It's not conducive to a productive discussion to ignore the vast majority of what I wrote, including my entire substantive argument, while nitpicking on one point of terminology when the meaning I meant was clear from context.

If you want me to be explicit about this contextual meaning: since I was discussing the pharmacological differences for these medicines in people with vs without ADHD, "neurotypical" in this particular context simply has the contextually narrowed meaning of "without ADHD".

I didn't use the word neurodivergent in this conversation, so I won't address it in this comment, nor will I address the question of whether "neurotypical" is a useful word now that you definitely know what I actually meant.

My prior comments in this conversation are now outside of the edit window. So, in your brain, I encourage you to replace my phrases "neurotypical people" and "neurotypical recreational users" with "people without ADHD" and "recreational users without ADHD" respectively. Hopefully you agree that these are real categories of people, whether or not you like the word "neurotypical" to describe them.

Within that understanding of what I meant, I also encourage you to proceed to respond to the rest of what I said in a substantive and productive way. If you do that, I will happily respond substantively and productively in return.

But if I see any further non-substantive responses from you in this subthread, I will simply choose not to respond and will leave you with the last word, instead of spending even more of my my time on a non-substantive discussion than I have so far.