[darkarmani]

> The argument that it just isn't fair that someone's mind is more suited for a desk job than someone else, so we should put them on equal footing by administering drugs the rest of their lives is a flawed and slippery slope mentality. Do we say the same the same thing for aspiring athletes who weren't born with the muscle mass to play pro football? "Lets make things fair and pump this kid full of roids so he can be an all pro linebacker"...

Except that isn't the argument. Just like we don't try and save premature babies to try and "be fair" and we don't treat suffers of diseases to "be fair." There is no slippery slope argument here. The onus is on you to prove that there is in fact a slope and then to show how slippery it is.

> Physical work often creates the necessary stimulation that so many of these ADHD cases need.

Who are you to tell sufferers the best way to treat their condition? Don't you think it is best for people to get a say in their treatment?

[NextUserName]

The slippery slope is obvious. More and more people today are put on drugs to deal with problems that used to be dealt with naturally and without side effect. Secondly, more and more average people who don't really need these medications still get on them because they enhance their concentration and productivity. They give them abilities (an edge) that only a few in the general populace naturally have. Why is this bad? because these are mind altering drugs that people will take every day forever.

This type of behavior modification has always had (and always will) consequences.

[darkarmani]

> More and more people today are put on drugs to deal with problems that used to be dealt with naturally and without side effect.

You mean like HIV/AIDs, cancer, autism, epilepsy? Of course there aren't side effects if you aren't treating.

> more and more average people who don't really need these medications still get on them because they enhance their concentration and productivity

You are begging the question. First you are assuming their is some growth to the number of people being treated that don't require treatment. Secondly, you assuming that they are bad because they are "mind altering."

[NextUserName]

>You mean like HIV/AIDs, cancer, autism, epilepsy? Of course there aren't side effects if you aren't treating.

I can see that you cannot even reason logically and understand simple comparisons. No comparison can be made between trying to naturally cure HIV/AIDS and someone with a short attention span while sitting at a desk all day switching to a more suitable job.

>You are begging the question. First you are assuming their is some growth to the number of people being treated that don't require treatment. Secondly, you assuming that they are bad because they are "mind altering."

This is not my assumption. It is a proven fact. The criteria for diagnosed ADHD has changed so dramatically over the last 20 years, a person who is suffering from stress or sleep deprivation (with side effects of a lower attention span and concentration abilities) is commonly diagnosed with ADHD and put on meds.

This conversation is done. I refuse to try and reason with an illogical and senseless person.