hoarding drugs.
Semantics.
I fail to see what you are interpreting as "loaded", nor can I see the purpose of arguing supposed implicit "nefarious" master plans. You base an argument and opinion as a layperson debunking over half a century of medical and scientific work, both academic and industrial; and as such, burdon of proof notwithstanding, such delusions of the established majority are unbecoming.
You seem to agree with me, then. Concentration as "part of cognition" is not the equivalent of a "disease" which "weakens cognitive function". To be fair, I will concede to a misunderstanding of the hypo; however, there is no semantic obfuscation here.
I thought a general analogy differentiating the attention span of a 6-year-old would be sufficiently understood by contrasting the act of playing in the back yard with the act of reading War and Peace. Perhaps I was unclear somehow.
Nonresponsive and non sequitor. Again, the prior analogy: reading War and Peace is a closer approximation to primary and secondary education than playing in the back yard. One environment is externally regulated, one is variable at will -- the basis of ADHD.
Sure, argue away. Without a substantive argument based on medical and scientific premises and facts, however, you come across with a superficiality not unlike opponents of NASA's 1969 moon landing claiming mass conspiracy and the government's hidden nefarious goals.
Appealing to authority is most often the credited choice when one lacks the necessary knowledge and understanding upon which the authority is based. Similarly credited is appealing to facts, such as clinical trials and medical science, rather than appealing to emotional responses, such as "me" and "my relative".
I am neither qualified nor willing to attempt arguing on behalf of the entire field of psychology and mental health. Do you argue the existance of all disorders, diseases, and medical issues lacking a specific mechanistic pathology? I would be interested in reading how you view non-physical disorders (e.g., depression and the pathology of both known and yet-unknown mechanisms governing nerotransmitter functions).
I am curious as to what qualifies as "altering the organic function of [the] brain". Not only is this an all-inclusive set, but also the very purpose of the debated medication. Moreover, I fail to follow your logical negation in the mutual exclusivity of the set of all biologically active pharmaceuticals from the set of all non-organic disorders. Perhaps, rather, such linear generalizations and injective extrapolations fail to hold true outside of all but the most trivial of cases.
That's a pretty blanket phrase. Let's see:
"I was given a diagnostic for depression/pain/vision/hearing. It was an inventory of multiple subjective questions where I basically rated myself on a scale of 1-4 taking in account how closely the question described me. It's a scam."
And hey, it works for all sorts of words! Fortunetly, we as a society have advanced sufficiently far that even in the absence of deppression-ometers and ADHD-oscopes, we can still manage to take productive - however imperfect - actions to remedy the problems known to negatively impact us.
An appropriately analogous issue has resided at the heart of science for almost a century: While nobody argues that renormalization methods solve the underlying problems of classical/electrodynamic/quantum theory, neither does anyone argue that the result (of renormalizing those pesky infinite terms away gives us these resonably nice, working terms that solve our problems and allow us to continue foward in the field) is not simply the only way we know how to address this problem of unknown origin.
Given the option of dividing by zero or using an inperfect method that gives you a working solution, the answer is obvious.
time to up your dosage?
I'm totally going to steal all his ephedrine while he's sleeping.
Almost nobody in this stupid state sells it
*lurks outside your window waiting for you to fall asleep*
PST you're gonna be out there for awhile, 8 or 9 hours.
*mentally weighs hiding 9 hours in bush vs. ephedrine stash*
*gets comfortable in prickly bush; opens laptop and browses EF on hijacked wireless*
<~~~ Owner of multiple guns
You better bring your best ninja game.
