Use of ADD medication to help with studying...

[M1medhr]

I apologize for my misplaced terminology. Concentration. Maybe if I had some ritalin I would have been able to concentrate on what I was typing rather than what I was studying.

But the fact remains that just because you are below the normal limits does not make it ok for you to be hypocritical about someone using a drug to gain advantage over their baseline. You are using a drug to cheat the hand that you were dealt in life, so when someone else does the same judgment isn't warranted on your part.

I don't mind someone taking it, but I find it funny that someone that is using a drug is so judgemental of anyone else that uses it.

Why shouldn't you be able to take a drug to resume normal physiological functioning? If you're in pain you take Tylenol. If you have diabetes you take insulin. If you're depressed you take take some Prozac. If you have anxiety you have Paxil. Would you take any of those drugs if you didn't have any clinically relevant issues? so why isn't it the same for ADD? It just doesn't sit well with me that a medical student is telling someone that they have a clinically proven illness, but that's the hand that life dealt them and they should just deal with it. I hope you grow out of this, or at least realize the implications of your words.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Blesbok]

It seems like there are arbitrary lines drawn for what is ok and what isn't when it comes to cognitive enhancement. Caffiene is OK? Is it OK for military members to use stimulants? Under what circumstances? And remember, cognitive enhancement is not just about adderall. There are many drugs out there that are used to treat neurological disorders that have some evidence of being helpful to healthy people as well. Sure, there are some short term problems of making these availible to everyone, even if they are regulated. But, this is the 21st century and I think that use of many of these drugs by the healthy is begining to lose its taboo. Furthermore, moderate and responsible use of these can be both safe and effective.



Perhaps he or she was refering to the Nature article I posted that lists adderall as a medication that can serve in cognitive enhancement?

I actually just used the term because I was reading the article and it was the first term that popped into my head, but I concede that concentration is probably a better term.

 

[Blesbok]

Why shouldn't you be able to take a drug to resume normal physiological functioning? If you're in pain you take Tylenol. If you have diabetes you take insulin. If you're depressed you take take some Prozac. If you have anxiety you have Paxil. Would you take any of those drugs if you didn't have any clinically relevant issues? so why isn't it the same for ADD? It just doesn't sit well with me that a medical student is telling someone that they have a clinically proven illness, but that's the hand that life dealt them and they should just deal with it. I hope you grow out of this, or at least realize the implications of your words.

Because none of those drugs will really boost you above your baseline. Except insulin, which plenty of body builders take as a highly dangerous yet highly anabolic substance. But that is not the point.

I never said you shouldn't take the drug, I never said you "should deal with it". If you read, what I said was that someone taking a drug shouldn't be so quick to judge anyone else taking the same drug regardless of their baseline concentration level. You are trying to gain an advantage over your normal self and so is the next person.

 

[fizzle]

The only thing stopping every single person in this thread from using Ritalin on a regular basis is the fact that it is illegal. If it wasn't illegal not a single person in this thread would have any problem with using it to gain the extra advantage and beat out the competition. I know I sure as hell would be using it right now if it weren't for the fact that it is illegal and getting caught is not worth the risk.

Nah. I'm too proud of my mental abilities (just like many other pre-meds ) to succumb to a drug that would just be me admitting that I'm not good enough without it. Not to mention, I had never heard of this phenomenon of taking drugs to enhance academic performance until I entered this thread. Crazy what people will go through in the name of competition.

 

[Decicco]

"The drugs most commonly used for cognitive enhancement at present are stimulants, namely Ritalin (methyphenidate) and Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), and are prescribed mainly for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)" (Greely 2008).

If Nature calls is cognitive enhancement, you can't be too far off calling it that yourself.

Because none of those drugs will really boost you above your baseline.

I'm confused. There is plenty of evidence that these drugs can help healthy people.

Nah. I'm too proud of my mental abilities (just like many other pre-meds ) to succumb to a drug that would just be me admitting that I'm not good enough without it.

You'll save a lot of coffee money that way.

 

[Blesbok]

Nah. I'm too proud of my mental abilities (just like many other pre-meds ) to succumb to a drug that would just be me admitting that I'm not good enough without it. Not to mention, I had never heard of this phenomenon of taking drugs to enhance academic performance until I entered this thread. Crazy what people will go through in the name of competition.

You say that now, but I guarantee that your tune would change when you didn't get into med school because all the people using it took your spots.

 

[M1medhr]

For the record, I have had 4 friends start using adderall illegally and quit a couple months later. It is absurd to believe that this drug has no ramifications on your body. It isn't this wonder drug that turns your brain on magically giving you instant honors. There seems to exist this almost mythical idea of what Adderall is like on these boards. Believe me when I tell you, it isn't all it's hyped up to be. I had my doctor take me off the drug. If you took it for a month you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Now I need to find something that works.

I'm going to stop while I'm ahead. Arguing in the pre-allo forum with a bunch of frustrated students who wish they could use amphetamines, if only they were legal, is probably not the best way to spend my night.

