I still wouldn’t risk obtaining them legally, discretion is paramount for controversial medicine. One tiny data leak and your reputation is tarnished in certain circles, and that doesn’t even get into why the government knowing about it could be risky.
It's an uncomfortable in-between area as laws shift towards common sense but social values among certain cohorts remain defiantly anchored in the past. We've seen it a million times before and we always get past that in-between area, though not without casualties.
Do you have serious depression with persistent suicidal thoughts? If not then this isn't designed for you. If you do then the last thing you'd be worried about is someone at work finding out because the alternative is to kill yourself.
Bluntly, using psychiatric medication is an indicator of mental illness. And some people judge such people very negatively, presuming they are unfit to handle serious responsibility. This perspective is sometimes official; in Canada, commercial airline pilots can't take antidepressants without informing the government, and Transport Canada routinely suspends such pilots. [1] Physicians are subject to similar, if less aggressive, restrictions.
Being honest, if I found out a person has a long, serious history of depression, I would probably think they are less reliable. That is probably prejudiced. But I think that's a common attitude. If it were a position where lives or a lot of property were on the line, maybe I would think twice in hiring?
As a person with mental health issues: people with such opinions are the vast majority, and therefore are also the majority of people managing sizeable teams. They aren't bad people, it's just how the world works.
It's also how people with mental health issues judge others with mental health issues: over how productive they are. For example, you have probably heard a lot about a functional, high-achieving person with ADHD person (because they are better at self-marketing, and because others easily see their value), but probably next to nothing about the low-functioning ADHD person who may never be able to hold down a job and has a patchy career. When a high-functioning "disabled person" is campaigning for greater workplace inclusivity, for instance, they're usually campaigning for other high-functioning people, not the low-functioning ones.
Functional people find low-functioning people less reliable. :( Partially because it is true, partially because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and partially because our society worships functionality (because it's what wins resources, at the end of the day).
If someone could not list a bunch of things that would prejudice them for or against an individual, then they're probably more prejudiced than the average person.
We all have prejudices. For example, I know I am biased against speakers of some regional accents of English. (All speakers of English are biased for or against various accents, if the studies are to be believed.) If someone produces a southern American drawl, I assume things about them. Those assumptions are not fair. But they're also automatic. The only way I know to correct such errors in thinking are to consciously reflect on it like that. How am I potentially prejudiced against or for this person? Are those prejudices even remotely reasonable? If not, am I potentially treating someone unjustly based on stereotypes and assumptions?
And don't worry. I understand myself well enough to know I'd be terrible in a management role.
I believe SSRIs are among the most prescribed medicine in the US. They’re certainly a blunt instrument. I’m all for MDMA or psilocybin research. From my own experience they are certainly very potent and can cause longer term changes in your mental well-being
Perhaps wanting control over the lives and property of others is the real mental illness, as it results in quite unreliable things happening in the world and throughout history.
It could cause me some reputational harm if my buprenorphine injection was to become common knowledge (in theory, in practice my family, friends and boss are well aware of my treatment for opioid use disorder).
I thought the reason ts/sci people weren't allowed to have any drug use in their history was because using illegal drugs could open them to blackmail? If you're taking an above-board medicine that wouldn't be a factor. I can't imagine one would lose their clearance if they were taking prescription amphetamines for ADHD treament, for example.
the most obvious example is people who still think it should be illegal and would look down on you for using it, it was never about the legality for them, the legality was just a side effect of their stance
