ADHD a hoax or over diagnosed?

I have seen a couple of different places discuss how the rate of Children in France that would qualify for the ADHD diagnosis is drastically lower than the US the first was a podcast by Tom Woods the second was this article.
Even though I don't have a degree in the matter I am inclined to agree with the statement ADHD is over diagnosed. First I have my self as a bit of evidence- when I was a kid I had that diagnosis and through out my life I was on different types of medications with horrible results, such as- being aggressive, suicidal and just stoned.  Some people will say I just needed the right medication- but there comes a point when you have to question the diagnosis. Later in life I was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome- which is a condition on the Autistic Spectrum.
I was the one who informed my blogging partner about the condition- and I tried my hand at a couple more medications- one left me sedated sleeping most of the day and unable to think straight and the other seemed to have no effect in dealing with my depression. As you can not treat Asperger's with medication and my depression was caused by losing my job and latter getting dumped I felt the medication had very little effect and my psychiatrists took me off of it.
My mother is a special ed teacher who is currently working with autistic children and she claims that there is a tendency to have a label of the day when they are unsure what to do with a child and the people who make the claim that ADHD is over diagnosed tend to believe the issue is really behavioral and social and both places state the French have less tendencies due to how they deal with students and run the schools.
As I have only gone to school in the US and I am not an educational major I can't comment on the theory.

Ecco tarriffs

one of the many areas where the status quo has conflicting policies can be seen in the fact many politicians will support free trade while at the same time push for tighter environmental regulations. There are good reasons to support free trade- such as the notion that it will improve life for people around the world and prevent war and promote better understanding- there are also good reasons to be concerned about the environment.
The problem is that the argument for government regulation is that corporations can not be trusted to maintain environmentally safe  policies while the argument for free trade is that the free market will benefit the general population and must be encouraged.
 You can not hold both beliefs as the same time one of the two must be dismissed- this means either supporting an Eco tariff where you compare the cost of meeting regulations in the US vs those of other nations and taxing the difference or coming up with a free market solution to protecting the environment. I would prefer to look at the free market solutions that protect private property- which would include consumer advocacy and education, along with union negotiations and may be law suits so companies will be forced to pay restitution when their pollution harms people and their livelihood.
If a toxic chemical can not be dumped in the Red River between Oklahoma, Texas- where I grew up- then I don't want to see it dumped in the Red River in Vietnam.

immigration- the real issue we need more jobs and better real pay globally.

Our current immigration system is a mess- as we have an unofficial open border , the politicians are discussing giving amnesty to people here illegally then to make the political matters worse we have the 14th amendment giving birth right citizenship.
As a nation we need to ask what is wrong with having  an honest policy and either enforcing the laws as written or adopting an official open border policy?
The main arguments against adopting an open border policy are the following.
1.) the notion that modern immigrants don't try to adopt to the US culture. Most of the immigrants family's I have met at least the kids speak English and they try to keep the heritage of the old country as well as claim that of the US.
2.) The fear immigration will overwhelm welfare roles- this was one of the reasons that New Zealand has such  strict immigration polices -they don't let anyone in except the rich. The issue here is however is the government welfare system and not immigration.  If a program either private or public is successful it will be a hand up. One of the reasons I prefer private charities over government welfare programs is the simple fact I can go to places like Charity watch  and give my money to what ever program I believe is the most effective at helping people.
3.) depressed wages- When ever you have to many people and not enough jobs you can expect depressed wages the best way to improve the situation would be more jobs. The only way that will happen is to have more business opening up and possibly growing- this is why in my posts on the minimum wage I talk about the importance of regulatory, tax, regulatory tort and monetary reform.
There are regulations that make it hard to start a new business like a city that only has a limited number of taxi licences and others that make it expensive to hire the 50th employee both sets of regulations form a tag team against the poor after all some rich person might be interested in taking some large gamble that will shake up some given industry but feel unable to do so.
Going from country to country should simply be called moving and all the economic objections people might give should be countered with proposals to end those objections with more liberty.