Use of ADD medication to help with studying...

[majahops]

Not that I want to argue, because I understand what you're saying in principle, and agree... but I just wanted to say that there WILL in fact be "side effects", even at 10mg... this is because as norepinephrine transporter blockades, the amphetamines that comprise most of the *effective* ADD drugs are sympathomimetic, meaning that they mimic the effects of the neurotransmitters of the sympathetic nervous system. One of these effects is an increase in "concentration" (an over simplification, of course), but if there is a measurable effect in this area (as there will be, at least somewhat, at 10mg), then there will be measurable "effects" in other areas that are effected by sympathomimetic drugs... and there are plenty... For instance, the heart will start beating a little faster, pupils a little dilated, the penis will shrink a little (temporarily fellas, temporarily), etc.

Just throwing that in there... but not really an "argument" as much as a wise-ass comment. My apologies in advance.

Man I can't wait to study medicine everyday. We are so freaking lucky.

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?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[M1medhr]

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.

lol, rose colored glasses? if anything I'm being pessimistic. Honest to God your ability to read and digest what I'm saying is downright pathetic. I mean we've been going back and forth and you still don't really get it. Anyways, just for funsies I'm gonna use your own words to prove my own point, then I'm gonna go study.

There are plenty of people that take adderall and have an adverse response with severe side effects. Just because you want to tell yourself otherwise does not make it any less true.

Later dude, enjoy your AIDS.

 

[ANF1986]

Oh god...The moral superiority argument of every SDN SuperNerd...

Let me digress a little bit here and take a broader look at this overall issue.


Does the government have the authority and the right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot put into their own bodies?

No, it does not. There are no Constitutional provisions which allow for such laws. Current drug laws are an example of an attempt to legislate morality. Our government was not designed to protect people from themselves. The intentions of the founding fathers of this country was to give people the autodetermination to make their own beds, and to let them lie in them after doing so. That means the ability of the individual to make their own choices. While it is perfectly permissible for the Olympics, the NBA, the NHL, or any other organization to prohibit the use of certain substances (since they are privately owned enterprises), and while it is permissible for academia to prohibit the use of substances because of the aforementioned argument, it is not permissible for the government to prohibit the use of such substances.

The real issue at hand seems to be, the inferiority complex of many pre-meds who have feelings of inadequacy and perhaps do not have the desire or the means by which to obtain these performance enhancing substances. While that is certainly their choice, there may be other students who feel these things would be of a great aid to them. "Playing the hand you're dealt" is a ridiculous argument, and the fact that we all want to be involved in medicine some day is kind of.........the anti-thesis to that statement. The entire point of medical intervention is to reverse the effects of "playing the hand you're dealt." We prescribe Zoloft for people with depression, anxiety, &SAD. Beta blockers for people with high blood pressure, and bi-focal lenses for people with bad vision. All of those things alter the 'natural' state of a person. The people with these feelings of inadequacy will ALWAYS advocate a measure which will attempt to "even the playing field," however this is quite futile.

For instance...The playing field was never 'even' to begin with. The genetic makeup of each human being varies by about 50%. We all have traits which may make us excel at some things while doing poorly at others. Some of us have innate physical strength while others have innate mental capacity. Therefore, attempting to quantify what 'performance enhancing' is, is a rather futile argument because there is no baseline with which to evaluate what 'normal' is. A 50% variation means that each person compared to another in their 'natural' state is very unlikely to be like the next person. A baseline does not exist, and that is why the argument that "natural" ability should be the measure is absurd.

Often times the people who are against things which enhance performance are those that are gifted(or work hard) in one particular area, and want to keep others who may not be innately gifted in that area from being able to compete with them.

I think any drug which allows a person to significantly counter balance the genetic predispositions they were dealt is a good one. Why not? It is not your body, and it is not your decision. If someone wants to take ANY drug which enhances performance, in order to achieve certain goals, and achieve a better life for themselves, who are you to question them and keep them down?


That is my philosophical objection to that issue. I have never taken any amphetamines and never plan to, they are not appealing. But I certainly believe other people should have the RIGHT to take those drugs if they feel they will help them perform better and make their quality of life better in the long run (by earning better grades, getting a better job, etc). The same as in the fact that I do not necessarily believe in polygamist marriages, yet I support the right of those people to live in the manner which makes them happiest. I do not necessarily have to agree with the practice of something or endorse it, to advocate the right of those people to live that way.

