[Lammy]

I think it's relevant because to me the article isn't actually about Adderall vs meth, just using that as the framing for a story about why they think it's bad for anything pharma-related to happen out from under the watchful eye of a US-like medical-industrial-congressional complex.

The author is preying upon readers' cultural understanding of meth (via the news media and shows like Breaking Bad) as something inherently dirty, something for which there is no possible safe usage. The existence of FDA-approved meth ruins the framing even if FDA-grade is not what a buyer would be getting.

[epgui]

I'm a biochemist and I completely disagree with your take.

There are very few situations where prescribing methamphetamine is reasonable. It's a niche drug. Even XR formulations of Adderall are considered a blunt instrument compared to more recent alternatives.

The issue is one of trust, integrity, and safety. Pharmacies should not operate like drug dealers.

[BobaFloutist]

Did you mean IR formulations, or are you saying that extended release formulations of Adderall are considered a blunt instrument? Compared to what other than Vyvanse?

[epgui]

IR (instant release) is the opposite of XR (extended release). I said and meant XR. I don’t even think IR should be used anymore, except maybe in super niche situations (I’m not even sure if I can think of any situation where it makes much sense… maybe narcolepsy?).

XR is obviously preferable to IR, but amphetamines have been falling out of favour over the years (it’s a slow trend). Vyvanse, NSRIs and even SSRIs tend to be regarded more and more favourably compared to amphetamines (Adderall) and methylphenidate (Ritalin).

(Disclaimer: I myself take Adderall XR 10mg as prescribed, so I have the opposite of a conflict of interest in this context.)

[ceejayoz]

> The existence of FDA-approved meth...

... changes nothing. If you don't expect to be getting meth, you shouldn't be getting meth.