*puts on camouflage hat*
*thinks of ways to draw PM out of the house using premeditated flyers irresistably advertising COLOGNE SALE 50% OFF WHEN YOU BUY 20 BOTTLES OR MORE at local store*
lol that's just wrong
*puts on camouflage hat*
*thinks of ways to draw PM out of the house using premeditated flyers irresistably advertising COLOGNE SALE 50% OFF WHEN YOU BUY 20 BOTTLES OR MORE at local store*
I knew your tooth-grinding, leg-bouncing ass would be in here.
stims do that to me too
*twitch*
*has difficulty concentrating on hiding in bushes outside someone's window for 9 hours waiting for them to fall asleep; considers discussing concentration problem with family doctor*
Appeal to authority. Ad Hominem attack. You are claiming that what I witness in life is nullified by what the medical establishment says by virtue of the fact that they are the medical establishment and a lay person cannot challenge them. There isn't uniform agreement among the medical profession as to whether these drugs are necessary anyways, so not even the authority you refer to agrees on the topic.
My niece is completely relevant. She's been diagnosed as having ADD because she likes to draw on the bathroom stall walls with feces and watch toilet paper unwind when as she flushes the attached roll down the toilet. The scope of people prescribed the drugs is greater than you contend.
"Sure, argue away. Without a substantive argument based on medical and scientific premises and facts, however, you come across with a superficiality not unlike opponents of NASA's 1969 moon landing claiming mass conspiracy and the government's hidden nefarious goals.
Appealing to authority is most often the credited choice when one lacks the necessary knowledge and understanding upon which the authority is based. Similarly credited is appealing to facts, such as clinical trials and medical science, rather than appealing to emotional responses, such as "me" and "my relative".
You use an appeal to authority to justify your appeal to authority. Of course you don't look at my argument as substantive. You dismiss them as semantics. Attempt to negate them with ad hominem attacks, sterile arguments contending that I have to prove that something does not exist rather than placing the burden of proof on proving that something does exist. Prove to me that god does not exist. I know he does because Thomas Aquinas told me so.
My argument about my niece is in part an appeal to emotion, but not exclusively an appeal to emotion. The fact that she is my niece and only six does not alter the fact that the school board is trying to put a girl on addictive stimulants when there is no evidence that she has subnormal cognitive function.
I never contended that these drugs do not increase test scores, in fact I stated the complete opposite. I contend that they are often used for vanity purposes and to increase intelligence in a normal population and not exclusively for the treatment of subnormal cognitive functioning, the symptoms of which would be called ADD/ADHD. You're trying to justify the prescription of the medication as necessary for the treatment of ADD/ADHD symptoms. It is prescribed for such cases. I totally agree with that. My contention is that it is prescribed also for people who do not have those symptoms who just want a cognitive boost and other populations beyond what you claim. You can close your eyes to that, but if you look at the posts on this board: People crush these drugs and snort them to get high. Normal people boast about the extra concentration the drugs give them. People even brag about using the drugs to lift more in the gym. How is that treating ADD exclusively?
To restate. My contention is that these drugs are prescribed to treat ADD/ADHD and more. All of your rebuttals are just pointing to the fact that they are prescribed for ADD/ADHD which is not disproving my point. They are not prescribed for that EXCLUSIVELY. Your ad hominem attack using the analogy about disbelieving the 1969 lunar landing is flawed. An accurate analogy would be that I believe the lunar landing occurred and the astronauts also returned home. Your argument would be analogous to the lunar landing occurred. You go to great lengths attempting to prove to me that the lunar landing occurred, yet never refute the fact that the astronauts returned home.
The diagnostic used in prescribing these drugs is lax. It's a scam. They are prescribed for medical purposes yes, but entirely non-medical purposes also.
My niece is completely relevant. She's been diagnosed as having ADD because she likes to draw on the bathroom stall walls with feces and watch toilet paper unwind when as she flushes the attached roll down the toilet. The scope of people prescribed the drugs is greater than you contend.
"Sure, argue away. Without a substantive argument based on medical and scientific premises and facts, however, you come across with a superficiality not unlike opponents of NASA's 1969 moon landing claiming mass conspiracy and the government's hidden nefarious goals.
Appealing to authority is most often the credited choice when one lacks the necessary knowledge and understanding upon which the authority is based. Similarly credited is appealing to facts, such as clinical trials and medical science, rather than appealing to emotional responses, such as "me" and "my relative".
