alt Hacker NewsAgree with original commenter but +1 to reframing the language. I was very afraid to begin medication because I would always hear about how addicting this medication can be. But like you say, you wouldn't tell someone with diabetes that they're addicted to insulin.
Replies
I'm addicted to several things. Like eyeglasses, and breathing.
The difference the medication makes is similarly revelatory to putting on eyeglasses. Of course you never want to take them off.
There's no withdrawal symptoms, per se, for most people, the addiction is purely psychological from "trying to drive with only 3 tires sucks"
it's not good to flame people for things they can't control. I also think it's not fair to compare insulin (life saving non synthesizable hormone) vs amphetamine (hard drug that helps people better cope with a society expressly designed to beat them down), because then we forget that dosing amphetamines daily comes with its own price of damage to the body. drugs prescribed for adhd are also very much addicting - if one lets an amphetamine script run out, symptoms of withdrawal will take place, regardless as to how the condition is verbally labelled (which while horrible is also to me not fair to compare with a diabetic dying without insulin)
fully agreed with this. it's the same stigma that I see get applied to SSRIs - that you become 'dependent' on medication, it's not 'natural', etc
in reality, if the side effects are minimal and you function better on it, it's a sip of water and a pill a day and that's largely it for health outcomes. most drug interventions are generally extremely well-studied with very large sample sizes. there's a reason why clinical research is considered gold-standard - the regulatory requirements to even get a drug to market is monumental and some of the most rigorously audited and vetted processes in the world
the ironic thing is that most of the big pharma detractors are also ingesting dozens of supplements, the vast majority of which have little to no good empirical evidence backing them (and very small effect sizes to boot) along with even less regulatory oversight for issues like contamination, formulation, or if it even contains the active ingredient. which isn't to say that 'big pharma' doesn't often pursue avenues for profitability reasons instead of the public good but that's not the typical critique that an anti-empiricist brings most times