Goodnight to all of you, apologies to those I might have offended.

 

[Blesbok]

For the record, I have had 4 friends start using adderall illegally and quit a couple months later. It is absurd to believe that this drug has no ramifications on your body. It isn't this wonder drug that turns your brain on magically giving you instant honors. There seems to exist this almost mythical idea of what Adderall is like on these boards. Believe me when I tell you, it isn't all it's hyped up to be. I had my doctor take me off the drug. If you took it for a month you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Now I need to find something that works.

I'm going to stop while I'm ahead. Arguing in the pre-allo forum with a bunch of frustrated students who wish they could use amphetamines, if only they were legal, is probably not the best way to spend my night.

Goodnight to all of you, apologies to those I might have offended.

I don't wish that I could use them at all and I never said that they don't have side effects. I am just simply pointing out my opinion that people using a substance shouldn't be quick to judge others using the same substance whether it to get back to normal or to get ahead.

 

[M1medhr]

I don't wish that I could use them at all and I never said that they don't have side effects. I am just simply pointing out my opinion that people using a substance shouldn't be quick to judge others using the same substance whether it to get back to normal or to get ahead.

I guess I'll take the bait.

When did I judge anyone? Did you read any part of my original post? here is a little refresher:

"While it is irritating to me personally, what others do or don't do has no other tangible effect on me. All I can ever really ask for is a treatment to help me concentrate on daily tasks and calm the chatter in my head so I can study, plan, organize, learn. If other people are taking it to stay up and cram all night then so be it."


But given even my stance on that, why couldn't I be upset with the fact that adderall is used by people who have no clinical need for it. Cocaine is a schedule II drug, just like adderall, and was prescribed as a local anesthetic, but was also used by some for concentration. Should you be able to take Cocaine because some people have a legitimate medical need for it? I mean, it makes you feel good and helps you concentrate, so why can't you use it too, right? and while we're at it, you should just stock up on morphine and opium, and all sorts of wonderful goodies. If your patients can use them, you should be able to as well.

 

[fizzle]

You say that now, but I guarantee that your tune would change when you didn't get into med school because all the people using it took your spots.

Eh...not really. I'm a reapplicant, but I've never felt the urge to take any mental-enhancement drugs. And I've been accepted already this year, so I still have no problem.

@Decicco: I'm not a coffee drinker--can't stand the terrible-tasting stuff

 

[M1medhr]

I don't wish that I could use them at all and I never said that they don't have side effects. I am just simply pointing out my opinion that people using a substance shouldn't be quick to judge others using the same substance whether it to get back to normal or to get ahead.

Haha, I can't believe I actually typed out that long response to get to my point. I didn't have to do that, all I ever needed to say was in your post.

look that over a few times.

 

[Decicco]

But given even my stance on that, why couldn't I be upset with the fact that adderall is used by people who have no clinical need for it. Cocaine...

Well, adderall helps people even though they are healthy. I can't imagine why someone would be upset about that. Cocaine, etc doesn't really apply because I am unaware of any evidence that these can help healthy people like adderall, etc can.

A lot of the field of medicine would disappear if it was all based on clinical need.

EDIT: In addition, I don't think there is a concrete definition of "clinical need."

 

[M1medhr]

Well, adderall helps people even though they are healthy. I can't imagine why someone would be upset about that. Cocaine, etc doesn't really apply because I am unaware of any evidence that these can help healthy people like adderall, etc can.

A lot of the field of medicine would disappear if it was all based on clinical need.

EDIT: In addition, I don't think there is a concrete definition of "clinical need."

It. Isn't. Healthy.

I find your willful ignorance of both the positives of medical cocaine, and the very, very real negatives associated with adderall to be both convenient and transparent.

A lot of the field of medicine should disappear if it isn't based on clinical need. Do you find fault with that?

Edit: There absolutely is a concrete definition of clinical need. The tenants of evidence based medicine aren't as subjective as you perceive them to be.

 

[Decicco]

It. Isn't. Healthy.

I find your willful ignorance of both the positives of medical cocaine, and the very, very real negatives associated with adderall to be both convenient and transparent.

A lot of the field of medicine should disappear if it isn't based on clinical need. Do you find fault with that?

Like anything, people have to weigh the positives and negatives when taking a drug like adderall (I don't remember claiming there weren't negatives). After this, I believe that many people would come to the conclusion that adderall's benefits may outweigh its costs (although many).

To your second point, I do not think that the parts of medicine should disappear that are not based on clinical need. Maybe this is where our opinions begin to differ. I was very happy to have gotten braces when I was younger. I also had a few unsightly moles removed (I hope you're happy you asked ). Similarly, if it makes people happy, elective cosmetic surgery, etc should be availible. People being happy is OK with me.

 

[M1medhr]

Like anything, people have to weigh the positives and negatives when taking a drug like adderall (I don't remember claiming there weren't negatives). After this, I believe that many people would come to the conclusion that adderall's benefits may outweigh its costs (although many).

