Alright. So here’s the problem with the anti-meth crap.
Meth is created when two amphetamine molecules are bonded with one carbon. In order for a person to feel the effects of meth, their bodies must first break that carbon bond. Then they are getting regular amphetamines.
That’s it. That’s meth.
ADHD medications are amphetamines. The only difference between meth and regular amphetamines is that the amphetamine doesn’t have to be broken down to be absorbed first.
It’s the same damn chemical.
The question arises: If it’s so terrible, then why are we giving this drug to soldiers, pilots, toddlers and school children?
Why did we give it to housewives in the 80’s and 90’s as a weight loss drug? How did our grandmothers and mothers take it (en mass) in the 50’s and 60’s as ‘pep’ pills without a problem?
All drugs have side effects. But I cannot understand why the side effects of a chemical is considered ‘bad’ when a person takes it by choice and are nonexistent when prescribed for a small child. It is the same damn chemical.
So, when you rant about meth heads, why aren’t you ranting about the 10% of our children who are addicted to the same drug? Why aren’t our grandmothers and mothers wrecks from taking it back in the day? Why aren’t our soldiers, pilots, and long-haul truckers washed out from drugs when they were given them for years?
I was a puritanical army wife when I was prescribed amphetamines in the early 90’s. I took them for years, along with most of the other women on our block. It gave us some energy, helped control our appetites... and that was it.
My (very religious anti-drug) grandmother took them and had all of my aunts on them to give them energy and to ‘keep them pretty’ back in the 50’s. Great teeth. No issues. Nobody got addicted.
When did somebody decide that it was bad?
If meth is a terrible as the billboards say, then we have got to get serious about prescribing amphetamines to children.