OSNews

A bit shortsighted, no?

I was giving Ritalin when I was a child... because I am what I am.. namely, hyperactive. The real deal, not one of those "hyperactive" kids, that are just little brats with parents that don't have a clue.

I don't take them anymore though. But that's mostly because I love doing computer science. I don't need anything to keep me going for hours on an end

But I can give you first hand experience, they simply allow you start on your work instead of running around screaming to do something more fun. And if it can help any hyperactive person for a short period in need, I'm all for it.

Still anyone without focus problems should best stay away from them

>I was giving Ritalin when I was a child... because I am what I am.. namely, hyperactive.

There are even countries which tread such things with electric shock therapy. So where is the point? It's to _some_ degree nonsense. Of course there are certain hallucinogens as _last_ resort, like the mentioned methylphenidat. But just for fun to try something new or to extend some abilities? It's crazy and people tolerating or promoting it are crazy too. Drugs _are_ drugs with some exceptions for really ill people.

I remember when I was at school, kids who were hyperactive were just seen as kids 'with a lot of spirit' or 'very excitable' - there was never any need to drug up them up to the eye balls with medicine. Good old fashion running around at the park, playing rugby, bull rush and other past times worked all that excess energy out of their system; and we had as much 'additives' and 'sugars' in our foods.

Its (sugar and additives) been shown that time and time again, that these have NO EFFECT on children. It is all about discipline and how the parents act. Heck, I would call myself an incredibly crap parent, but apparently when I look after kids, they are well behaved after them being with me; what do I do? I treat them like little adults. I don't talk to kids in childish language, I give them responsibility, and make them think about what they've done wrong rather than simply the typical politically correct 'time out'.



Yeap, its all about finding what YOU are passionate at. Who gives a shit about what everyone else thinks; do what you are passionate about. You'll find that if you're passionate about something, you'll be happy to put in the long hours without any need to take any drugs.

Then again, it goes back to this *STUPID* idea created by the politically correct that "you can be anything you want" - WRONG! if you don't have the natural ability or inclination towards something, you will suck no matter how hard you work at it. It is delusional thinking that some how a person with an IQ of 100 can ever be a rocket scientist.

People have talents, people have a natural ability in a particular area. Don't create this hocus-pocus bullcrap that some how you can turn someone from an average employee into a manager. I've seen it happen, people who have been in organisations for 10 years, no inclination towards management - being pushed into the position of being a manager! its stupidity in action!

For me, I *KNOW* I suck at maths, and no matter how many hours I spent trying to study it, it never gelled. Now I do know what I am good at - abstract thinking which helps in the areas which I am interested in, Religious Studies and Philosophy.

To some how *THINK* that drug taking is the solution for failing to understand that you don't have talents in that certain area, its pathetic and it lacks commonsense. Know your limitations, know what you're capable of doing, and face that reality - stop trying to a rocket scientist when you abilities are geared towards being a landscaper.

Edited 2008-04-11 05:34 UTC

Are you talking about drugs in general usage for medical conditions, like anaesthetic for operations. Or are you talking about using drugs to alter your abilities as stated in the article.

There is a big difference between the two. I certainly support the first, many people need drugs to survive insulin, penicillin etc. I'm not so sure I support the second, I think it is dangerous to meddle with things we don't fully understand. I don't think it gives people a greater advantage, some people are born differently and thus have different advantages in different areas. These drugs don't give a better advantage than having been born with better genes.

Really? Why? Give some justification please. "It's not natural" is a BS argument because there is nothing natural at all about our modern lives / society. If a drug increases performance, isn't harmful to the user, then wtf is the big deal?

Well, yes. Our present average lifestyle is unnatural, as it happens. And, interestingly enough, the unnatural parts tend not to be very healthy.

Coffee is bad for you. Soda is bad for you. Smoking is bad for you (smoking has no positive side effects whatsoever). Not sleeping during the night is bad for you. Looking at a CRT (or LCD) very much is bad for you. Not getting enough sleep is bad for you. Obesity is bad for you.

You're going to have a long, uphill struggle if you want to argue that boosters have no detrimental side effects. A reasonable argument might be that an acceptable product or behavior is one the utility of which exceeds its health detriments.


EDIT: A "natural" lifestyle would be hunter-gatherer, and nobody is arguing for going back that that. The health benifits of a few of our unnatural advances (agriculture, medicine, germ theory) easily outweigh all the detrimental practices combined, which is why a smoking couch potato still has a life expectancy about twice that of any population on earth until quite recently.

Edited 2008-04-11 03:00 UTC

I think you are missing the point.. actually I know so

We are not talking about drugs as in heroine but drugs as in medicine. You can get Ritalin in your local pharmacy, it is used to calm kids...

Heroin is, last I checked, otherwise known as diamorphine—rather widely used in the medical world.

The only difference between drugs and medicine is the intent.

To the people saying “drugs are bad!!!11”: do you drink alcohol? coke? coffee? eat food containing MSG? what about foods containing tryptophan?

See, the lines are very very blurry. One person's “natural” is another's ”unrefined”. When the active ingredient and the effect is the same, it matters very little.

And, for the record, (in response to the earlier comments) smoking has positive effects; it just lacks medical benefits.

So is alcohol and caffine. Are you seriously suggesting that programmers shouldn't drink coffee to keep them going on those late night coding marathons nor have a pint after work to celebrate?

"Doctor Leech: I think you're in luck though. An extraordinary new cure has just been developed for exactly this kind of sordid problem.

Edmund: It wouldn't have anything to do with leeches, would it?

Doctor Leech: I had no idea you were a medical man."

That's not you talking, it's the caffeine.