With you, Amy. As far as I can tell none of us have bodies that work perfectly. We've all got mild depression, or hyperactive thyroid, or hypoactive ditto, or short sight, or poor digestion, or too much alpha-beta-gamma, or something. If you examine anyone thoroughly enough you'll always find something to measure that lies outside the "normal" range - which is why health companies offer free check-ups, to be followed by not-free treatment that you "need".

The only difference between many of these conditions is how recently they were identified and medication discovered. The oldest ones are managed with a stiff G&T when you get home from work, and that's socially acceptable. The newer ones need Ritalin or Prozac and they have a social stigma. Or they're actively illegal. Not fair.

Well, who is it that says, "the plural of anecdote is not data"?

Where I work, we let a speck of transuranic waste flip off the end of a crane cable a few years ago. If you use a ball-point pen, you make a bigger speck making a period at the end on one sentence. It cost over $500 grand to decontaminate the acre of nearby industrial gear. Do you want us to self-medicate? Would that make us more careful? How about your airline pilot, your local police officer, your firemen, the guy on the control panel at Diablo Canyon? The crew of a submarine, at sea when the supply runs out?

How does your prescription affect you when you are scared or angry, and is that the same way other self-administered medications affect other people? Do you wear a plastic chemical suit, SCUBA gear (think "nitrogen narcosis"), or a set of roadracing leathers on your way to work on your Hayabusa, on a blistering California freeway? Will the typical clueless fool yammering on the cell phone in traffic be a better driver with their own choice of drugs? Will the electrical limemen make the right choice near that 13,800V line, and if he doesn't, what will the company have to pay to collect his ashes, and for allowing him to work impaired?

-----

There's a reason Industrial Hygiene and other performance-monitoring agents don't want drugs in the workplace: people die because of them. And it's because of the variability of effects, their unpredictability. It's tough enough figuring out what your workers will blunder into when they're not feeling an excess of self-esteem, or "crashing" when the effects wear off.

And let me call for consistency here: isn't this the blog where I read about the foolishness of blind trust in doctors? How is an individual generally better at gauging the effects of a drug than a doctor? You have the luxury of a profession where if the quality of your output suffers, there are direct consequences to you, but despite its value, yours isn't a profession of great and immediate risk. I suggest that it is greatly inappropriate to suggest that what works for you be "the norm".

And that's aside from anything I might way about the salesman's coke habit making a shambles of the legal system and empowering the most vicious thugs in America - because of personal greed. That's actually a fine example of how public interest can be poisonous to public order.

While I will never work for a company that demands I pee in a cup, I can understand why many (especially retail) organizations do it.

Insurance and Loss Prevention. The majority of your druggies aren't terribly attentive, and have a proclivity to petty theft. Hence drug testing.

The people who can take drugs like coke and still be functional aren't going to have to work for those kinds of companies anyhow, so they usually don't end up in a drug-test regime.

I'm with Radwaste.

And here comes the (very trite and) old "Personal Responsibility" theme again. There is a time and a place for personal drug use, and it's NOT ON THE JOB. After the job, fine, do whatever. But if I can't get the job without peeing in cup, I don't want it, because it's not my employer's business what I do on my own time. If what I'm doing on my own time affects my job in a negative way, I'm being irresponsible, and therefore probably have a problem. If it doesn't affect my job, leave me the fuck alone. I like a doob while I'm out at a concert once in while; I like having a glass of wine or 3 with dinner; those things do not, at all, affect my ability to perform my job. On the other hand, if I'm showing up for the job drunk or stoned, or hung over 3 days out of 5, yeah, there's a problem, all right! But don't be making me pee in a cup because some other moron can't handle their addictions. I don't smoke pot anywhere near as much as I used to, I hate the cocaine, I like my wine. If I'm being responsible about it all, there's no need for anyone else to monitor what I do on my down time. I'm not using any prescriptions drugs at the moment, simply because, thank the gods, I don't need any. But, if someone else needs them to function, that's fine, too, as long as it doesn't fall to me to pick up their slack. If their prescription drugs are interferring with their job, it's time to get the doctor involved again and maybe suggest an alternative. YMMV

Radwaste: whether or not drugs affect your actions at work or otherwise is immaterial, because individuals should be responsible for their own ACTIONS without regard to personal choices that may have influenced those actions.

Does this mean I'm a huge supporter of recreational drug use? Not especially. I am however a proponent of personal responsibility and am continually irritated by the victim status that many (not all, obviously) "addicts" demand. Addiction disgusts me and makes me actively angry, but I want all recreational drugs legalized so more of the morons will eradicate themselves from the already IQ-deficient gene pool. You know who you are! And hey, additionally, while you're doing us all a favor and getting rid of yourself, you can pay more taxes!

And that's aside from anything I might way about the salesman's coke habit making a shambles of the legal system and empowering the most vicious thugs in America - because of personal greed. That's actually a fine example of how public interest can be poisonous to public order.

Except that it's not the guy who snorts a little (without breaking any other law) who's making a shambles of the legal system and empowering the vicious thugs. That's a result of the war on drugs. Consider Prohibition - vicious thugs selling illegal alcohol, causing all kinds of problems. Make alcohol legal and taxed, and you've taken away the power of the criminals and empowered the bar owner. The thugs distributing the coke are making tons of money because of the war on drugs, not because a guy does a bit every day. . . .

I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws against driving or flying while impaired by drugs. But why should it be illegal to sell a car while on a drug-induced boost?

Just to clarify: the "you" in the above posting did not refer to anyone in this forum, it was used as a generalization.

Also, I am close to any number of people who use drugs recreationally and do not consider themselves "addicts" - a word that is used as a crutch. They take responsibility for their own actions without blaming any indiscretion on chemical substances.

I have had job similar to rad wastes and can attest that drug testing usually nails the idiots who would become a danger on the job. I worked reactor over hall as a commercial diver. You had months of warning before going on the job. The boss would actually ask "So which one of you would pass a test in 3 months" That was the signal to stop what ever we were all doing. I didn't care since I didn't even smoke cancer sticks at the time. There was always one asshole who missed them memo usually the one who the boss was looking at during the conversation. Non of the compentant guys ever got nailed. Either they didn't do ellicit stuff or they were smart enough to know when not to. If you are in a job that is constantly exposing you to those things then you really shouldn't touch any of the ellicits and only drink when you don't have to go to work at all the next day.

As far as personal responsibility sure absolutely advocate that for all non-dangerous jobs. Also as radwaste pointed out if your a writer or a college professor or a software engineer (one of my old room mates could have smoked snoop dog under the table) then be my guest have all the fun you want. Now if your the guy with his hand on the trigger or the one holding my air supply line you'd better be in the here and now and not thinking about the joint, blow, speed ball ect or under their influence.

And that's aside from anything I might way about the salesman's coke habit making a shambles of the legal system and empowering the most vicious thugs in America

And it's because of the variability of effects, their unpredictability.

All the issues you've raised apply to alcohol as much as any other drug. Many of your co-workers, airline pilots, police, and firemen routinely self medicate with alcohol in their free time. If the concern is safety and any drug use in their personal time is unacceptable, then every single one of the drinkers should be removed as well. The only difference I can see is it took us a lot less time to wise up to how ineffective alcohol prohibition was.

Wait we need to separate drug testing at work from legalizing drug public policy. I don't care if coke or speed is legal all my concern is is that the person who is using is not endangering me. You want to wreck your own body why should I care, or have a say in it. As long as I don't have to pay for it by you being on public health care, or you being a threat to me by your actions.

I'm not trying to argue that there shouldn't be any drug testing by the way. Anyone reasonable would agree a herion user is much more likely to use on the job and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Radwaste's workplace. But it's silly to fire one of Rad's coworkers just because he'd rather have a joint than a few beers on the weekend.

"self medicate with alcohol in their free time." Yes but you can smell if someone is impaired with booze. You can tell instantly if so and so hit the whisky at lunch. If someone pops E after lunch he'd have plenty of time to kill someone before his intoxication became obvious. Also the ambulance company I worked for tested for alcohol as well as other substances.

"But it's silly to fire one of Rad's coworkers just because he'd rather have a joint than a few beers on the weekend." I agree testing for weed seams kind of dumb but unless your supervisor is real sharp he'll mis the guy next to you being stoned. Testing vs not testing for weed is something I'm on the fence about.

