654
The wealth of the 1% just hit a record $44 trillion
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
654 points (98.4% liked)
News
23260 readers
3021 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nice! Good job all. It sucks that our wealth is being harvested by a few psychos but dam we are working our asses off and generating vasts amounts of it. For someone else but still damn, super impressed.
They deserve all their pederasty and cocaine, after such a hard day harvesting our labor.
Meh, it's not all.
It's mostly by not working as a collective and getting rid of more jobs and having a select few work overworked even more efficiently using hyper advanced tools to do so that steal work from previous humans.
You can usually spot them cause they brag about how much more efficient they are now that they microdose on Meth-Lite™ every day.
Also I know people will argue it helps, of course it helps, it's taking a daily stimulant the same way cocaine helped in the 80s. Doesn't make it less true.
I have literally never met anyone that has bragged about microdosing on meth. Meth isn't even legal here (although that doesn't make it uncommon)
Adderall.
How tf do you mix up Adderall and meth? And Adderall is used to treat ADHD, for neurotypical people a clinical amount literally just has nearly the same effects as caffeine or some antidepressants.
Uhh I don't mix them up. But Adderall ~~and Ritalin~~ (whoops not Ritalin) are literally amphetamines. I literally know people who when they run out take "street Adderall" granted they are certainly abusing Adderall because it makes them feel better.
But just cause it's a prescription and used to treat ADHD doesn't make it not an amphetamine. It's a stimulant. It's stronger than caffeine (which people are addicted enough too at the moment that lethal doses have been found in Panera lemonade) and being taken like people took cocaine in the 80s to stimulate and assist in keeping up.
Useful or not, taking Adderall is taking Meth's sibling and praising how effective it is at being a chemical stimulant.
Edit: did you know if you have an Adderall addiction you get treated at the same places that handle meth addictions? Fun little fact.
Buddy that means you are mixing them up because "amphetamine" (alpha-methylphenethylamine) and "methamphetamine" (N-dimethylamphetamine) are completely different classes of chemicals and affect the brain in different ways. Their names look similar because they're both substituted amphetamines, which is a generalized type of drugs that literally includes ephedrine, Wellbutrin, MDMA, Parnate, Ionamin, methoxyphenamine, etc., a LOT of drugs that have extremely different effects and are used for extremely different things. You clearly are uneducated on chemistry if you think those are "basically meth".
Yeah that's LITERALLY THE GENERIC NAME OF THE MEDICINE. One which has a different chemical structure than meth.
So are multiple very common chemicals, some that we even eat and drink on a regular basis.
This is a meaningless statement.
Wtf does this even mean? How do you rationalize "2 people with heart problems died from drinking caffeinated lemonade" as "we have a caffeine drug abuse problem on our hands"? That is a very naïve take on epidemiology.
The lethal dosage of caffeine for the average person is around 10,000 mg (about 26 of those full lemonades at once). Those people died because they had heart problems and had no idea the lemonade had as much caffeine as an energy drink, they didn't die from "addiction" you imbecile lol.
Sorry but this is delusional. Also I don't know if you can tell, but cocaine/crack abuse is still everywhere, it's not like it just went away. Do you get all of your drug information from movies?
That is one of the dumbest chemistry takes I've ever heard. "These two drugs have a similar shortened generic names so they're basically the same".
What does this even mean?
It's pretty tiring hearing people peddle bullshit like "X stimulant drug is basically meth", clearly having not even a basic understanding of pharmacology. Meth and Adderall have extremely differing intended effects and side effects (in particular, meth has VERY bad side-effects and is far more addictive compared to amphetamines), they literally are just both stimulants (as opposed to depressants, hallucinogens, anxiolytics, antidepressants, or antipsychotics) which is a very wide classification of drug.
I don't know how you turned "everyone microdoses meth these days" into "Adderall is meth" into "we have a fatal caffeine addiction problem" but here we are.
That's a very emotional response, (which I expect, people have a lot of feelings about chemical stimulants)
So firstly, amphetamines are stimulants. All of them. Yes they do slightly different things but it's like saying a red pen is vastly different from a blue pen. Both are still pens, these all stimulate chemical signals and have a high addiction threshold. Funny that you would list MDMA, and Wellbutrin (poor man's cocaine) as alternatives trying to prove they aren't still amphetamines.