You use an appeal to authority to justify your appeal to authority. Of course you don't look at my argument as substantive. You dismiss them as semantics. Attempt to negate them with ad hominem attacks, sterile arguments contending that I have to prove that something does not exist rather than placing the burden of proof on proving that something does exist. Prove to me that god does not exist. I know he does because Thomas Aquinas told me so.
My argument about my niece is in part an appeal to emotion, but not exclusively an appeal to emotion. The fact that she is my niece and only six does not alter the fact that the school board is trying to put a girl on addictive stimulants when there is no evidence that she has subnormal cognitive function.
I never contended that these drugs do not increase test scores, in fact I stated the complete opposite. I contend that they are often used for vanity purposes and to increase intelligence in a normal population and not exclusively for the treatment of subnormal cognitive functioning, the symptoms of which would be called ADD/ADHD. You're trying to justify the prescription of the medication as necessary for the treatment of ADD/ADHD symptoms. It is prescribed for such cases. I totally agree with that. My contention is that it is prescribed also for people who do not have those symptoms who just want a cognitive boost and other populations beyond what you claim. You can close your eyes to that, but if you look at the posts on this board: People crush these drugs and snort them to get high. Normal people boast about the extra concentration the drugs give them. People even brag about using the drugs to lift more in the gym. How is that treating ADD exclusively?
To restate. My contention is that these drugs are prescribed to treat ADD/ADHD and more. All of your rebuttals are just pointing to the fact that they are prescribed for ADD/ADHD which is not disproving my point. They are not prescribed for that EXCLUSIVELY. Your ad hominem attack using the analogy about disbelieving the 1969 lunar landing is flawed. An accurate analogy would be that I believe the lunar landing occurred and the astronauts also returned home. Your argument would be analogous to the lunar landing occurred. You go to great lengths attempting to prove to me that the lunar landing occurred, yet never refute the fact that the astronauts returned home.
The diagnostic used in prescribing these drugs is lax. It's a scam. They are prescribed for medical purposes yes, but entirely non-medical purposes also.
The second best part of being an uncle is seeing my nieces. The best part of being an uncle is leaving them and going home.
You parents just want everyone else to suffer.
S
shrimp poboy
Guest
Adderall is nothing more than prescribed meth save yourself the trouble of going to a Dr and just go get yourself some Ephedrine,red phosphorus (about 5 other ingrediants i wont post) a car battery and an ice chest and just make your self some seen it done and the effects are the same the end result is the same brain damage probably
Meth is prescribed to treat ADD and narcolepsy. The brand name is Desoxyn I think.
S
shrimp poboy
Guest
And Dilaudid is prescribed to treat pain however its nothing more than legal heroin. Ive got 20 years of abusing any and all drugs with 2 years sober believe me I know.
I think that most street drugs are or were at one time pharmaceuticals. Heroin used to be an over the counter drug I think.
S
shrimp poboy
Guest
Heroin is just simply morphine after its broken down
Yes. Only available in 5mg IR tabs.
For all the rumors of pharmaceutical methamphetamine, I wonder whether it's actually prescribed to patients outside of psych wards and monitored clinical environments... along the lines of Fenatyl lollipops, Versed or Clonadine (or whatever the knock-your-ass-down antipsychotics are).
Shrimp, methamphetamine and amphetamine are moderately different drugs, and the process that uses pseudoephedrine (eph HCl isn't practical) produces methamphetamine -- hence the abundance of meth on the black market. In Europe, it's supposedly reversed due to the difference in available reagents.
Codeine's probably closer to morphine than heroin structurally. There are other prominant factors that come into play, too, kinda like in how morphine's oral availability is like 2% or something obscenely small.
*puts on camouflage hat*
*thinks of ways to draw PM out of the house using premeditated flyers irresistably advertising COLOGNE SALE 50% OFF WHEN YOU BUY 20 BOTTLES OR MORE at local store*
lol
nimbus
New member
lol
lets see...
Your Cd's
Your Porn
Your Cologne
Your soup
Your stash of drugs
You clearly have addictions, they just aren't typical ones
You wouldn't die without your adderall.
lol
jnevin
New member
He'd freak out to death bro.