Yes but you can smell if someone is impaired with booze.

Sean: I drink Grey Goose and so does my wife. One drink on her and I can smell it. Assuming I haven't had one or two my self. If you are both drinking then you won't smell the booze. Everclear you can smell from across the room. Unfortunately sever diabetics smell similar.

Norman says: "The only difference between many of these conditions is how recently they were identified and medication discovered. The oldest ones are managed with a stiff G&T when you get home from work, and that's socially acceptable. The newer ones need Ritalin or Prozac and they have a social stigma. Or they're actively illegal. Not fair."

Yes, and another consideration is whose condition the drug influences. If young men use certain drugs to bulk up their muscles or enhance their mood or improve their concentration, that's a problem. If we old men use certain drugs (as I use Flomax) so we can pee better, that's A-OK. If women use drugs to reduce their fertility, politicians think up reasons to limit that use. If old men use drugs to restore or increase their potency, politicians make commercials to promote that use.

If you want to snort, don't get caught.

If you're so smart - understanding exactly the extent of your happy non-habit, accurately assessing the quality of your occasional supply, expertly monitoring your merry doses - ducking the pesky law won't present a problem, will it?

Yes, I've experimented a lot. So have the vast majority of my friends. Some still do. But if you say you're perfectly aware of all the risks, act like it.

Do you want us to self-medicate? Would that make us more careful? How about your airline pilot, your local police officer, your firemen, the guy on the control panel at Diablo Canyon? The crew of a submarine, at sea when the supply runs out?

The people who do these sorts of jobs should be subject to random screenings for the exact reason you note - screw ups kill people. That could have happened at the boat building job I had in my early twenties, too, where we used cranes and lifts and torches and all sorts of cool but dangerous gear, but they didn't pay enough to drug test. For knowledge workers, it isn't the same. It's silly to test reporters or professors or whatever (I bet the LAT had to do it or else piss of the union people who drive their trucks and etc.).

I'm convinced there is a better way to handle our drug policy - I favor decriminalizing most drugs, adopting a treatment model for people with problems, and putting the sale of these drugs into the legal sphere, while maintaining punishments for bad behavior on drugs (i.e., treat them like alcohol). Human beings want to get out of their heads some times; this is fact. The only way to eliminate drugs from our society is to also eliminate our freedoms. Further, the illegality of drugs provides funds the worst elements of our society and several others that are closely entwined with ours. I'm not saying that there won't be costs of decriminalization, but I'm pretty sure the costs of prohibition are much higher.

"But it's silly to fire one of Rad's coworkers just because he'd rather have a joint than a few beers on the weekend."

Have you ever seen a long-term weed user? The "stoner" stereotype exists for a reason. With long-term use the THCs will accumulate and slow reaction time. What you do on your own time is up to you - provided that it doesn't carry over into the work place, or onto the freeway going to the workplace.

You say "Ritalin", I say "Cocaine-lite", it's all about the dopamine...

"Both cocaine and Ritalin were taken up mostly in the basal ganglia. Cocaine is an addictive substance. Ritalin, in doses prescribed for ADD, is not. The study clearly showed why. Cocaine is a powerful enhancer of dopamine availability in the brain and it has both very fast uptake and clearance from the brain. It comes on strong in a powerful wave and then it's gone. The person gets a high high, then it's gone so the person wants more. In contrast, Ritalin also increases the availability of dopamine to the basal ganglia, but it is less powerful in its effects and it clears from the brain at a much slower rate." (from: http://www.amenclinics.com/bp/systems/basal.php)

I'm on Concerta the slow release form of Ritalin. First I'd love for someone to fins a slow release form of Cocaine. Second Ritalin and Concerta are so heavily regulated that it would be easier for me to go out and get a crack rock 3 blocks from my doctors office then to get a 3 month supply of my proscribed medication. The legal drug are all regulated some heavily in fact anything that makes you feel good from taking it is a class 2 and thus harder to get than crack cocaine.

The only problem I see with making drugs legal is with legality comes liability. Given the way that most drug companies are viewed already which one of them would be stupid enough to start making coke or heroine. The federal government would be the only ones who would be safe enough to start producing it. The wind bag Al Sharpton will sue the feds like he sewed the gun makers for gang violence.Also how would the now legal street drugs be regulated. Do we treat them as we do cigarettes and beer, require prescriptions? Weed is a hell of a lot easier we would treat it in the same way as we do cigarettes. You grow it you dry it you smoke it.

"Oh, sure, it's voluntary a lot of time -- as in, volunteer it or you don't get the job."

Uh . . . and?

Given the amount of money employers plow into providing health plans, training, and salary for their workforce, I don't see how drug testing is an unreasonable requirement.

Well, Curly, Ritalin may work in a way that's not totally dissimilar to cocaine, but a lot of legal drugs work in a way that's not totally dissimilar to illegal ones. It's because they don't work EXACTLY the same way that they're legal. And cocaine-based nose drops are actually legal, though only advised for very short-term use - use them for too long and they'll scar your nasal cavity.

On the one hand, I've gone through quite a few drug tests in my life as I've applied for completely knowledge-based jobs, and I can't say it's added to my life. On the other hand, think for a moment about the profiles of people who work at physical activity-based jobs and those who work at knowledge-based jobs. The former are less likely to, say, have college degrees. With the exception of certain people such as pilots, ship captains and the like, they're probably being paid less than people at knowledge-based jobs. I'm guessing they're more likely to be minorities, on average, but I could be wrong about that. Now say that *only* those people have to get tested for drugs, and see how far that gets you. There would be discrimination complaints out the wazoo. Any unions representing these people would scream bloody murder. So, no testing the guy operating a giant crane, or driving a bulldozer, or steering a massive ship...until he (or she) hits something while in the middle of a nice high, killing people and/or endangered animals and engendering massive lawsuits and legal issues for the company involved.

Just putting a policy in place that puts jobs with physical safety risks out of bounds for drug and alcohol addicts won't really work, either. After E*xxon did that following the Valdez crash, the new policy - which had been enthusiastically approved by the Department of Justice - garnered major opposition from the EEOC. Major. The company fought that, and eventually won, but most companies don't have the resources or will at the top to do that. I'm guessing the EEOC would have something to say if a company tried to institute drug tests only for certain workers, too, because God forbid we appear to treat workers any differently outside of their paychecks!

Also, while it seems ridiculous that Matt Welch would have to pee in a cup...if he were a recreational coke user and he ended up getting something false printed in the newspaper, and the paper got sued, his coke habit would come out and the paper would be considered liable for hiring an "addict" even if Matt hadn't been using coke for weeks before making the mistake. If your hypothetical salesman who occasionally uses coke in a non-habitual way were to misjudge his use and cause a multi-car pileup, his employer would be sued. Etc.

My attitude on drug law is more or less along the lines of Amy's. My attitude on corporate drug testing is that, well, given modern-day personal injury (etc.) law, companies have to have at least plausible deniability about their workers using drugs that CAN make their behavior harmful to others, and given modern-day discrimination law they can't test some people and not others. So, everyone pees in a cup.

I agree with Radwaste. (Rad, you have mastered the art of the polemic.)

I have taught students at the university level. Many of my students had diagnoses for ADHD. I was required to give them extra exam time and and extra leniency for late homework. Required by law.

I have several problem with this: (1) If the drugs bring people to a normal level of functioning, then why did I have to give extra time. (2) The "level playing field argument" advanced by my dean fails. The drugs bring them to a normal level of functioning. Extra time is tilting the playing field to their advantage. (3) Many of my "ADHD" students freely admitted that they only secured a diagnosis for ADHD to get extra exam time, thus boosting their grades. (4) There is no reliable way to distinguish the ADHD brain from the non-ADHD brain. The diagnosis is subjective.

People who require performance enhancing drugs should not be allowed in some occupations. For example, I don't want an ADHD surgeon operating on me, and I definitely don't want the law to require me to be "tolerant" of physiological "diversity." I don't want to fly with an ADHD airline pilot nor do I want to do a tandem skydive with an ADHD instructor.