And I mean that people are so craving caffeine, that we are adding amounts equal to that of strong energy drinks to standard soft drinks. The addiction is selling a 24oz lemonade that has the same caffeine per volume as the 2oz 5 hour energy. An amount that chemical dependent people find not a problem but that can kill people with heart problems (twice). They aren't dying from their addiction but that of the people who don't get their rush anymore from smaller doses of caffeine.
And yes cocaine use is still prevalent cause people still argue it works to keep them stimulated and helps them get through the day. Like taking other addictive stimulants, say like prescribed amphetamines. I'm just pointing out the parallels of people being addicted to different stimulants and excusing it away as part of the eras current in drug of choice.
It's not a similar name that is important it's the chemical action they have that speeds up chemical signal passing like adrenaline that these amphetamines do. And you are specifically ignoring it so that you can claim it's bullshit on arguments you are making.
You are having an emotional response that you don't want to be wrong about and that's not my concern. In fact it happens every time I point this out and it doesn't change the reality of it at all.
While useful to some Adderall, Ritalin, Wellbutrin, are all addictive chemical stimulants that we have deemed effective in getting a stimulated active populace that can resist fatigue and discomfort better than those not taking it. While it might be effective it does nothing to resolve or slow down potential environmental factors that make it a dangerous long term fix due to addictive nature of it, that don't resolve underlying issues.
I've noticed you completely ignored that people suffering from dextroamphetamine addiction go to meth clinics as Adderall is just amphetamine and dextroamphetamine.
It really doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, people actively taking small amounts of a highly addictive habit forming stimulant to get through life at an alarmingly increasing rate. And that's reality. And your emotional response to belittle me does nothing to change that.
Emotions are an inseparable part of being human. Engaging with them in a productive manner is extremely important and does not invalidate an individual's points (emotional vs logical is a false dichotomy that you appear to be using to dismiss them and avoid examining the factuality of your statements). They make some very logical and scientifically-backed points.
As one who went their entire childhood and most of adulthood without any treatment for ADHD, I think that this statement is correct but not in the way that it appears that you intend it. People with ADHD have well-studied neuro-physiological changes in their brains, as compared to neurotypical individuals. Notably, in the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with administrative thought, including emotional regulation and behavior related task and time management. Things that are extremely important to surviving and thriving in the modern world.
Having experienced going from the struggle of trying to function without treatment and the positive impact that treatment has had in my life, there are definitely emotions associated and that's not a bad thing.
JFC. This is why we can't have nice things. Humans will try to get high off of or screw anything.
"Here's a SNDRI medication with fairly low dependency-forming characteristics that is literally saving the lives of people suffering from major depressive disorders and addictions. Can I have sex with it? Not in a practical sense. What if I cram that shit up my nose or mainline it?"
Whippits are also a thing. They contain milk products. Should we ban dairy and treat people who have milk in their tea and infants like addicts? People ARE going to try to abuse anything. It's a fact of human history. There was even a mesoamerican empire that was united entirely by drugs and tamales.
Many cancer treatments are literally poisons, acting on either characteristics that occur me frequently in cancer cells or lower resiliency against the toxins. They can be used to murder people. Should we ban them and let those with cancer die without treatment to avoid that risk?
You come across as demonizing medications that show low addiction potential in the people who need them to function in a meaningful way in the modern world. Have you ever been treated like a junkie by a pharmacist for trying to pickup your prescription?
This statement makes me suspect that you are falling for a reporting bias as well as potential a bias against the existence of documented mental illnesses (I certainly hope that is not the case). In the past, adult ADHD was completely untreated. Prior to research involving brain imaging, it was assumed to be a disorder only impacting children (a great example survivorship bias - those diagnosed as children were often given tools to cope as adults, and those who were not diagnosed had little study into reasons for their negative outcomes). So, the greater number of people being treated with medications for ADHD and major depressive disorder is heavily influenced by these disorders actually being diagnosed and treated, rather than ignored.
