this btw is why we now see some of the TPOT rationalists microdosing street meth as a substitute. also that they’re idiots, of course.

somehow this man still has a medical license

  • self@awful.systemsM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What about addiction risk?

    The data on this are really poor because it’s hard to define addiction. If a prescription stimulant user uses their stimulants every day, and feels really good on them, and feels really upset if they can’t get them…well, that’s basically the expected outcome.

    did I just watch Scott try to reply guy addiction out of existence?

    also, all the paragraphs Scott uses to call his patients liars and insinuate that other psychiatrists have guilty consciences are really uncomfy? cause it really feels like a normal response to the situations he’s describing is “boy I’m getting a lot of folks with ADHD and neurodivergent traits and all they seem to want is one treatment for it, maybe I should examine that more closely” and not “look at all these normal-brained fucks with intense problems focusing coming to me for drugs, which I’m certain the other pill-pushers in my industry will give them without question. welp time to not even attempt to establish a therapeutic dosage or even guidelines around how much to take since this is a fun safe party drug”

    • corbin@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      An ounce of NSFW might help here. There’s a very reasonable definition of addiction using ΔFosB modulation. Scott probably doesn’t like this because it implies that the concept of addiction is hopelessly overlapping with desires for food, shelter, exercise, social belonging, etc. and totally avoids the difficult subjective task of determining whether a person’s addiction is interfering with their daily life; Scott gets paid good money to be judgmental about his patients’ lives!