If people require performance enhancing drugs to achieve a normal level of functioning in potentially hazardous activities, I want disclosure of the kind we see for packaged products. I don't want universities to be required to give ADHD students extra exam time. In short, I don't want to have to make concessions to the physiology or choices of other people. I think the gang at Reason would agree with that.

On the other hand, it's obvious, I quite enjoy reading material produced by ADHD writers. ;-)

...and given modern-day discrimination law they can't test some people and not others. So, everyone pees in a cup.

What if, in lieu of the whiz quiz, they were to offer a waiver that you would sign, stating that you would take, oh I don't know, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for whatever happened to you when you were off the clock? You know, kind of like what you have to do, anyway?

And isn't there a Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches, which to me, is peering into the blood and urine of all of us, looking for "substances" (Amy)?

The Bill of Rights does not constrain private action but rather constrains the actions of the government. As a matter of law, this is why the contents of an illegal search are inadmissible when performed by the government but potentially admissible when performed by a private citizen.

In this country as in Europe, we have too easily blurred the line between Human Rights and Civil Rights. Civil Rights are granted by statute, and to me are highly controversial. I suspect much of the Reason staff would agree with that. I know they would not interpret the 4th Amendment as a constraint on private action.

Suppose I want to condition a business transaction on certain terms. Why shouldn't I be able to contract for any terms and conditions whatsoever (subject to the constraints of only of human rights not civil rights), including the chemical contents of your blood? There is no coercion. You don't have to do the deal. I don't have to do the deal. I may not be able to get anyone to do the deal. But that's my problem.

Second Ritalin and Concerta are so heavily regulated that it would be easier for me to go out and get a crack rock 3 blocks from my doctors office then to get a 3 month supply of my proscribed medication.

Hear, hear. I'm 43 years old, and I've put a lot into becoming newspaper columnist. I'm taking my Ritalin, not selling it to children on the playground. But, I'm treated like I'm probably selling it to kids on the playground.

People will drink and drive and kill other people, but that doesn't mean I should be prohibited from having a glass of wine.

Jeff: You want to get me started on the university setting, fine. First I have not used my diagnosis to get shit out of any university. Those disingenuous lying sacks of shit have quite merrily taken me for a ride more than once. Just because some of the dumb asses you teach are like most university admin (not professors though some will occasionally be both ) doesn't mean you need to paint all students as such. So they faked a diagnosis to get more test time how does this change the fact that some students (many of whom you couldn't tell) might need Ritalin to succeed. When I got diagnosed I went from a 2.8 GPA to 3.8 GPA with non of these bull shit accommodations you so loath.

"There is no reliable way to distinguish the ADHD brain from the non-ADHD brain." Not yet, but they are getting close. The same argument can easily be used for depression, let me guess no doctors on Prozac for you too.

I personally would love to have an ADD surgeon assuming he actually has the disorder. When you actually have ADD or ADHD you learn some fairly useful coping skills. Like rotating your focus, thus the ADD surgeon won't miss the change in vitals or the small bleed while a normal one is more likely to.

"extra leniency for late homework." Utter horse shit. Your dean may have required this but this is not at all required by federal law as accommodations for ADD/ADHD.

Just because some of the dumb asses you teach are like most university admin (not professors though some will occasionally be both ) doesn't mean you need to paint all students as such. So they faked a diagnosis to get more test time how does this change the fact that some students (many of whom you couldn't tell) might need Ritalin to succeed.

I agree that university administrators are fuck alls. But, as usual, you can't keep to the locus of the dispute. I'm not arguing that students shouldn't be able to take Ritalin. I'm arguing that once they do, they shouldn't get extra time or any other special accommodations. I am also not "painting all students as such." I'm "painting" people who get special accommodation. Since that class of people is no even close to "all students" as you have claimed, you're being dumb again.

I personally would love to have an ADD surgeon assuming he actually has the disorder. When you actually have ADD or ADHD you learn some fairly useful coping skills. Like rotating your focus, thus the ADD surgeon won't miss the change in vitals or the small bleed while a normal one is more likely to.

LOL wonderful, vlad. You've turn a disorder that supposedly causes inattention into a disorder that prompts greater attention. Are you really this dumb?

I must say, when I discuss ADHD with people it seems to be everything and nothing, a disorder requiring accommodation and a special ability that enhances performance, a disease and a psychological crutch.

Whatever.

So they faked a diagnosis to get more test time how does this change the fact that some students (many of whom you couldn't tell) might need Ritalin to succeed.

I don't care if you don't have an ADHD diagnosis and Ritalin helps you. Coffee helps me, too.

And actually Vlad is right about what Jeff calls "a disorder that...causes inattention into a disorder that prompts GREATER attention."

It's called hyperfocus, and it's what causes me to spend an afternoon fixing a single line in my column. I try to hear my assistant's voice in my head, telling me to move on. It's when stuff's boring that I can't focus on it. If I get that hyperfocus chain around my brain, I can be kind of fucked by it for hours.

People who don't have this type of brain function have a very hard time understanding it. Getting diagnosed with it was very helpful, because I recognize some of the stuff that can trip me up and can put an effort into seeing it doesn't.

"I'm arguing that once they do, they shouldn't get extra time or any other special accommodations." The amount of special perks students who kiss the proffs ass get I don't see the harm. Though again I didn't get any special accommodations. I know plenty of accommodations the lack wit butter monkey (prof and department head)gave to his favored students.

"Many of my students had diagnoses for ADHD." I'm assuming by many you are reffering to a substantial portion of the class.

"I must say, when I discuss ADHD with people it seems to be everything and nothing, a disorder requiring accommodation and a special ability that enhances performance, a disease and a psychological crutch." Um, it's called perspective oh wise and noble academic, you.

It's when stuff's boring that I can't focus on it (Amy).

Amy, it is hard for me to understand the ADHD disorder because we all have this problem. It's hard to concentrate on boring stuff, that's why it's boring. If it was easy to concentrate on it, it wouldn't be boring. What AHDH folks seem to be saying is, I can't easily concentrate of things on which it's hard to concentrate. This appears to be a too convenient tautology.

I don't have a hard time understanding the ADHD experience because I haven't experienced what you've experienced. I have. I daresay everyone has. But perhaps I've not experienced it to the same degree. Maybe the hyperfocus state for ADHD sufferers is excessive and totally unresponsive to their will. Then we have a serious mental illness, and something for which many risky occupations should take account.

I just can't see how it can be both ways. Either it impairs functioning or it doesn't. If it does, then we can reasonably take account of it in educational and occupational advancement. If it doesn't impair functioning, then we need not accommodate it.

"What AHDH folks seem to be saying is, I can't easily concentrate of things on which it's hard to concentrate." No what we are saying is "I can't concentrate (as in lacking the ability) on things that are boring but necessary."

"Either it impairs functioning or it doesn't." This is similar to great writers being bi-polar. When your on your dead on and you whip those around you. When your off a 10 year old makes for stiff competition.

"I have. I daresay everyone has." No you haven't or to qualify what your describing is a mild form of it some of the time. We are talking about a constant lack of attention doing mundane stupid shit. The surgeon will perform the surgery perfectly but will forget to submit the proper billing paper work cause it's boring.

I know plenty of accommodations the lack wit butter monkey (prof and department head)gave to his favored students.

No arguments there. I've personally witnessed female a professor giving female students the questions for an impending final, to boost the female grades in her Analysis II class. I've seen all manner of special treatment in grading and other stuff. Believe me, we agree on that.

I just don't see how that bullshit justifies or minimizes the ADHD accommodation bullshit.

I'm assuming by many you are reffering to a substantial portion of the class.

No, the Department.

Um, it's called perspective oh wise and noble academic, you.

Or it's called being illogical, padawan.

I'm not an academic. I quickly realized I'd never be granted tenure by the Parliament of Fools that run most university academic departments. Yes, the professors are even more whacked than the administrators.

To qualify: When I was in class I'd be half asleep cause it was boring. I got the concept on try 1 and faded. Now the prof switches topics and I'm still coming out of my bordum and miss it. When I'm in the lab neither the profs nor the TA (you want to talk about accommodations) could keep up. So that would make me a good engineer and a lousy student. Now unlike some people I went to engineering BS and MS to become an engineer not a student. So if my ADD makes me a good engineer but a lousy student then wouldn't that say something about how engineering it taught? All of the great students from my undergrad and some from grad school made real shitty engineers. A few I think made good MDs but I'm not sure.