Living the dream
Oh for sure to be emotional is to be human, I was simply trying to point it out so we could move past the obvious emotional side of their argument and argue based on facts and not pedantry meant to make me appear wholly uninformed in an area that I do have knowledge in for various academic and personal stakes.
But also yeah I understand that people who have felt supported by these drugs would very much have an emotional response to them. And the fact that they are needed to function no less true for the modern age. But man does it feel insane to be taking synonymous drugs that were taken during war time to keep your gunners alert for air raids to keep up in your work life balance.
And excusing it away by saying their is a perfect version of a brain that needs to be achieved by taking this drug causes an emotional response in myself.
But again I have never suggested a ban or restrictions on any of these items. Go back through the conversation and you will see I don't stoop to tell people we shouldn't have a thing even if it's abused or even if it helps or not. But pointing out the insanity of taking neurologically modifying drug that alters chemistry of your nervous system to survive what should be a better world because of less direct environmental dangers is what I'm trying to point out. And that there are inherent risks with handing out large amounts of these drugs much the same way we later discovered to be true of opioids.
Pain killers are useful, but it can go to far and has fucked up a lot of people's lives with addiction and having experiences they would rather not and it affecting those around them. I point out that people rather blindly or very happily hold up drugs as an incredible cure all answer while either happy to or all to ignorant of underlying issues, and an over-reliance would be negative as well.
And this is where you lost me as you seem to imply that I'm thinking mental illness doesn't exist, which as someone who suffers from rather severe depression I can tell you I don't doubt the existence of neurological issues, but this idea that it's just all people who are being under diagnosed and that there might not be environmental issues that are at play rising the numbers means you also think that brain chemistry is a thing to be controlled and fixed at will of those with the chemicals to try them out on other people's brains.
I assume likely that reality is as always a mix of multiple directional influences but this concept that just more people are being discovered to have issues is one I find utterly without base as a singular response and the narrowing of a single version of a good brain to be sickening. It goes to far as to feel like wish fulfillment and coping mechanisms for issues that as a whole humanity ignores.
Edit: Also I'm too poor and overworked to see a doctor, so my pharmacologist doesn't treat me like anything as I have never really interacted with one. But I get it, you don't want to feel like you are taking an analogous drug to an illicit one when you are just trying to feel better about yourself but that's an internal thing you need to deal with and respect that it is in fact related to harder drugs.
That is honestly a relief and why I mentioned that I was hoping that I was misreading you.
I do not think that it is likely one or the other but a combination of multiple things. I also strongly suspect that there are environmental issues at play too. With the well-established like between lead poisoning and aggressive behavior (not to mention the slew of other neurological problems), I strongly suspect that we're likely to see similar from microplastics or another widespread exposure that we're not yet aware of. And that's just chemical environmental exposure. Not even touching on harmful social exposures. The high-stress environment of the modern world is extremely harmful to physical and psychological health.
I think of it as a spectrum running from "needed to survive without harming self or others" to necessary for harm reduction/mitigation due to neurodivergence that makes functioning in modern society very challenging. It's not that there's an "ideal" neurochemistry or neurophysiology but that there are neurobiological phenotypes and conditions that are either not well-adapted to modern society (or, in some, extreme cases, any society). Use of chemical and other available therapeutic means allows for such individuals to survive or thrive in an environment that is not ideal for them.
Absolutely, it does. Medicine can be a bizarre thing. Similarly, like I hinted earlier, nitrogen mustards, as in "mustard gas" were the first chemotherapy agents for cancer treatment. Mustine (chlormethine) is still in actively used for this purpose.
Indeed. There can indeed be some denial, etc but, I suspect that a lot of it comes down to defensiveness due to societal issues. When people make a comparison to illicit stimulants, it often comes back to things like the ongoing shortage that has impacted a lot of people with ADHD. The shortage is caused, pretty definitively, by the DEA overcorrecting their enforcement of controlled substance, after they did fuck all about opioids. Amphetamines are a convenient target to "show that they're doing something" because they sound like meth and are used to treat disorders that are either rare or not taken seriously.
Loose enforcement of the past allowed pill mills to thrive and supply the illicit market. Now, they've clamped down, causing measurable harm to those legitimately prescribed. They don't care because they're just in it to justify their budget increases and get camera time.