To your second point, I do not think that the parts of medicine should disappear that are not based on clinical need. Maybe this is where our opinions begin to differ. I was very happy to have gotten braces when I was younger. I also had a few unsightly moles removed (I hope you're happy you asked ). Similarly, if it makes people happy, elective cosmetic surgery, etc should be availible. People being happy is OK with me.

But happiness, mood and feeling of self worth is a clinical need. That's why we have psychiatrists. Using a highly regulated stimulant designed to help those with a disorder that you don't have is not.

 

[Decicco]

But happiness, mood and feeling of self worth is a clinical need. That's why we have psychiatrists. Using a highly regulated stimulant designed to help those with a disorder that you don't have is not.

Adderall was originally part of a weight management drug.
Then it was found to help those with ADHD.
Then it was found to help those without ADHD.
That brings us to today.

 

[M1medhr]

Adderall was originally part of a weight management drug.
Then it was found to help those with ADHD.
Then it was found to help those without ADHD.
That brings us to today.

Wonderful, good luck convincing the medical and legal professions. Do you maybe wanna take bets as to which of us they will agree with? because I'm feeling lucky...

 

[majahops]

Sorry man, I was just referring to the part of the post you made, quoted below, in which you hoped all of us with ADD could "overcome" our serious mental handicap. While I wouldn't contest that it is in fact a handicap - because let's face it, it is - I would contend with the idea that a person with bonafide ADD can ever "overcome" it.

Just as the likelihood of a person born without a leg somehow growing a leg during their lifetime is extremely low, so are the chances of a person born with an organic neurotransmitter dysfunction developing normal neurotransmitter function.

The truth is, for those of us with REAL ADD (not the kids who's shrinks diagnosed 1/2 of every kid that walked into their office with ADD, but the kids who go from straight F's to straight A's on medication), we have very little hope of "overcoming" our ADD... however we should be eternally thankful that there is an effective treatment. I know I am! It's prevented a single neurotransmitter dysfunction from ruining all of my hopes, dreams and aspirations.

I hope all you people with ADD can overcome your serious mental handicap, and I hope all you people without ADD, but taking ADD meds can get rid of your drug addiction. I am rooting for you!

 

[mmagnett]

I overheard a group of people talking about this today. The way they talked about it made it seem like the use of ADD medication(concerta, adderall, etc.) to help with studying is now rampant. Some of them were actually talking about the positive effects it had on their grades. I wasn't aware that people actually use this stuff to help with studying...are people this stupid? Is this now a natural phenomenon?

I have a friend who does it (or did it i cant remember now, they were not premed). I told him it was steroids of the mind and that he and barry bonds would have a good time in the hall of fame with an asterisks next to their name -- yea he got really good grades. its still stupid.

 

[cbrons]

 

[cbrons]

But happiness, mood and feeling of self worth is a clinical need. That's why we have psychiatrists. Using a highly regulated stimulant designed to help those with a disorder that you don't have is not.

Funny you should say that. Adderall and a variety of other stimulants are used off-label for depression.

 

[cbrons]

I have a friend who does it (or did it i cant remember now, they were not premed). I told him it was steroids of the mind and that he and barry bonds would have a good time in the hall of fame with an asterisks next to their name -- yea he got really good grades. its still stupid.

I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was in 3rd grade and have been on and off ritalin and other stuff for years. I don't really feel bad for myself... its not that /terrible/ of an illness really (regardless of what others might say). I had a neighbor with Bells palsy and another with Downs Syndrome. I didn't piss and moan about how horrible ADHD was in front of the because I was the lucky kid as far as disease/illness/psychopathology/whatever out of us neighborhood kids.

What I don't understand is this: Why don't you all just mind your own damn business?

I don't care if some C-average student getting a half-assed communications degree takes adderall during finals week. I don't even care if other pre-meds I "compete with" snort up a months supply. Their body, their life, their mind, their future. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. What right do I have to preach to them? Doesn't affect my life .00001%. And fortunitely for some of you, I have some advice for how this issue can stop negatively impacting yours: 1. Stop eavesdropping on other people 2. Worry about your own **** 3. Go get laid

 

[M1medhr]

Funny you should say that. Adderall and a variety of other stimulants are used off-label for depression.

I know, but I wasn't referring to depression.

 

[Livingapparatus]

I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was in 3rd grade and have been on and off ritalin and other stuff for years. I don't really feel bad for myself... its not that /terrible/ of an illness really (regardless of what others might say). I had a neighbor with Bells palsy and another with Downs Syndrome. I didn't piss and moan about how horrible ADHD was in front of the because I was the lucky kid as far as disease/illness/psychopathology/whatever out of us neighborhood kids.

What I don't understand is this: Why don't you all just mind your own damn business?

I don't care if some C-average student getting a half-assed communications degree takes adderall during finals week. I don't even care if other pre-meds I "compete with" snort up a months supply. Their body, their life, their mind, their future. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. What right do I have to preach to them? Doesn't affect my life .00001%. And fortunitely for some of you, I have some advice for how this issue can stop negatively impacting yours: 1. Stop eavesdropping on other people 2. Worry about your own **** 3. Go get laid

this really could not have been better said

 

[Excelsius]

It. Isn't. Healthy.