"It's called hyperfocus, and it's what causes me to spend an afternoon fixing a single line in my column. I try to hear my assistant's voice in my head, telling me to move on. It's when stuff's boring that I can't focus on it."

I wouldn't want to hear a surgeon say this in the context of a standard operation!

(Writers - sure. Surgeons, nope!)

No you haven't or to qualify what your describing is a mild form of it some of the time. We are talking about a constant lack of attention doing mundane stupid shit.

How do you know? If can't know what it's like to have ADHD, you can't know what it's like to have "normal" functioning. I'm telling you, as a guy who is not ADHD that what you are describing is my normal everyday experience.

This is why I think ADHD is part psychological and part religious. ADHD sufferers have no basis for comparison, but they believe it. And their belief is zealous to the point hysteria.

The surgeon will perform the surgery perfectly but will forget to submit the proper billing paper work cause it's boring.

Unreal. Like this is a rare experience? I hate to break ti to you, we all do this, vlad. LOL

So if my ADD makes me a good engineer but a lousy student then wouldn't that say something about how engineering it taught? All of the great students from my undergrad and some from grad school made real shitty engineers. A few I think made good MDs but I'm not sure (vlad).

Couldn't agree more. We are qualification happy. Most skills are practical and can't be learned in a classroom. Now if we could only get companies to grasp that experience is more important than education. Vlad, we agree on all this stuff.

Having never used my accommodations I don't see them as necessary for me. Given all of the stuff we have both seen why would ADD/ADHD accommodation make much of a difference. Should they be there probably not do I think they should be removed not really. There is little integrity in academia why pretend otherwise.

"Or it's called being illogical, padawan." Oh no argument perspective has nothing to do with logic. If I gave the impression that it did my bad. The perspective is a human experince. You can't say what tripping is unless you've tried it how can you comment on ADD/ADHD if you haven't had it.

Now many of the people who claim to have ADD/ADHD are lying I'm not going to argue. Make something beneficial and many people will take advantage of it. In my case one of the profs I like was a ex-navy man. When I was finishing up my MS I told him about having ADD. His response: "No shit Vlad. Till I met you I was sure it was bullshit, you however have it no questions asked." If it's sever enough it real obvious.

"Now if we could only get companies to grasp that experience is more important than education." Huh, where have you been looking. Out side of big federal contractors most companies won't touch fresh out of school, 1 year minimum everywhere I went. The only reason I got where I was out of school was because the project I worked on matched exactly what they were doing, and the schools reputation for project oriented teaching. That's why an MS (from certain schools) makes a big difference. Some schools are catching on but some like my undergrad are professor makers and industry won't touch them.

"Unreal. Like this is a rare experience? I hate to break ti to you, we all do this, vlad. LOL" No I think you missed what I meant. He/she will not (as in never) fill in that paper work even if under the guns of his employer. If you told someone with ADD that they will be fired if they do not fill out the paper work they will do it once or twice out of the newness of the situation. Then they will stop, and get fired.

The difference between most (not sure what to call them) and the average human is degree.

"Maybe the hyperfocus state for ADHD sufferers is excessive and totally unresponsive to their will. Then we have a serious mental illness, and something for which many risky occupations should take account."

I agree, Jeff.

Often it's hard to totally empathize with those who have an erratic condition. But I'm having a devil of a time even grasping what vlad is talking about.

Ok best way I can describe my experience. I start something new it's fun exciting cool. The project gets to a certain point (I'm now weeks or months ahead of fellow engineers and my schedule) and just get boring. Now must people will be unhappy but will grind through it. If you have ADD which is untreated you can not grind through it. The effort that it takes you to focus on this task uses up most of your mental capacity and now the task is taking forever cause you are reduced to the mental capacity of 10 year old. All your effort is set to stay on task and not much is being spent on the actual task.

Now put me preferable treated in front of a huge display with shit load of blinking lights I'll be the first one to notice when something changes and the first to find it. One other thing with ADD if that your shit at judging time. When you get hyper focused hour pass like minutes. First programing project I had (I like the class BTW) I sat down to play with it right when it was assigned (2 weeks early) at 6 pm, I thought I had blown through it in a bout an hour. I realized I was off when I tried to stand up, felt like I'd been sitting for hours. I was late to my 8 am class.

I didn't think this was about ADD or ADHD. I thought the topic was about doing drugs and pissing in cups ... which I would like to comment on as I've done both and the latter wasn't for a job - but that's for another day ;)

Flynne, you are terrific! To few people adhere to Personal Responsibility. What you do in your free time is your business and shouldn't come up at work.

>oh I don't know, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for whatever happened to you when you were off the clock?

Actually, it shouldn't even matter if you do drugs / drink on the job as long as it doesn't adversely affect your performance, and as long as you would be willing to take responsibility for it if it did.

Unless of course you show up to work fucked up AND mistakes in your job could cause the death of someone else. I think for those types of jobs there should be testing and ideally that testing could differentiate between the weed you smoked sat. night (which, as I said before, should not matter) and if you were effed up on Tuesday morning at work (which should terminate your employment).

On the "war on drugs" - that is just another way for the goverment to suck money out of my pockets, paying for joe blow in prison for having an ounce of weed in his car. Ridiculous ... that is good money I could be spending on vodka.

Ironically, my husband is prescribed Adderall (he's ADD), and I am prescribed Xanax (i'm just crazy). So we both can do drugs at work!

"Then we have a serious mental illness, and something for which many risky occupations should take account." The USMC certainly takes this view on it much to my own unhappiness about it. However with ADD as long as you are medicated your either fine or way ahead of you coworkers and it depends heavily on your job. Btw this does not alter the fact that even with medication the intelligence of people with ADD will vary. If someone with ADD has an IQ of 120 (around the minimum for an ADD diagnosis) they will be borderline special needs without medication. If you have someone who is ADD and struggling but succeeding without meds once they get them you wouldn't believe the shit they can do. The ability to harness hyper focus but still control it makes for a lethal combination.

"If you have someone who is ADD and struggling but succeeding without meds once they get them you wouldn't believe the shit they can do. The ability to harness hyper focus but still control it makes for a lethal combination."

Sounds like a terrific idea for a movie too, vlad.

"Actually, it shouldn't even matter if you do drugs / drink on the job as long as it doesn't adversely affect your performance, and as long as you would be willing to take responsibility for it if it did." As long as these are non-critical jobs sure I agree. Then they need to take drug dependence off the disability list. If disability laws remain the same it would be illegal for a company to fire an alcoholic for getting too drunk on the job if he went to AA regularly if others were allowed to drink.

"Sounds like a terrific idea for a movie too, vlad." They have plenty of idiot savant movies. But yeah my word choice could have been better.

What if, in lieu of the whiz quiz, they were to offer a waiver that you would sign, stating that you would take, oh I don't know, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for whatever happened to you when you were off the clock?

That would be lovely, but I doubt that would stop someone who you ran over with a crane, bulldozer or car suing your business for putting the public in harm's way. If you are in the process of work, you are representing whatever company you work for, no matter what you've signed, to the best of my knowledge. Not to mention the PR angle - if you were out on a sales call for a company and were responsible for a disaster while you were, say, high on crack (like the woman who plowed through a street festival in DC several months ago), the company's name would be dragged through the mud.

Look, I think the "war on drugs" is one of the more pernicious big-government programs we have. I think it warps the practice of law enforcement in umpteen different ways, from "flexible" definitions of the fourth amendment to no-knock raids to asset forfeitures. I think the doctors who are in jail for prescribing "too much" pain medicine have been the victims of a grave injustice. I think we're schizophrenic and hypocritical in regards to alcohol vs., say, pot. But if I were running a company, I wouldn't want someone on the job who was drunk or high. And yes, some people can use illegal drugs recreationally and not get addicted...but I can guarantee you that there is a not-insignificant number of actual drug and alcohol addicts right now who believe that they're just recreational users. And as a non-drug user whose alcoholic intake is limited to the occasional single glass of wine, I don't want to be picking up the slack for my coworkers who have misjudged the effect of their "recreational" drug or alcohol use. Been there, done that, got the bags under my eyes from working late through the night to compensate for someone else's lack of effort. If you can't stop using any type of recreational substance - pot, coke, whatever - for a few weeks before taking a drug test, then I'd say that's a good incentive to reassess the role that plays in your life.