What in the god damn fuck? Did you just call Wellbutrin, a mostly non-addictive, non-stimulant antidepressant, an addictive stimulant? And did you just equate Wellbutrin, again a non-stimulant antidepressant with no connection to cocaine, to cocaine? Holy shit there's no way. It's literally impossible to get addicted to clinical doses of it, you'd have to be taking an ABSURDLY high, probably illegal, amount over a long period of time to even be able to develop a psychological addiction to Wellbutrin, it's not even close to dangerous unless you have epilepsy or sometimes heart disease. It's actually extremely common to use it in addiction recovery / drug abuse clinics to help patients deal with the neurological affects of withdrawal from other drugs because of how safe it is.
It's also insane that you think "MDMA is an abused drug, so it's the same as meth, also Adderall is meth too". MDMA is a drug with PSYCHEDELIC PROPERTIES. It is figuratively in no way, shape, or form comparable to either meth nor (dextro)amphetamines. You are genuinely delusional making this comparison.
You quite obviously have not read almost all of what I posted. Saying "people with X drug addiction and people with Y drug addiction go to the same clinics, they must be basically the same drug" is possibly the stupidest thing you can say in the context of drug abuse treatment.
The next stupidest thing you could say is that "they increase adrenaline/dopamine/norepinephrine production so they must be the same". Do you know how little that narrows it down? You are now including many antidepressants, anxiety meds, in fact a LOT of non-stimulants and hallucinogens.
I also never stated that ADHD meds aren't stimulants. Where did you pull that out of? In fact I explicitly stated that they are.
You can cry "emotional response" all you want but that does not change the absurdity of calling Wellbutrin an addictive stimulant like cocaine, literally saying that Adderall is meth, and saying drinking 2 panera lemonades on a visit to the restaurant constitutes an addiction and establishing a lethal dosage of caffeine.
I can't even begin to express the absurdity of the take "medicines for mental disorders aren't cures for those disorders so we should get rid of them". That's not even the conversation.
Sorry but you're genuinely crazy. There is absolutely no way you aren't trolling at this point. I could believe you weren't at the "everyone brags about microdosing meth, oh btw meth means all stimulant ADHD medications" because that is a common, and stupid, take by people who don't know anything about drugs. But you've headed in a direction which is just unbelievable.
I can't even bring myself to respond to any more of your garbage anti-science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10104426/
You are making jumps in logic that I'm not stating. I really don't care. You aren't having a discussion with me either just being upset and jumping through hoops to make me sound even more irrational in your head.
Sorry but linking a study of abuse by a population mostly consisted of people who already have SUDs says absolutely nothing about how addictive Wellbutrin is other than it has some possibility of addiction for people who already have drug addiction issues.
You can literally abuse anything, even mostly or even entirely non-addictive drugs. People with SUDs have even been shown to develop addictions to placebos with no psychoactive properties. You are very poorly educated if you think that this makes Wellbutrin an "addictive stimulant like cocaine".
The fact of the matter is that Wellbutrin abuse is extremely rare and there is no evidence of it being present in populations without prior history of SUDs. Therefore it is almost always labelled by pharmacologists as "non-addictive".
It's even crazier to imply that, because Wellbutrin can be abused, that somehow makes Adderall = meth??? Clearly you thought it was relevant considering you thought it was relevant that I mentioned specifically MDMA (being an addictive drug) and Wellbutrin (being one that could be abused).
Also the original comments literally said "people are bragging about microdosing meth" and when I said I've never experienced that you responded "Adderall". That is just saying that Adderall is meth. There is no logical jumps there, you literally stated it. How do you twist that as not stating that Adderall is meth?
I'm sorry I stated that Wellbutrin (street name poor man's cocaine) was addictive in a way that your pedantry took as singularly chemical dependant instead of just addictive in the sense that people will addictively abuse it as seen by multiple studies but I get it. You are sure no one is abusing it cause your brain tells you, you are right. And why would other people do something wrong. Now get off it.