I find your willful ignorance of both the positives of medical cocaine, and the very, very real negatives associated with adderall to be both convenient and transparent.

A lot of the field of medicine should disappear if it isn't based on clinical need. Do you find fault with that?

Edit: There absolutely is a concrete definition of clinical need. The tenants of evidence based medicine aren't as subjective as you perceive them to be.

There is a thread on this right in the allo forum and the consensus there was pretty much that Adderall is bad for you only because it is illegal. If you were in India, where it is legal, you would be singing a different tune. Adderall is not healthy, just like caffeine is not healthy. Funnily, it seems that Adderall has even less side effects than caffeine.

Finally, anyone can qualify for ADD. All you have to do is claim a bunch of symptoms on a list and you'll have it. Many of us can legitimately claim all the symptoms on that list. There are doctors who question the very existence of ADD. So you can't even precisely define who has the "disease" and who hasn't, yet you claim that the drug is helpful only for "certain" people? Maybe you'll learn a few things in med school about this disease and have a catharsis.

And no one says that taking Adderall is going to make you a genius. The drug only helps you stay up and concentrate. If you choose to do the above playing video games, you might just have the opposite effect.

Before anyone else continues to talk about the horrific side-effect of Adderall, I challenge you to find a scientific study showing that Adderall and Ritalin have any worse side effects than a simple caffeine pill. I have yet to see a study like that and can't wait. Bereft of scientific studies, yet pre-med and med student ADD experts are aplenty on SDN.

 

[psy]

There is a thread on this right in the allo forum and the consensus there was pretty much that Adderall is bad for you only because it is illegal. If you were in India, where it is legal, you would be singing a different tune. Adderall is not healthy, just like caffeine is not healthy. Funnily, it seems that Adderall has even less side effects than caffeine.

Finally, anyone can qualify for ADD. All you have to do is claim a bunch of symptoms on a list and you'll have it. Many of us can legitimately claim all the symptoms on that list. There are doctors who question the very existence of ADD. So you can't even precisely define who has the "disease" and who hasn't, yet you claim that the drug is helpful only for "certain" people? Maybe you'll learn a few things in med school about this disease and have a catharsis.

And no one says that taking Adderall is going to make you a genius. The drug only helps you stay up and concentrate. If you choose to do the above playing video games, you might just have the opposite effect.

Before anyone else continues to talk about the horrific side-effect of Adderall, I challenge you to find a scientific study showing that Adderall and Ritalin have any worse side effects than a simple caffeine pill. I have yet to see a study like that and can't wait. Bereft of scientific studies, yet pre-med and med student ADD experts are aplenty on SDN.

Obviously no one has done this study of adderall vs caffeine because the trend of students abusing adderall is new. To note however, that the caffeine pills only cause toxicity problems at extremely high dosage and not at regular dosage. Adderall on the other hand can cause heart failure at regular dosage as seen in this case. The patient in that case "...developed cardiomyopathy after receiving a therapeutic course of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine. The patient's cardiac function deteriorated to the point of heart failure, necessitating a heart transplantation." Can you say this about caffeine? I don't think so. At least there hasn't been a case where regular dosage of caffeine pills or coffee drinking resulted in heart failure.

BTW: by your argument we should make weed legal and readily available to the public as well. Weed is legal in some countries. An old roommate of mine said that pharmaceutical companies in his country were planting the stuff and selling them in the stores. If it's ok somewhere else and it's easy to get... why not make it legal? (from what you are saying)

 

[Mcatguy]

It's just a symptom of our culture; everyone wants a quick easy fix.

I could get the drug if I wanted to legally, I could even get a prescription, it's not difficult for me. But frankly speaking, I have too much of an ego for this sort of thing, I could never take this drug, or any other (narcotic) drug for that matter. Whatever I'll accomplish it will be me, without any help. If I fail, fine, but at least I'll know I was responsible and I was in control (of what I could).

I try not to judge people who take this drug as a crutch, it's their life. I just hope someone doesn't die on the operating table (or something of the sort) because the doctor forgot to pop some Adderall before the operation.

 

[M1medhr]

To be honest I'm not sure why I'm even participating in the "should adderall be legal for everyone" debate. I don't care, I've stated that in my very first post.

I was, however, upset because it seems that so many people on these threads are saying either ADHD is just a figment of my imagination, or if it does exist that I should just deal with it. When did I ever claim that adderall has no positive effects on people who don't have ADD? I don't understand how you are making these claims, I encourage you to reread what I've said carefully. I don't care if you take adderall, cocaine, morphine, heroin, opium, smoke weed excessively or like to take the occasionally E at a party. I don't care what you choose to do with your time and body. But don't belittle my experiences and those of people like me.


Oh, your claim that an amphetamine is as harmless as caffine is absurd, and no thread of any length on SDN will make that true. Does that mean caffine is without its risks? no. But drink enough water and eventually you will die. Take over 40mg of adderall and lemme know how you feel 6 hours in.

