You shouldn't take adderall to do better on a simple test, but there certainly are people who benefit from it. Tell people with narcolepsy that adderall's benefits can never outweigh the side effects. Very few drugs are without side effects. When the benefits outweigh the risks/side effects it's worth it. Some of the most damaging drugs prescribed are among the most important. Look at cancer drugs, now those do some serious damage to your body. I don't hear anyone arguing (maybe Christian Science) that cancer drugs should be taken out of production.
anyone who knows anything about the drugs used for cancer will argue vehemently against them. most of them are derivatives of WW1 mustard gas.
and most doctors who prescribe those drugs will not use them on themselves if they ever had cancer,
look up Dr Johanna Budwig, nominated for 7 noble prizes, had a phd in bio chemistry and used high quality protein(raw fermented milk: quark/cottage cheese) combined with highly electron rich unsaturated fat(flax oil)
to cure terminally ill cancer patients, flax oil helps cells and mitochondria breath, and more efficiently absorb oxygen and sunlight. she had a 90% cure rate which probably would have been near 100% if not for the patients she tried to help who had already gone through massive doses of chemotherapy.
a friend of mine had terminal throat and lung cancer which he cured with intravenous ozone.
which is a therapy gaining popularity because of its sheer power. (otto warburg won a nobel prize in the early 1900's proving that the primary cause of cancer is the replacement of respiration with glucose fermentation)
theres many people who have cured liver cancer simply by living of vegetable juice, grass juice for a short while. or simply beet juice.
theres many examples of people curing terminal cancer with natural methods, although Dr budwig is probably the most well documented.
This statement may be true but it makes me think you don't understand how adderall works really (I'm sorry if I'm wrong). Adderall isn't chemical present in your body that some people have more or less of. It binds to neurotransmitters in the brain and causes increased levels of certain psychoactive chemicals like dopamine and serotonin.
lol dood, yea im quite aware that adderrall isn't naturally present in your body. thats why I am so opposed to it and is why I said that ADD isn't cause by a deficiency of adderrall..lol wtf man seriously.
This is just too silly =P
When a chemical is made at a university or non profit organization it's ok but when someone wants to make a living while helping people out it's poison?
first of all, all chemicals synthetically created by man cause some sort harm or imbalance
when ingested. simply because there are not part of are natural metabolism
secondly any chemical made by a university or non profit organization will eventually be sold by someone. who do you think universities and non profit organizations are funded by?
like milos said I think you just really missed the essential idea behind my argument.
Obviously smaller chemicals have more drastic differences when small changes are made like you've acknowledged and larger ones see lesser change to their physical properties. This does NOT mean that small changes will not have HUGE impacts on a drug's function in the body. Most drugs act by effecting an enzymatic process in the body. Enzymes can be very specific, where one extra CH2 would make the molecule too large to fit in an active site for example. Here's the first example that comes to my mind where an extra C (and the hydrogens bound to it) makes a huge difference. Ethanol is 1 CH2 group larger than methanol and one is sold in bottles for regular consumption and the other makes you go blind (methanol is metabolized into formaldehyde).
lol I've got some bad news for you, that one sold in bottles for regular consumption is also poisonous. if you were to consume pure ethanol you would go deaf, dumb and blind in 5 minutes.
I think I covered the interaction with the human body. That was what I said about the benefits outweighing the side effects. I'm not in favor of recreational use of any drug, doesn't matter what the ld50 is. I'm not arguing with you about that. But if you believe there are no medical uses for amphetamine that outweigh the risks in some patients as he seems to be arguing, then I have to disagree. But when he says, "any synthetic chemical made by man For profit is not ever in your benefit to consume," I don't think I'm going off on a tangent when I address it, that's a pretty big statement (others might have been tangents but oh well, they were things I felt like commenting on =P).
the point is not that amphetamine doesn't keep people awake, the point is that there are much safer more skillful methods to fixing a problem than giving someone an amphetamine, there are much safer more natural/enjoyable solutions to such problems.
Apples have been proven to stimulate mental alertness and wakefulness more effectively than caffeine. especially in the morning. I'm not saying apples are better than amphetamine for staying awake, but are probably a much better alternative in that they will actually nourish/detoxify/strengthen you at the same time. and provide ample mental alertness
oooo but bring up harsh times, I'm warning everybody, never do GHB. :/
lol vomit blood much?