And Adderall is literally amphetamine and dextroamphetamine which is very similar to the chemical response and dependency that occurs when taking meth. Again with people I know literally taking small amounts of meth when they run out of Adderall because it gives them the exact same feeling. Things I stated before and you ignored to argue against other things I said focusing heavily on addiction to lemonade that I never stated.
I have also never once advocated in this argument that people stop taking anything. People take their drug of choice to get through this world. I'm just pointing out that right now the world has the leaning towards an amphetamine addiction under the guise that prescription makes it better when we know from the opioid wave to not be true. Adderall is highly addictive as it's literally Amphetamine. And I hold to it despite the emotional response of those taking it stating it helps because it's just the actual reality.
Edit: also my original argument was just that people are using hard stimulant drugs even if prescribed it to work harder. Something society started advocating for during WW2.
I have literally never said in this entire conversation that Wellbutrin isn't being abused (even though it is very clearly a non-stimulant and mostly non-addictive drug). I stated multiple times that people with SUDs can abuse it. I just pointed out how absurd it is that you think the ability to abuse MDMA and Wellbutrin at all relates to your claim that Adderall is meth.
An apology that would actually mean something is apologizing for your implication that Adderall is meth. This was never about your views on the effects of medications on society. Prescribed stimulant ADHD drugs, despite having some similarities to meth, are completely different to meth, are not even close to as addictive nor do they have nearly as severe side effects as meth. This, plus the fact that prescription ADHD meds are extremely impure, and even compared to pure amphetamines the effects are significantly neutered.
The drugs that the people you speak of are taking are not comparable to meth, and saying "meth" when you mean "Adderall" or "Ritalin" is literally just an insult to psychiatrists and people who use those medications. People use calling it "meth" as a way to push to mostly ban it like meth.
I know this as someone who has used ADHD medications and has immediate family who have had extremely bad meth abuse problems in the past (I live in Georgia, meth is extremely common here and probably the most abused drug other than opiates) and have used ADHD meds before they developed SUDs (ADHD runs in the family). The effects aren't even close to similar, other than things most stimulants have in common like increased heart rate and kind of similar-ish effects on certain chemicals like dopamine and norepinephrine.
Adderall mostly decreases dopamine reabsorption rates, while meth PUMPS you full of dopamine and also decreases dopamine reabsorption rates, for example. When taking clinical dosages of Adderall as a neurotypical, you'll at most feel more confident in your decisions and like you just drank a bunch of caffeine. Take the same amount of street meth and it's not the same story.
You can complain about Adderall abuse, but substituting the word "meth" in its place is extremely misleading at best and downright disinformation at worst.
And you only refer to the possibility of abuse after I show reports of it. Your multiple times is in a single response. But apparently speaking afterwards and gently agreeing without agreeing is the same as being correct the whole time.
You are coming into this assuming you are correct about the entire argument and swinging the goalposts to match whatever part of the argument you have the most interest in at any given moment in your response. Yes I have been incorrect about parts but you fail to see anything other than you vs me with the only outcome being your total victory.
People love to abuse drugs and potentially harmful ones being simplified into nicer things when they have direct relations to their harder siblings say like a drug that is literally an amphetamine that can spiral into addiction of other amphetamines is not ridiculous despite your insisting incorrectly that Adderall (a prescribed ADHD medication) is absolutely addictive, and has similar affects to meth when taken in comparable doses. People I know swap between them.
I get that you have an emotional attachment to these types of drugs because you take them. I could tell at the very beginning of you arguing with me because it's a pretty common thing to assume incorrect things about stuff you have good feelings towards and you want to feel good about this. But it doesn't make it true.
Is my substitution of Adderall as "Meth" overboard. Sure, of course it is. I use to illicit an emotional response to try and raise awareness of negative qualities so as to shame society into using other drugs with less direct pathways to abuse. I don't care that people get angry about this topic because I expect and want them to because it's open use I wish for people to question taking especially if "neurotypical" so as to dissuade recreational use.
It's a drug literally designed to make you feel good and more alert. It's directly made with amphetamines which are historically not great and it's closest drug you can take available on the market is meth. I continue to disagree with its marketing as safe.