 

[KempDrumsalot]

I am not struggling with any issues. I am getting by just fine without any help, but I am not going to lie about it. If I could walk down to the grocery store and buy something that would make me a better student, I would do it in a heart beat and so would everyone else in this thread.

Don't try to find verification in your false ideals by saying we all would do it. This is a lie. It's just like saying all minors would drink alcohol and do pot if it was legal.

You say that now, but I guarantee that your tune would change when you didn't get into med school because all the people using it took your spots.

Love it.

Why is it ok for you to take it but not for them?

If you can use it to gain advantage over your natural baseline, what makes them horrible people for wanting to improve on their baseline? Just because your cognitive baseline is lower than theirs does not mean that you should be able to take something then criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

You're saying that someone who has a insulin production deffiecenty shouldn't be allowed to take it? Way to make a completely irrational statement folks.

 

[Excelsius]

Obviously no one has done this study of adderall vs caffeine because the trend of students abusing adderall is new. To note however, that the caffeine pills only cause toxicity problems at extremely high dosage and not at regular dosage. Adderall on the other hand can cause heart failure at regular dosage as seen in this case. The patient in that case "...developed cardiomyopathy after receiving a therapeutic course of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine. The patient's cardiac function deteriorated to the point of heart failure, necessitating a heart transplantation." Can you say this about caffeine? I don't think so. At least there hasn't been a case where regular dosage of caffeine pills or coffee drinking resulted in heart failure.

BTW: by your argument we should make weed legal and readily available to the public as well. Weed is legal in some countries. An old roommate of mine said that pharmaceutical companies in his country were planting the stuff and selling them in the stores. If it's ok somewhere else and it's easy to get... why not make it legal? (from what you are saying)

First of all I am not advocating legalizing anything. It doesn't really matter to me. If I needed Adderall, I could visit my PCP next month and qualify for a prescription. As for marijuana, there is nothing wrong with that. Upper echelons of the society smoke it all the time. Legalization would bring the prices down so that more people could afford it. It would also decrease the tax money we spend on prisons for petty crimes. But this is another issue. I brought up India so that you can see that Adderall is not a dangerous drug. Many doctors around the world think it is safe enough to be available OTC. It's just the super-conservative religious right in USA that permeates way too much into politics. That's the only reason why Adderall, abortion, stem cell research, absinthe, and a whole list of other ignorant clauses are prohibitions in USA. I hope this country will be completely changed in eight years.

Mentioning overdose has no relevance here. Overdose by anything is lethal. If you read the thread in allo, you'll see that I did a caffeine experiment on a rabbit. It died within 24 hours of the overdose - heart failure too. And a soldier somewhere in the deserts of our planet died from drinking too much water. Ergo, water is unsafe? Of course not. That's why overdose is irrelevant.

By the way, if Adderall had this horrible side effects that you mention, it would affect everyone. People with ADD don't have an immunity against amphetamines, but that's what you seem to imply.

 

[Excelsius]

To be honest I'm not sure why I'm even participating in the "should adderall be legal for everyone" debate. I don't care, I've stated that in my very first post.

I was, however, upset because it seems that so many people on these threads are saying either ADHD is just a figment of my imagination, or if it does exist that I should just deal with it. When did I ever claim that adderall has no positive effects on people who don't have ADD? I don't understand how you are making these claims, I encourage you to reread what I've said carefully. I don't care if you take adderall, cocaine, morphine, heroin, opium, smoke weed excessively or like to take the occasionally E at a party. I don't care what you choose to do with your time and body. But don't belittle my experiences and those of people like me.


Oh, your claim that an amphetamine is as harmless as caffine is absurd, and no thread of any length on SDN will make that true. Does that mean caffine is without its risks? no. But drink enough water and eventually you will die. Take over 40mg of adderall and lemme know how you feel 6 hours in.

Try taking 3000mg of caffeine and let me know what happens. Are we discussing overdose here? I don't think so. As you mentioned, you can be killed by too much water too.

ADD is not a clear cut disease. I am just saying that it is a continuous spectrum. It's not like cancer where you either have it or you don't. There can be various degrees. You may be affected 60%. I may have it at 30%. Recently I have been seeing a lot of links between Schizophrenia and ADHD and am thinking whether Schizophrenia is not just the highest level of ADHD. After all, we basically know nothing about Schizophrenia either.

 

[Nomdeplume]

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of students using study-drugs, so to speak, is very simple.

Students are not just attending school for the sake of learning. I'm sure it is abundantly clear to everybody on these boards that, in the end, every school's students compete with their classmates most of the time. For a simple example of this, I'd like to reference both the ubiquitous bell-curve and point out that, with or without a curve, I've never heard of a class where everybody received an A.

As somebody pointed out earlier, the main goals of the education system are not just to teach, but also to rank the students. Seeing as how using a study-drug (defined as a cognitive-enhancing drug taken without legal prescription) clearly awards one an unfair advantage through absolutely no merit of their own, save for what one might call the ambition to commit what is technically a crime, I don't see how it can possibly be condoned.