Listen, whatever you guys wanna do about the stony stuff is fine. But if you're going to do anything radical, let's just fire the pharmacists and open up the candy store. I'm almost fifty, and I could do a better job managing my blood pressure and cholesterol and all the rest if the doctor would just pass me the prescription pad.

If teenagers are going to be given the right to have as much fun as they want, I should have unfettered access to meds.

"If teenagers are going to be given the right to have as much fun as they want, I should have unfettered access to meds." Sure I'm game. Not sure why you want to fire the pharmacist though. All he could do is tell you not to mix certain things. I think the people you want to toss are the doctors and get your own prescribing rights.

I'm pretty sure the makers of the fun drugs would support your decision so long as they are not held liable.

Jeff -

There is no reliable way to distinguish the ADHD brain from the non-ADHD brain. The diagnosis is subjective.

Go to scienceblogs.com and search their site for ADHD. Your wrong. It is still being studied, but they can in fact scan for and find the areas of lower activity that point to ADHD. The diagnosis is no more subjective than that of many illnesses.

As far as the differences go, I have spent most of my life unmedicated and have severe ADHD.

My partner hates it when I try to clean the apartment, any portion of it, because inevitably, I end up trying to clean every room at the same time, cook something and find a couple other things to do, all at the same time.

I can be getting ready to take the six year old to the park or something else that's fun. He's getting ready, I go to use the bathroom before we leave. Next thing you know, it's twenty-minutes later and my son is asking me why I'm making a snack and weren't we going to the park a while ago.

I go to get groceries with my son. We get on the train, get into a tangential conversation. Next thing you know, were fifteen stops past the grocery store, heading for the book store. Momma is not pleased when we get home, not with the dinner makings we went out for, but a pile of books. Now it's an hour after dinnertime and I'm running to get Chinese. It's possible, I will make it home with the Chinese I need to walk three blocks to pick up, but theres no guarantee.

I spend fourty-five minutes, trying to find the hat that happens to be on my head. I spend the same amount of time trying to find the keys in my hand. I have to go back home, four or five times, before I have everything I'm supposed to take with me.

Hell, it even occasionally spills over into my work. For the most part, I get hyper-focused and have little problem, beyond a fairly extreme, fairly impractical perfectionism. But often enough, I make the stupidest blunders. I recently set my tape-measure down, under the shower pan on a bathroom remodel. I recently went and picked up some plumbing supplies. I got the fittings I needed. I picked up a couple of gadgets that looked interesting (way too much a sucker for gadgets). I picked up the 3/4 inch brushes I needed, but failed to grab the 1/2 inch brushes I needed. The irony, my 3/4 inch brushes weren't entirely worn out yet, my halfs were and I needed them far more than the 3/4s.

I recognize that everything that I listed, happens to most everyone. The difference is, that it happens to me, every fucking day. This is how I live, day in and day out.

OTOH, there are a lot of advantages. For one, I can write music, track several comment threads and work on short stories, all at the same time. I am capable of engineering solutions to house repair problems in my sleep (literally, I regularly dream about jobs and often enough wake up with the solution for particularly tough problems). By getting away from linear thinking, I am able to approach home repair issues and remodel jobs, as a whole. I don't look at one aspect of the home(i.e. the roof or the siding or the plumbing) to figure out what it wrong, I look at it all and how they interact as a whole.

Your creating a fallacious either or scenario here, where one does not exist. It's not that people with ADHD have problems or they don't. Overcompensation was probably not the best descriptive for it. The reality is that in some areas people with ADHD are deficient. In other areas, they are superior to neurotypicals.

Crid -

I am not for ridding ourselves of pharmacists, they can be great sources of info on drug contraindictions. But consistency being rather paramount, I actually do believe that all pharmaceuticals should be available OTC. I also believe that it would be a great idea to make sure your pharmacist knows what recreational drugs your on, so they can make sure you know of dangerous contraindictions with those and medicinals you might be on.

To be sure, I am all for having a doctor also be in the mix, because they can often times be a good judge of what medications are appropriate for what and mixed with what. But I just don't think it's right to assume people can't make these decisions for themselves.

I also believe that signing a liability waver, if one is taking anything, without the express recommendation of a doctor and especially if it is against the advice of a doctor and/or pharmacist, would also be very reasonable.

By and by, on the topic of liability, one would assume that the same laws that apply to licit, recreational drugs would apply to the currently illicit ones. I.e. I can buy cigs and alcohol, both of which are bad for my health. I know they're bad for my health (ok, health class also discussed it) because the packages they come it, say they are. Problem solved.

As far as crimes committed while under the influence. I am all for far more stringent, serious penalties for things like drunk driving, or other crimes committed while under the influence. Drunk driving, should first, have a reasonable bar set. Go past that bar, you should be charged with attempted manslaughter. I'm pretty sure that going that route, might drive it home that driving drunk just isn't fucking acceptable.

Likewise, crimes of "insanity" due to intoxication, unless the intoxication was involuntary (i.e. someone slips you a mickey), should be charged with the crime, sans any sanity defense. If they choose to get fucked up, choose to be in whatever circumstance caused the crime, they deserve to get nailed for it.

Legalizing illicit drugs, would solve far more problems than it would create. If nothing else, freeing up billions of dollars annually, spent fighting the drug war and bring in massive revenues, through taxes on said drugs. It would also eliminate a whole hell of a lot of crime, especially in shitty neighborhoods like mine.

"My partner hates it when I try to clean the apartment, any portion of it, because inevitably, I end up trying to clean every room at the same time, cook something and find a couple other things to do, all at the same time." I'm lucky in that my wife has it too so it's less of an issue.

"I spend fourty-five minutes, trying to find the hat that happens to be on my head. I spend the same amount of time trying to find the keys in my hand. I have to go back home, four or five times, before I have everything I'm supposed to take with me." I cringe at my familiarity with this, even when medicated it's still there just less. We got one of those Brooks Brothers Key and wallet finders it makes life easier.

Vlad -

I thought I had blown through it in a bout an hour. I realized I was off when I tried to stand up, felt like I'd been sitting for hours. I was late to my 8 am class.

So I'm designing a system for copper panel flat roofs, back in the days, when I was primarily a roofer. The home owner was very specific about not wanting any fasteners to penetrate the panels, withing four inches of the soldered joints. My boss was going to refuse the job, with the idea that this just wasn't possible, when I told him to let me see if I could figure it out.

So I go out to the shop around four in the afternoon, to play around with the bender and some aluminum. I got very excited when (it seemed to me) about two hours later, I had it figured out. I noticed rather quickly, there weren't many lights on in the house. Turns out they forgot I was in the shop and it was three in the morning. Then I lost the rush I had from the focus and passed out on their couch. Having left the prototype panel in the office, my boss was really geeked when they finally woke me up. We got the job and I got a three thousand dollar bonus for engineering the panels. I still get paid, every time they use that system too, not that a lot of folks in MI can afford to put copper on their roofs these days.

"I'm taking my Ritalin, not selling it to children on the playground. But, I'm treated like I'm probably selling it to kids on the playground."

I'm neither denying its effectiveness in your case nor suggesting that your work suffers. I think I've expressed my fandom often enough, and I do so again, now.

But there are three obviously insane assertions which appear above that I have to shout about. 1) You cannot switch the effects of drug use on and off to appear at work. We have a tough enough time - as has been noted - getting people to show up "straight" now, even when they know what is expected of them. 2) You cannot make injuries and losses go away by "taking responsibility". Even huge and perfect insurance coverage doesn't bring back lost time, limbs, loved ones. 3) It is not, and never has been the fault of law enforcement that someone breaks the law. That's so ridiculous I'm embarrassed to read it. The unintended consequences which have attended government action at the urging of the people do not explain away the plain fact that people break the law because their need to feel good is more valuable to them than anything else.