This is factually incorrect. Ritalin is a brand name for methylphenidate, which is chemically very different from amphetamines. Both are carbon compounds that have a phenyl ring and a nitrogen two carbons away from it but beyond that, they are very distinct. Additionally, they have different mechanisms of action.
Oh color me correct on that.
Literally not an amphetamine, I'm not entirely sure why I thought they were other than just phenyl ring.
Guess speaking out my ass on that one since I know that it was sold in the same circles as Adderall but looking into you are correct and it's completely different.
All good!
Its an amphetamine. People sober from meth cannot have that shit in the house, they're afraid of it.
It is also all the things you said.
Why do you people keep saying "it's an amphetamine" like it actually means anything? I don't want to have to explain again that generic drug names looking similar doesn't mean they're even remotely the same. Just like how "sodium chloride" has completely different chemical properties to standalone sodium and chlorine.
People with SUDs can't be around medications that can be addictive to people with SUDs. What's your point? This has nothing to do with meth, anyone with a history of drug addictions is heavily scrutinized or just outright denied psychoactive substances, you can be a recovering nicotine addict and many will deny giving you Adderall even if the person has completely debilitating ADD. That's just the nature of drug abuse disorders.
Ive met multiple people who are clean from street meth who tried ADHD meds once and then were, like 'okay I can't have that in my house ever, its too close'.
I think youre attaching a moral dimension to my statement here. I have known (in the past, who were not me) plenty of people who used illegal, or even genuinely dangerous shit to keep their (third person!) mental health some semblance of together.
That's just going to be the experience with nearly every noticeably stimulant drug (and potentially drugs with stimulant effects like weed). It's very much not unique or notable for ADHD medications, especially since ADHD medications are actually mostly not the drug itself (it's packaged in a way to make abuse by those without ADHD or those with SUDs harder).
Okay so idk your pharma background, it may well be more robust than mine, but I'm confident the particulars of how addiction functions IRL are not your area of expertise. all the specific real people I'm talking about are literally always either baked or drinking coffee, unless they're taking a break from one of those to be sure they aren't addicted.
Again, I don't care how addictive it is-if I were going to go after nasty addictive horrible drugs we use for mental health, I'd spend a year screaming about sertraline nonstop before I so much as suggested Walter white should slow down. I'm not suggesting it should be less available (I'm generally in favor of making most things more available).
Its a close relative of some shit we use to destroy ourselves, made slightly safer and dispensed in a buffered pill/capsule so we can stuff people into shitty lityle boxes and call them productive (maybe a better society would use it fir self actualization or sonething) And that's... As fine as anything else in this shit hole.
... what?
"close relative" is extremely vague and can mean anything, but a majority of prescription medications have at least one structurally similar illicit drug to them. This is just how chemistry works, different chemical compositions & structures have different effects and, in a medical context, is often the difference between a moderately safe drug and an extremely unsafe drug.
"slightly" is an understatement, they are much safer, especially considering you can't get even close to recreational amounts and many times people are constantly monitored on your usage because doctors are extremely paranoid that they'll sell them. And amphetamines/dextroamphetamines are not made from meth.
I'm not sure what you're on about, sounds like work culture, but somehow I feel that you're just a little upset towards the government and society.
Youre not addressing my main point here. I have actual human beings who are addicted to one thing that used the topic of discussion once and found it way too familiar, but can use most other drugs relatively safely.
When talking about drugs and what we use them for, governments and societies are not irrelevant.
Affinity for other drugs is very subjective and differs a lot between people who have SUDs and people who don't have SUDs. People who have experienced addiction to one drug will almost always be drawn to other drugs which are relatively similar, even if they're not very comparable in practice. People who have been addicted to hallucinogenic drugs before are significantly more likely to develop an addiction to weed, for example.
They're very different drugs but they both have stimulant effects. A recovering meth addict would likely have an extremely strong reaction to other very different stimulants, like cocaine. It does not necessarily make them all that comparable in practice.
I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I'm talking about actual living people I have known. Some of whom do a wider variety of drugs than me.
I don't know why youre even arguing this so passionately. I don't actually care if it is. If your mental health requires you inject LSD into your genitals, I really don't care unless youre willing to share your hookup, or youre cute enough for me to want to watch.