Our grades are a measure of our capabilities, which I view as some mixture between our natural abilities and our determination, focus and work ethic. Drugs should not, and can not, be allowed to factor in here.

(This topic really touches a nerve for me).

 

[aznb0y129]

First of all I am not advocating legalizing anything. It doesn't really matter to me. If I needed Adderall, I could visit my PCP next month and qualify for a prescription. As for marijuana, there is nothing wrong with that. Upper echelons of the society smoke it all the time. Legalization would bring the prices down so that more people could afford it. It would also decrease the tax money we spend on prisons for petty crimes. But this is another issue. I brought up India so that you can see that Adderall is not a dangerous drug. Many doctors around the world think it is safe enough to be available OTC. It's just the super-conservative religious right in USA that permeates way too much into politics. That's the only reason why Adderall, abortion, stem cell research, absinthe, and a whole list of other ignorant clauses are prohibitions in USA. I hope this country will be completely changed in eight years.

Mentioning overdose has no relevance here. Overdose by anything is lethal. If you read the thread in allo, you'll see that I did a caffeine experiment on a rabbit. It died within 24 hours of the overdose - heart failure too. And a soldier somewhere in the deserts of our planet died from drinking too much water. Ergo, water is unsafe? Of course not. That's why overdose is irrelevant.

By the way, if Adderall had this horrible side effects that you mention, it would affect everyone. People with ADD don't have an immunity against amphetamines, but that's what you seem to imply.

Not to be a total square or to hijack the point of this thread, but marijuana is not exactly harmless. I'm a research coordinator in this field so I have actually seen some of this data. Here are a couple key points that we have found:

1) In patients with schizophrenia, patients who also used cannabis had an earlier age of onset for their first episode of psychosis.
2) Patients who have an episode of cannabis-induced psychosis (that is, they smoke too much weed and end up hallucinating in the hospital) are at greater risk for developing a long-term schizophrenia-spectrum disorder.
3) (Just presented as a poster at the APA Meeting last year) When compared to healthy controls, cannabis users (after controlling for age, sex, years of education, etc.) who were sober and past the stage of possible withdrawal (all passed urine tests) performed significantly worse on certain decision-making tasks and neurocognitive tests.

Does this apply to everyone who uses it? Of course not. And the above poster is correct in saying that there are certainly high-functioning individuals who smoke everyday. But this may be one of the reasons it has not been legalized.

 

[caveat87]

Its amazing how much angst this conversation has generated...
Maybe its best just to leave the legislation of morality to the politicians. That way we can always throw a shoe at them if they mess things up

 

[linguini]

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of students using study-drugs, so to speak, is very simple.

Students are not just attending school for the sake of learning. I'm sure it is abundantly clear to everybody on these boards that, in the end, every school's students compete with their classmates most of the time. For a simple example of this, I'd like to reference both the ubiquitous bell-curve and point out that, with or without a curve, I've never heard of a class where everybody received an A.

As somebody pointed out earlier, the main goals of the education system are not just to teach, but also to rank the students. Seeing as how using a study-drug (defined as a cognitive-enhancing drug taken without legal prescription) clearly awards one an unfair advantage through absolutely no merit of their own, save for what one might call the ambition to commit what is technically a crime, I don't see how it can possibly be condoned.

Our grades are a measure of our capabilities, which I view as some mixture between our natural abilities and our determination, focus and work ethic. Drugs should not, and can not, be allowed to factor in here.

(This topic really touches a nerve for me).

Regarding grades, many people have "unfair advantages through absolutely no merit of their own" that do not relate to the use of concentration enhancing drugs. For instance, you may expect a student born with a silver spoon in his mouth (e.g. went to private school with renowned teachers, parents spent the $$ for special tutoring and review sessions) to obtain better scores than your run of the mill average joe. I don't think most would consider being born into a higher SES an unfair advantage. I don't even know how I feel about the OP's issue but just trying to give another perspective.

 

[cyclin M]

Try taking 3000mg of caffeine and let me know what happens.

I'm pretty sure after this you experience an irregular heart beat and depending on how fast you consume this, you will perish from the face of the Earth.(

 

[cyclin M]

Regarding grades, many people have "unfair advantages through absolutely no merit of their own" that do not relate to the use of concentration enhancing drugs. For instance, you may expect a student born with a silver spoon in his mouth (e.g. went to private school with renowned teachers, parents spent the $$ for special tutoring and review sessions) to obtain better scores than your run of the mill average joe. I don't think most would consider being born into a higher SES an unfair advantage. I don't even know how I feel about the OP's issue but just trying to give another perspective.

hmm yes, but you see, drugs are illegal (and bad, mmkay?) whereas being born to wealthy parents is not illegal, nor necessarily bad.

In addition, you have control over whether to take amphetamines, whereas you have no control as to where and to whom you are born to.