There is a wonderful irony to claiming to be responsible while yearning to be rid of it through chemicals. Can you distinguish - and produce a legal difference - between medication to obtain "normal" performance levels and the recreational use of drugs, the continuation of which can and will do harm? I suggest that you can get prescriptions to obtain "normal" function now, and that said prescriptions are also proof against being fired for their use. In that case what are we really talking about?

Go to scienceblogs.com and search their site for ADHD. Your wrong. It is still being studied, but they can in fact scan for and find the areas of lower activity that point to ADHD. The diagnosis is no more subjective than that of many illnesses.

DSM-IV reports a subjective diagnosis protocol. There is no brain scan that can diagnose ADHD. I'm afraid you have been mislead on the matter.

the researchers stressed that MRI remains a research tool and cannot be used to diagnose ADHD in any given child. This is true for other neurological methods of evaluating the brain, such as PET and SPECT (National Institute of Health).

This is not the case for ADHD diagnoses, which are often given by doctors who have never even observed the subjective DSM-IV behavors. The behavioral profile used to diagnose ADHD is usually self-reported or reported by parents.

Now, as a necessary qualification, I'm not disputing the possibility of ADHD as a legitimate brain disorder. I'm claiming (1) ADHD sufferers report problems that also afflict normal people. (2) The problems reported are a matter of degree, and that degree is subjective. (3) Evidence of genetic and/or neurological causation correlates to subjective reports of behaviors. The studies thus far have not used randomly selected control groups drawn from the general population, so we don't know what's "normal" as a statistical comparison. (4) The evidence for non-environmental, non-socialized causes for ADHD are often exagerrated. In fact, the evidence has been exaggerrated here.

(5) My main point is that even if people are diagnosed and medicated with ADHD, no one should be required to provide special accomodation.

If the claims of ADHD are true, it is a serious physical and mental illness. In general, dangerous or sensitive occupations are off limits to people with serious mental illness. Vlad's regrets notwithstanding, it should stay that way.

Should this be up to the government? Not in my opinion. We only need disclosure. Let private citizens decide for themselves about risk.

I have a prescription for 5mg of Ritalin, twice a day. I have a condition known as Central Nervous System Hypersomnia, which translates to, "He's sleepy, but we don't know why." I don't quite meet the quantitative definition of narcolepsy--but I'm in the same zip code.

Even when I get lots of sleep, I have a very hard time working at a desk. I either get so sleepy I get no work done, or I get so jumpy that I get a little bit of work done on a lot of different tasks.

5mg of Ritalin works very well on both for me. I don't fall asleep, and I can concentrate. But there's those side effects--so I don't take it. Instead, I created a new career that lets me work on my feet.

I made a lot more money when I was on Ritalin. Them's the breaks.

Radwaste -

I suggest that you can get prescriptions to obtain "normal" function now, and that said prescriptions are also proof against being fired for their use.

This is not actually true. We had to let a guy go from one of our roofing crews, back when I did that. The medication he was on was prescribed and entirely legitimate. That did not change the fact that it also made him a danger to himself and others, on a roof. The prescription made him incapable of doing the job with even a modicum of safety.

Jeff -

DSM-IV reports a subjective diagnosis protocol. There is no brain scan that can diagnose ADHD. I'm afraid you have been mislead on the matter.

I have not been mislead, nor am I saying that a scan can provide a diagnosis. I was saying that the scans provide pretty good evidence that ADHD actually exists and we are learning more and more about the mechanisms behind it.

This is not the case for ADHD diagnoses, which are often given by doctors who have never even observed the subjective DSM-IV behavors. The behavioral profile used to diagnose ADHD is usually self-reported or reported by parents.

The fact that diagnosis are handed out without proper investigation, does not mean that this is always the case. I was four months into observational therapy, before my childhood psychiatrist diagnosed me with ADHD and bipolar. Even then, she noted that the bipolar symptoms may be the result of my congenital insomnia. There was however, no doubt whatever, of the ADD as it was recognized at the time.

While it is not so simple a matter to get such an exhaustive diagnosis for every child (my dad was a state of MI employee, we had awesome insurance), it is possible to do far more than is too often done. When testing protocols are actually followed, it weeds out a lot of kids (usually adult diagnosis are far more accurate, as adults can be far more descriptive of their experience) that might otherwise be diagnosed ADHD.

ADHD sufferers report problems that also afflict normal people.

Indeed. But whereas many folks have these problems now and then, people like me, have them all the time. I don't have my days, or my moments, it is an inherent part of who I am.

My brother has asthma and ends up in coughing fits at a particular threshold of dust. The fact that dust can also make me cough neither implies that I am asthmatic or that asthma doesn't exist.

The problems reported are a matter of degree, and that degree is subjective.

It is not just a matter of degree. It is also a matter of consistency. There are certain things that I am incapable of doing. Busywork kills me, I just cannot do it. I couldn't do homework when I was in school. I knew the materials and tests bore that out. Doing silly little exercises to help me learn what I already knew, was just not possible. Nowadays, it is exemplified in my complete inability to keep a jobsite clean. On small, quick jobs, no problem, I can clean up my mess at the end, to present the finished job to my homeowners. But on jobs that take several steps and days of work, I have to bring in a guy to do grunt labor. The vast majority of it, is keeping my site organized. Thankfully I am worth (and charge) enough, to make doing it myself impractical.

There are other issues that just aren't a matter of degree. When my six year old understands that he has to remind me, when we are getting ready to go, it is something that is consistent. As it stands that's not perfect either, because my son also has ADHD. We quite often get distracted together and just roll with it.

Evidence of genetic and/or neurological causation correlates to subjective reports of behaviors.

Bullshit. Click on my name and go back in my posts for some discussion about the neuroscience of ADHD. I have links to several ADHD studies and explanations by neurologists and psychologists.

The studies thus far have not used randomly selected control groups drawn from the general population, so we don't know what's "normal" as a statistical comparison.

Again, bullshit. The only studies that don't include randomly selected control groups, are ones that are looking into treatment protocols. Such studies don't need a random control group of neurotypicals or assumed neurotypicals. They need a control group that is ADHD and receiving placebo, whether drug or other therapy.

But diagnostic studies, always include a randomized control group. Indeed, most such studies are blind from the outset, seeking a completly random group, without defining to them the purpose of the study.

The evidence for non-environmental, non-socialized causes for ADHD are often exagerrated. In fact, the evidence has been exaggerrated here.

Again, please check out the discussion of it at my own blog. You probably have to go back a few pages, but there are plenty of links to the evidence. There is a lot of it. There have been a lot of studies and they are happening as we speak.

I have been emailing back and forth with a few neurologist bloggers, both in an effort to understand it better myself and with the intent of writing more about it. Unremarkably, I have procrastinated a lot with actually writing my next post about ADHD, but with a new baby at home and a lot of other responsibilities, I just haven't had the time to commit to it and do it justice.

To try to explain it in brief, it is, like so many other things, multi-tiered. There is little doubt that there is a neurological link. There is a lot of evidence that points to a genetic component, including a study that I took part in (I didn't meet my biological father until I was eighteen, or any of my paternal, biological siblings. He and many of his children are diagnosed ADHD).

There is also a lot of evidence that supports environmental triggers for it. Similar to suspicions about schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders. Certain people simply have a genetic propensity for various disorders. The onset of symptoms and severity of them is likely dependent on many environmental and social factors.

My main point is that even if people are diagnosed and medicated with ADHD, no one should be required to provide special accomodation.

Fuck you. Seriously.

I am not interested in the sorts of accommodations that you were describing. But I am sick and damn tired of the fucked up attitude public schools have with it. My partner and I, are making a whole hell of a lot of sacrifices, to homeschool our son, utilizing an online public school, because neither his charter school, nor the public school has a damn thing to offer. We (who really aren't very social at all) inundate our lives with other people, to make sure he is regularly contending with authority figures, other than us. We deal with other parents and their children, trading them around and giving them captive interaction, similar to that which they would get in school (i.e. he spends time with these kids, the ones he likes and the ones he may not care for so much). He goes to workshops and a phys-ed class that is part of the online school, we have to get him there, generally waiting there. He and I, go to a family karate class together, believe me, I do it for him.

