but that would serve to miss the critically important theme he presents us with- Our inability to get beyond simple good/evil views of drugs.

It's really impressive to see a child or adult calm down and focus when given a stimulant or other med for ADHD. I wish it always worked that well, but there's a reason for these meds. Also, In the real world, people are always self-medicating, sometimes rationally, sometimes not. No law will ever stop that.

Many fellow psychiatrists would disagree with me, so I speak only for myself, but I think all drugs should be legalized for recreational use and taxed. People find ways to self-destruct on these drugs now, it would change that little. It would serve to empty our courts and jails, reduce violent & property crime and help reverse the National Debt or even help pay for Medicare.

We need to quit making criminals of our citizens over recreational drug use. Laws that protect others are already on the books and are needed. This nation was founded on freedom, we should live up to those ideals.

I'm astonished to read the responses to this article. Most of the letter writers seem as though they're hurt by Amsden's assertions. They say 'I take drugs. They help me.' But the funny thing is, they seem to be responding to allegations that aren't in the article! Amsden says: yes, these drugs work. They make many people feel better. So do lots of other drugs.

Amsden skirts around an important issue without ever addressing it head on. Namely, the tendency in the USA to 'medicalize' issues that are not necessarily medical problems. And you know why? It's because the U.S. medical industry is really good at selling you things. In countries with socialized medicine there is a much greater tendency to accept many conditions (like existential ones, for instance) without the use of prescription drugs.

As a recreational drinker and drug user, the article seemed utterly uncontroversial. The defensive posture assumed by most of your respondents suggests that they may, despite their protests, feel guilty for the drugs they take.

So here's the good news: People of America, the drugs are all right.

And the bad news: feeling crummy isn't necessarily a disease, and it's not always appropriate to try to purchase a cure.

Thank you for publishing Amsden's article. It is a bit slender on research, and I did have to look twice to make sure I was reading "Salon" and not "National Review." But the whining in most of the other letters about this article suggest that Amsden was on to something. Somehow, I just can't imagine Lincoln or John Quincy Adams taking pen and parchment to moan that they and their distressed families just couldn't make it without the nostrums from the apothecary's cabinet. We have become a culture where one of the few things not regarded as a disorder is self-pity.

Publishing this article was a serious mistake by the editors. Did you think your own readers were somehow superior to those losers who take psychotropic drugs? Um...wrong. I feel attacked by this mean-spirited article written by someone with absolutely no qualifications or experience. I feel hurt by Salon, but at the same time I know that I am not wrong, and when I count the things I am thankful for this weekend, I put psychotropic drugs at the top of the list.

I now know, however, that I can expect contempt from my formerly favorite publication, and that your puritanical editors think I'm hiding from the harshness of real life. You go ahead and publish your insulting articles with your even more insulting graphics (the smiley face with the hair) and I will find something else to read.

It seems the letters responding to this article are confusing the issues Mr. Amsden was trying to separate.

One issue is treatment of real mental illness. It is clear Mr. Amsden was not trying to say no one should take medications for mental illnesses. I doubt Mr. Amsden would frown on the writer who says that his migraines go away with medication.

A second issue is a cultural phenomenon of delaying adulthood indefinitely, fueled by a culture of easy disposable income (including easy credit), readily available goodies to buy and charge, little in the way of serious consequences, and a "normalcy" which preaches it is good -- nay, there is something wrong with you -- if you don't take advantage of all this.

What does this have to do with ADD? This environment can "induce" a feeling of ADD by dramatically reducing the ratio of "things to available time". Not having much time for each of your "things" naturally leads a feeling of being overwhelmed, as the mother and wife related when life got more complicated. I would bet that she acquired a lot more than a husband and children.

Adulthood means putting away childish ways of thinking ("I want it, I want it now, I'm not getting it fast enough, Hey, it's not fair that Susie gets more than me, I feel good when I have more than Susie, Hey, I'm not getting it fast enough!"; I trust you get the idea). Unfortunately, we aren't forced to put away such thinking, unlike the WWI soldier and the South African sharecropper. It is quite pathetic that people who want to keep their childish way of thinking power it with meds and a belief that they have some sort of disorder.

I speak from experience. Virtually everyone in my family -- both the adults and children -- is in constant motion, easily distracted, messy in environments with an abundance of "things", time-unaware, rule-bucking, among others. Sound like ADD. Medication would improve things, eh?

How about just "simplify, simplify, simplify"? By adopting an Amish-like lifestyle (Sunday...Go to Meeting; Monday...Washday; Tuesday...Housework; Wednesday...Go to Market; Thursday...Patchwork; Friday...Go to Town; Saturday...Every Man for Himself), along with a vast reduction in "things", we do just fine. The end result is a lot of unstructured time that makes it easy to focus when we need to. No medications required.

It seems this is Mr. Amsden's point. We don't have to live like the Amish, so we don't. Surprisingly we would be much more relaxed (and happy!) if we did. Considering Mr. Amsden's youth, he has insight most writers responding to this article did not even glimpse at his age. I encourage him to keep writing, and not to be discouraged by the misinterpretations by many of the letter writers (many of whom would better understand what he is saying if they had a larger ratio of "time to things").