Of course, we are talking about people who do not have ADD and still CHOOSE to take these drugs.

 

[zenlike]

I'm pretty sure after this you experience an irregular heart beat and depending on how fast you consume this, you will perish from the face of the Earth.(

Apparently, the LD50 for a rat my size is around 14,500mg.

 

[cyclin M]

Apparently, the LD50 for a rat my size is around 14,500mg.

I present to you:

http://www.energyfiend.com/death-by-caffeine

 

[Excelsius]

Not to be a total square or to hijack the point of this thread, but marijuana is not exactly harmless. I'm a research coordinator in this field so I have actually seen some of this data. Here are a couple key points that we have found:

1) In patients with schizophrenia, patients who also used cannabis had an earlier age of onset for their first episode of psychosis.
2) Patients who have an episode of cannabis-induced psychosis (that is, they smoke too much weed and end up hallucinating in the hospital) are at greater risk for developing a long-term schizophrenia-spectrum disorder.
3) (Just presented as a poster at the APA Meeting last year) When compared to healthy controls, cannabis users (after controlling for age, sex, years of education, etc.) who were sober and past the stage of possible withdrawal (all passed urine tests) performed significantly worse on certain decision-making tasks and neurocognitive tests.

Does this apply to everyone who uses it? Of course not. And the above poster is correct in saying that there are certainly high-functioning individuals who smoke everyday. But this may be one of the reasons it has not been legalized.

Thanks for the information. For any research, methods and the significance of the study are important. However, the findings that you present occur either during overdose or pre-existing conditions, none of which apply to regular cannabis smokers. And your third point simply shows that cannabis affects judgment. That's not new. So does alcohol. In fact, alcohol irreversibly kills your neurons. I am not sure this is the case with cannabis, which makes it far more benign than alcohol.

Finally, let's not forget cigarettes which contain over 200 chemicals some of which are carcinogens. We were not built to ingest benzene molecules. And nicotine directly affects your brain. Lung cancer is well documented with cigarettes, but we don't see the government banning them or at least imposing chemical restrictions. This is why it is hypocritical to attack something like Adderall and cannabis when you have a far bigger fish to fry.

This happens exactly because scientists leave too much up to politicians, many of whom are pretty illiterate. Isn't it ironic to allow one of the most technologically advanced societies be under the dictatorship of some of the least qualified demagogues? I loved that scene from the film Religulous where Bill Maher trumps a US senator and the senator, sort of awkwardly, admits that you don't have to have a high IQ to get into the senate, right on TV:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fliFcvGAKk[/youtube]

These are the guys dictating what is dangerous and what is not? That's hilarious!!!

 

[aznb0y129]

Thanks for the information. For any research, methods and the significance of the study are important. However, the findings that you present occur either during overdose or pre-existing conditions, none of which apply to regular cannabis smokers. And your third point simply shows that cannabis affects judgment. That's not new. So does alcohol. In fact, alcohol irreversibly kills your neurons. I am not sure this is the case with cannabis, which makes it far more benign than alcohol.

Finally, let's not forget cigarettes which contain over 200 chemicals some of which are carcinogens. We were not built to ingest benzene molecules. And nicotine directly affects your brain. Lung cancer is well documented with cigarettes, but we don't see the government banning them or at least imposing chemical restrictions. This is why it is hypocritical to attack something like Adderall and cannabis when you have a far bigger fish to fry.

This happens exactly because scientists leave too much up to politicians, many of whom are pretty illiterate. Isn't it ironic to allow one of the most technologically advanced societies be under the dictatorship of some of the least qualified demagogues? I loved that scene from the film Religulous where Bill Maher trumps a US senator and the senator, sort of awkwardly, admits that you don't have to have a high IQ to get into the senate, right on TV:

[youtube]7fliFcvGAKk[/youtube]

These are the guys dictating what is dangerous and what is not? That's hilarious!!!

Yup, not saying cannabis=bad and cigarettes and alcohol are ok, but just wanted to qualify your original statement because it sounded like you were saying nothing happens when you smoke pot. As with everything else, moderation is the key.

 

[Kaustikos]

Pills? I don't need no stinkin' pills for concentration

http://www.daytrana.com/

Slap 5 of those and I'm set for finals!

 

[Nomdeplume]

Regarding grades, many people have "unfair advantages through absolutely no merit of their own" that do not relate to the use of concentration enhancing drugs. For instance, you may expect a student born with a silver spoon in his mouth (e.g. went to private school with renowned teachers, parents spent the $$ for special tutoring and review sessions) to obtain better scores than your run of the mill average joe. I don't think most would consider being born into a higher SES an unfair advantage. I don't even know how I feel about the OP's issue but just trying to give another perspective.

You bring up a very valid point. While they're no millionaires, I attribute a great deal of my own success to my parents' hard work and successes during the decades that they've taken care of me.

That disclaimer aside, I just don't think that anybody should condone the introduction of more unfair advantages. In the ideal situation, all competitions would be won or lost due solely to the participants' abilities. I can't say I would support anything like taking advantaged people's conditions into account when grading them. I do know, though, that I definitely associate drug use sans-prescription more closely with classical methods of cheating than I do with coming from a privileged background.