Am I asking for much? No. Just a decent education for my son. For the school to provide at the least something slightly better than my own had to offer me. Instead, they offer less, especially as we would like to avoid medicating him for the time being, as he's only six. Besides which, the only offering they have if he is medicated, is special ed, which was an abysmal failure when they put me in there.

Personally, I suspect that the reason so many folks with ADHD have trouble with school these days, is that it is all about college prep, with little to no vocational education to go with it. This is not to say that those with ADHD can't succeed in an academic setting, quite to the contrary, many of the can. It's just that having the additional outlet for an overactive brain, helps make the academics more tolerable. And for many of us, vocational ed could provide a a staple income, at least until we decide to try school again.

The problem is that public education especially, but all education, including tertiary, is oriented on a "one size fits all" philosophy. This is not just hard on people with ADHD, it's hard on anyone who learns and thinks in a non-standardized fashion.

If the claims of ADHD are true, it is a serious physical and mental illness.

No. It is not a bad thing, it has immensely rewarding and positive aspects. It is mainly, a different way of thinking, learning and processing information and/or ideas. It just comes with some relatively negative side effects. Ones that, if compensated for, aren't really a problem.

In general, dangerous or sensitive occupations are off limits to people with serious mental illness.

That very much depends on the illness, the person and their relationship to the occupation. There are absolutely occupations that I should not attempt, nor do I. Driving large construction machines is one. I know that doing that, I would be a danger to myself and others. For another person with ADHD, it could be perfect for them. Different people with ADHD, have different bents. But one thing that can be said of most people with ADHD, we're consistent and mostly predictable.

I have been a roofer and run multiple crews. I took fall safety training and some OSHA classes, to get certified to do fall safety training. Even so, on any job that required safety lines, I was there to make sure my guys were rigged properly and the lines were fastened properly. An important part of my job, with the pay that came from the insurance breaks I earned my boss, was to make sure that everyone on any of the jobs I ran, was safe. That they were working safely and ensuring the safety of people on the ground.

I am also very good at keeping a job in view. I have to keep track of a lot of different threads, on many of my jobs. Even as I am doing or overseeing single aspects of the job, I am ever mindful of the whole job and how what I am doing at any given moment, or having done, will effect the rest of the job.

How do you know? If can't know what it's like to have ADHD, you can't know what it's like to have "normal" functioning.

The same way that people who don't have ADHD can understand the behaviors of people with ADHD. We observe. Some of us question.

When I was a kid, I was totally convinced that it was perfectly natural and normal, for other kids to dissect math problems the same way that I did, turning them ass-backwards and inside out, because it just makes sense. I was twenty-five, before I understood that for most people, sitting down with pen and paper, and running multiplication and division through in long form, is the easiest way for them. I didn't understand that the way that I turned multiplication into division and vice versus, then break it into smaller units, is pretty much incomprehensible to most people.

I really started to pay attention to how other people accomplish various tasks and how their methods differed from my own. I read a lot about different methods of thinking and learning, in an attempt to understand not only other people, but myself as well. What I ultimately learned, is that not only do I think rather differently, so do most people.

This is why I think ADHD is part psychological and part religious. ADHD sufferers have no basis for comparison, but they believe it. And their belief is zealous to the point hysteria.

This is why I think that people who like to be skeptical of neurodiversity, really could do well to get their head out of their ass. They cannot comprehend that not everyone has the same foundation to work with.

I get "hysterical" about it, because I have a genius IQ, love to learn and am quite capable of proving I know what I know. Yet people like you, were quite able to convince me that I am just lazy and a horrible student. That academics is just not my thing. Yet as I am trying to embark on a college career, the results of my CLEP exams give lie to that notion. Hell, building the business that I have (I am a handyman/remodeler, I advertised my services for less than six months, after moving to Portland OR, from MI and have worked word of mouth since), shows I'm not lazy.

When I really got "hysterical" is when I started to watch my son go through the same damn thing. My six year old is bright. He loves to learn and learns very quickly. From basic math, to reading and writing - hell, he's even fairly effectively debated evolution with a friend who has creationist parents. (guessing that his parents probably gave him a line of crap, after my boy decided to tell him about the whales walking into the sea. He made the assertion that people didn't descend from monkeys. My son repsonded; "duh, we evolved from germy bugs)

While he was still in the charter school, he learned to hate school. In spite of being the top of his class with the academic aspects, he couldn't handle it. He flat out said that he hated school because he was a "bad" student and always had "bad" days. The biggest problem with it all, was that his teacher made no transitions. This is in a kindergarten class, there were no warnings, no transitions whatever, between tasks.

Since we have pulled him out and put him in the online public school, he has excelled. He is able to learn at his pace, faster for some things, a little slower for others. He spent two days pretty much focused on different letters that can make an F sound, phasing into an interest in GH. Lately, he has been obsessed with buoyancy and density.

So yeah, I get a little pissy when people want to marginalize what I have lived with and what my child is living. I love being me, wouldn't trade it for the world. But it is a huge pain in the ass being me, largely because of the things that people who wanted to marginalize the actual problem, convinced me of. It's not religious, it's a reality based "zeal." Poke fun at it, a lot of time it's fucking hillarious. But don't be an ignorant ass about it.

Sorry about the rather prolific post, I believe hyper-focus was mentioned.

"He flat out said that he hated school because he was a "bad" student and always had "bad" days." Yup been there done that even into my MS.

Jeff:
My background is in engineering and chemistry so don't try your "I'm conservative" crap on me. My BS was in medical imaging and FMRI volume rendering. I can give you the link to the shit hole alma matter of mine so you can find the paper. Now the use of FMRI in diagnosing ADD/ADHD is not currently in practice because it's still being studied and has to pass tons of FDA and APA tests for efficacy before it's added to DSM-IV criteria.

"Vlad's regrets notwithstanding, it should stay that way." Um, wow dumbass in so many ways. First there are people like my father who server in the Corp. in Nam with ADD (didn't have a term for it back then) was Flame thrower Anti-tank (occupation don't get more hazardous than this) he survived and so did most of his guy. However his career was a different story. His impulsiveness and his mouth kept getting him in trouble with brass. Still he got away with it (as in not thrown out or shot, in his words) because he made effective decisions because he could keep more shit in his head the the average Sgt. Second the only thing you'd have to do to get said job as per the law is con some doctor to say you were mis-diagnosed. No your ADD in a dangerous job without medication. I agree that certain people should not have certain jobs but I don't see an ADD diagnosis as having and relevance. If you need someone to do you secretarial work then you shouldn't apply to be a secretary. Certain jobs where accommodations are nor practical or they are detrimental should only be staffed with people who do not need accommodations. Now in the military in any unit I had any desire to join being on medication was an unacceptable risk. Six days behind enemy lines and your CO runs out of Concerta might not be the best situation, thus I'm sitting in an office while other have their ass in the sand. I'd love you to give me an example where in civilian life this would be an issue.

"Instead, they offer less, especially as we would like to avoid medicating him for the time being, as he's only six." When I have one I'll try to do the same. My wife and I have ADD she's been on it since she was a child. I got officially diagnosed twice and only after the second time (no one told me about the first, long story) at 24 or 25 I started taking Concerta. If I'm unmedicated I fine so long as I'm not forced to do repetitive tasks or tasks that I see as stupid. When she's unmedicated ain't shit getting done. However she a much more pleasant person for having an easier academic career. I think something in between what her parents did and what mine did would be optimal. If you can set up that type of home school environment for those reasons he couldn't have a better setup.

Is it possible for me to agree with both sides on the drug testing issue? I think, overall, what we do off the job is none of the employer's damned business and, yes, tea-totaller that I am that includes drugs and alcohol. However, I can see drug testing as a certain preresquite for jobs where you would be endangering yourself and others. Point well taken with others who said even then but, uh, uh, no. Your rights end when your fist connects with my face and all that.

As for signing a release form rather than drug testing. That I have to strongly disagree with that. Fact is, employers should be careful about who they hire and shouldn't be let off the hook with a shrug of their shoulders and an oh, well, they said we could trust them and agreed to be liable. Frankly, they should be wary of any employee wanting to take that option. All kinds of alarm bells should go off and they should think "next" and reach for the next resume. Also, I can see this as problematic legally even if it did work out wherein they'd be trying to shift all their liability to their employees. Personally, I wouldn't take a job (and as I've mentioned I don't even drink) wherein my employer wanted me to sign a waiver releasing them from liability if they think they can pin it on my action (if it becomes debatable, they're sure to have bigger and bader lawyers than I could afford). That's a whole nest of hornets best stayed away from not to mention that they should be at least somewhat responsible for who they hire. We don't want an employer to not care about hiring the obviously wasted even in a position where they won't immediately do harm. Most probably wouldn't want to anyway but some would, especially if they come cheap.

That said if, legally speaking, it's discrimination to require drug testing for jobs where others are put in danger -- if making sure the airline pilot flying the plane has to prove he's straight means you also have to test the clerk at the ticket counter, then, frankly, I'd rather have it than not. We have to trust absolute strangers every day based on nothing more than a company's rep or even less. It sucks but we do.

I've let a bus go and waited for the next because the local bus company doesn't screen the alkies. He not only seemed tipsy and smelled like alcohol but before he opened the doors (I was getting on at the mall at the end of his run from downtown) to let on passengers, he sipped something from a Thermos. No way was I taking that bus but others did. Yes, I phoned in a complaint. 3 years later, he's still driving and I'm still not getting on his bus whether he's obviously loaded or not when he gets to my stop. If he wrecks the bus, should the bus company be let off the hook by getting him to sign a waiver even though they ignored customer complaints?

DuWayne, don't apologize for the long post. If was very informative. Grandbaby daddy can't sit still for five minutes and grandson isn't much better. He's finally learning that he can't act as disruptively at school (his first year, two hours a day in pre-K) as he does at home and that only because he's extremely bright. Doing that thing wherein you spell out words you don't want kid to know you're saying is already losing its effectiveness because he has greatly figured out what he wants to. My daughter and I have worried about ADD and his being medicated; so far, so good, and, hopefully, won't be but the thought has occurred. Time will tell. Either he can adjust to school or he can't and if he can't, well, it has to be determined why. So it's something we think about and it's good to know about. Ignorance isn't bliss. It's often fear and often unfounded fear. So don't apologize for informing.

Jeff, I read your posts and I can't help but wonder one thing: why the bug about ADD? You seem to be reacting to this one thing as zealously as you accuse others of.

If he wrecks the bus, should the bus company be let off the hook by getting him to sign a waiver even though they ignored customer complaints?/i>

Donna, I meant for someone to sign a waiver to release the company from any responsibility when the person ISN'T on the clock. When someone's on the clock and they're drunk, and it's obvious, they should be fired. Immediately. If someone's drunk and on the clock, even if it's not so obvious, they should still be investigated and fired, especially if there are complaints. No, my thinking was, if I got a buzz on over the weekend, that's my business, not my boss's. If I get in a car wreck over the weekend when I'm buzzed, that's not the company's problem, it's mine. It should only be a company problem when I'm on the clock and I'm drinking on company time.

Donna -

If I recall correctly, you live in Albany. On that assumption, I called this organization's Albany chapter (http://www.ftalb.org/). I explained the circumstances that you described, without using any names. They are an advocacy group, that can hook your grandson up with a variety of different services and would love to do so. If your in a different area, it is a NY state wide organization, that can connect you to services in your area.

When the six year old was in Head Start, we connected with our local mental health services organization, which has been and continues to be, a huge help. He got a counselor who made classroom visits and home visits, to really get a handle on what is happening with my son. They have been extremely instrumental in helping us develop strategies to work on the behavior problems. They have also been instrumental in helping us procure other relevant services.

The other very helpful thing they offered, which this organization could hook your daughter up with, is parenting classes. The major help that this provided, was getting a chance to brainstorm with other parents, many of whom are dealing with similar issues. The class my partner and I attended, included a mother/daughter parenting team.

Taking a parenting class, does not mean that one is a "bad" parent. All it does, is offer the opportunity to add new tools to one's parenting skills box. My partner and I, are pretty decent parents, as were a lot of the parents in the class. The point of taking the class, is to become even better parents. Talking to one of the counselors who ran the class, she noted that most parents who take the class, tend to be decent parents, as shitty ones tend not to want the bother.

The reason I mention all this, is that it is a good idea not to wait until you confirm ADHD or other issues, the hard way - i.e. by the child failing. Like doctors are fond of saying about pain and pain killers, it's harder to chase the problem (or pain), than it is to deal with it before it comes to a head. The inability to sit still, is indicative of a potential problem, though not necessarily ADHD.

One very important thing, is to find positive outlets for this energy. Three and four year olds, can be very hard to read, but making sure he isn't bored is extremely important. This does not mean catering to his every whim, it just means making sure he has stimulation that is positive and interests him. A huge one for me and now with my son, is reading. Not only reading, but pushing the envelope with his reading comprehension. We found that he really broke loose on learning to read, when we talked about things like passing the book around and everyone reading bits at a time to each other. Leappad and other story readers are very handy, though unfortunately, also very expensive.

Reading a lot of non-fiction is also very helpful. Get his mind wrapped around all sorts of ideas and knowledge. Science is quite often some of the most exciting, especially as you can get him to understand that science is all about proving that our current understanding of something is flawed or incomplete. The notion that there is a vast, multi-discipline field, that encourages people to be wrong or show that popular understanding of something is wrong, tends to really excite a lot of kids.

Another great stimuli, is encouraging him to use his imagination. Whether building with legos or other blocks, or drawing, encourage him to push the envelope of his abilities. Another important aspect of this, is to encourage him to do these activities quietly. This is not to say that he should always be forced to play quietly, just that a certain amount of play time should be quiet.

It is also important to provide plenty of opportunity to run around and get very physical. But it is equally important to understand that much of this nervous energy is the result of an over-active mind, it just happens to express itself physically. Also, encouraging him to use non-physical outlets, is going to help him succeed in a school setting.

This is true even if he does not have ADHD. Kids who are simply exceptionally bright, often have similar problems and these strategies can be very effective in dealing with them.

If you have any questions or need clarification about anything, you can reach me through my blog or at duwayne.brayton at gmail.com. I am more than happy to provide any helps or point you in the direction of other resources. But I cannot stress how helpful it is to get community support. The site I linked to, can help you get the help he might need. The organizations they will connect you to, will provide services on a sliding scale, which probably won't apply unless you really make good money. Getting him a counselor, who can observe him in multiple settings, can be invaluable. I can honestly say that we would be in a world of trouble, without the help that such organizations have provided us with.

Thanks, DuWayne. I went to the site. I don't know if my daughter's checked them out or not but I printed the brochure and your post and will show them both to her.

It's funny what you said about reading. He can never stand that I'm reading books bigger than his and has always wanted me to read him my adult books which, depending on content, I may or may not when asked. This will give you an idea of how different a little boy he is. I just finished an Erma Bombeck book because I've always found her amusing. He asked me to read it to him and she's certainly safe so I did thinking he'd get bored but he loved it and two nights later was asking me to read him more of the funny lady's book.

I got a gift certificate for Barnes and Noble and bought this five book compilation of Dickens (one of my favorites since childhood) and he's how about this one. The first is Oliver Twist and that tends to be a bit more violent than I care to read to a four year old but he's watched and loved A Christmas Carol (he loves ghosts almost as much as he does knights) and I might just. I used to read him to sleep with the "grownup" stuff but his staying power is much stronger already.

I'll try e-mailing you before the end of the day if it doesn't get busy but I only have access at work and we're headed into a three day weekend. Suffice it to say, for now, he's been through a lot of shit already in his young life and we do have some family counseling and he is looking at speech therapy because his speech isn't all it should be through school. His understanding is superb but making himself understood is a bit more difficult and lately he's taking to mumbling.

Imagination? Oh, man, I love his imagination. This http://www.washingtonavenuearmory.com/ Armory downtown is to him a castle wherein a dragon sleeps. We have great fun with it.

icljgd robyaep ltepo
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4812 baldness hair loss propecia

i think hydroponic growing is the way of the future for vegetation

Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in truth used to be a enjoyment account it. Glance complicated to more delivered agreeable from you! However, how can we keep in touch?http://quizilla.teennick.com/stories/18483080/connect-a-tv-to-your-laptop-computer-to-enjoy-netflix-motion-pictures-on-the-net