 

[AZFutureDoc]

There seems to be a lot of bashing on adderall use... What about people who legitimately need it? I know there are those who shun anyone who takes it, and have conspiracy theories that it is a made up disease and yada yada yada.

 

[KempDrumsalot]

There seems to be a lot of bashing on adderall use... What about people who legitimately need it? I know there are those who shun anyone who takes it, and have conspiracy theories that it is a made up disease and yada yada yada.

I personally have no problem with people who legitimately need it and encourage them to use it if it will help them. However, using it illegally is unacceptable.

 

[Blesbok]

It. Isn't. Healthy.

I find your willful ignorance of both the positives of medical cocaine, and the very, very real negatives associated with adderall to be both convenient and transparent.

A lot of the field of medicine should disappear if it isn't based on clinical need. Do you find fault with that?

Edit: There absolutely is a concrete definition of clinical need. The tenants of evidence based medicine aren't as subjective as you perceive them to be.

There are no medicinal positives to systemic cocaine administration, which is what he is referring to.

It is obvious from your previous posts that you are biased and unable to remove your rose colored glasses in order to have a valid arguement. There are plenty of people that take adderall and have a great response with minimal side effects. Just because you want to tell yourself otherwise does not make it any less true.

 

[Blesbok]

Thanks for the information. For any research, methods and the significance of the study are important. However, the findings that you present occur either during overdose or pre-existing conditions, none of which apply to regular cannabis smokers. And your third point simply shows that cannabis affects judgment. That's not new. So does alcohol. In fact, alcohol irreversibly kills your neurons. I am not sure this is the case with cannabis, which makes it far more benign than alcohol.

Finally, let's not forget cigarettes which contain over 200 chemicals some of which are carcinogens. We were not built to ingest benzene molecules. And nicotine directly affects your brain. Lung cancer is well documented with cigarettes, but we don't see the government banning them or at least imposing chemical restrictions. This is why it is hypocritical to attack something like Adderall and cannabis when you have a far bigger fish to fry.

This happens exactly because scientists leave too much up to politicians, many of whom are pretty illiterate. Isn't it ironic to allow one of the most technologically advanced societies be under the dictatorship of some of the least qualified demagogues? I loved that scene from the film Religulous where Bill Maher trumps a US senator and the senator, sort of awkwardly, admits that you don't have to have a high IQ to get into the senate, right on TV:

[youtube]7fliFcvGAKk[/youtube]

These are the guys dictating what is dangerous and what is not? That's hilarious!!!

If you come up with a cheap and reliable objective test for cannabis intoxication then I will support legalization. Until then, I have a hard time supporting it.

I have no problem with marijuana, I have a problem with people endangering the lives of others by driving while intoxicated, just like I do with alcohol. However, unlike marijuana, there is a very easy objective test to determine if someone is impaired under the influence of alcohol.

 

[Blesbok]

But happiness, mood and feeling of self worth is a clinical need. That's why we have psychiatrists. Using a highly regulated stimulant designed to help those with a disorder that you don't have is not.

My happiness is based on me getting the residency of my choice. Adderall would help me get that residency. Therefore, in your words, I have a clinical need for adderall.

 

[Blesbok]

To be honest I'm not sure why I'm even participating in the "should adderall be legal for everyone" debate. I don't care, I've stated that in my very first post.

I was, however, upset because it seems that so many people on these threads are saying either ADHD is just a figment of my imagination, or if it does exist that I should just deal with it. When did I ever claim that adderall has no positive effects on people who don't have ADD? I don't understand how you are making these claims, I encourage you to reread what I've said carefully. I don't care if you take adderall, cocaine, morphine, heroin, opium, smoke weed excessively or like to take the occasionally E at a party. I don't care what you choose to do with your time and body. But don't belittle my experiences and those of people like me.


Oh, your claim that an amphetamine is as harmless as caffine is absurd, and no thread of any length on SDN will make that true. Does that mean caffine is without its risks? no. But drink enough water and eventually you will die. Take over 40mg of adderall and lemme know how you feel 6 hours in.

Good thing the starting dose is 10mg. No wonder you are so coked out with side effects. You are now assuming that everyone is going to have side effects because somehow everyone is going to start taking 40mg/day?

 

[Blesbok]

Regarding grades, many people have "unfair advantages through absolutely no merit of their own" that do not relate to the use of concentration enhancing drugs. For instance, you may expect a student born with a silver spoon in his mouth (e.g. went to private school with renowned teachers, parents spent the $$ for special tutoring and review sessions) to obtain better scores than your run of the mill average joe. I don't think most would consider being born into a higher SES an unfair advantage. I don't even know how I feel about the OP's issue but just trying to give another perspective.

Tell that to the billions of dollars in scholarships given out for just that reason. People will do whatever they can to make everything fair for everyone at all times. Guess what? Life isn't fair.