 

[M1medhr]

You could have gone out and found a doobie to smoke in the time it took you to write that. Damn hippies.

 

[Blesbok]

Not that I want to argue, because I understand what you're saying in principle, and agree... but I just wanted to say that there WILL in fact be "side effects", even at 10mg... this is because as norepinephrine transporter blockades, the amphetamines that comprise most of the *effective* ADD drugs are sympathomimetic, meaning that they mimic the effects of the neurotransmitters of the sympathetic nervous system. One of these effects is an increase in "concentration" (an over simplification, of course), but if there is a measurable effect in this area (as there will be, at least somewhat, at 10mg), then there will be measurable "effects" in other areas that are effected by sympathomimetic drugs... and there are plenty... For instance, the heart will start beating a little faster, pupils a little dilated, the penis will shrink a little (temporarily fellas, temporarily), etc.

Just throwing that in there... but not really an "argument" as much as a wise-ass comment. My apologies in advance.

Man I can't wait to study medicine everyday. We are so freaking lucky.

Yes, I am quite aware of the quoted side effects for adderall. However, most patients have absolutely no complaints except maybe a little initial insomnia and a slight decrease in appetite, both of which generally disappear quite rapidly.

MOST people do not have problems with their hearts beating out of their chest on 10mg a day like you and the other poster seem to imply.

 

[Blesbok]

lol, rose colored glasses? if anything I'm being pessimistic. Honest to God your ability to read and digest what I'm saying is downright pathetic. I mean we've been going back and forth and you still don't really get it. Anyways, just for funsies I'm gonna use your own words to prove my own point, then I'm gonna go study.

There are plenty of people that take adderall and have an adverse response with severe side effects. Just because you want to tell yourself otherwise does not make it any less true.

Later dude, enjoy your AIDS.

I never said that NO ONE has any side effects, but you imply that EVERYONE has side effects. There are plenty of people that have adverse reactions to adderall, but there are also plenty of people that notice nothing more than an improvement in their concentration with absolutely no adverse effects. Somehow you just can't seem to understand that.


Don't forget to pop your pill before you study. I would hate for you to have to have to deal with your genetic sub par concentration tonight.

 

[Excelsius]

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.

I have thought about this too. I think that when it becomes legalized, it won't be too hard to come up with a test to prove intoxication. Right now no one is really thinking about such tests. Therefore, we have no ready methods. Nevertheless, those physical orientation tests, such as standing on one foot or touching your nose with your eyes closed, should work for this purpose.

 

[Excelsius]

lol, rose colored glasses? if anything I'm being pessimistic. Honest to God your ability to read and digest what I'm saying is downright pathetic. I mean we've been going back and forth and you still don't really get it. Anyways, just for funsies I'm gonna use your own words to prove my own point, then I'm gonna go study.

There are plenty of people that take adderall and have an adverse response with severe side effects. Just because you want to tell yourself otherwise does not make it any less true.

Later dude, enjoy your AIDS.

You could have gone out and found a doobie to smoke in the time it took you to write that. Damn hippies.

Enlighten us with the evidence for those purported side effects, will you? There are no studies proving that Adderall is harmful. There are no scientists out there who claim Adderall will damage you. There is no evidence that Adderall affects ADD patients any differently than "normal" patients. So what is your justification for "severe" side effects? Are you an expert? Why don't you just admit that this feeling that you have is just what you think is morally acceptable, perhaps arising from your religious and conservative background. As much as you may not like this, your moral standards do not represent everyone else. If you don't believe in Adderall, or if you believe in judgment day, that's fine. But you have no legal right or scientific background to impose your morality onto the rest of the country. And this has been already discussed a lot - please, let's leave out any overdose situations as they are completely irrelevant. You can die from Adderall just like you can die from caffeine or H2O.

And your comment about hippies... I thought you were intolerant to drugs. But it seems you're just intolerant.

 

[Chemdude]

Oh god...The moral superiority argument of every SDN SuperNerd...

The intentions of the founding fathers of this country was to give people the autodetermination to make their own beds, and to let them lie in them after doing so.

Why is it that whenever someone brings up the "founding fathers" argument, they always make it seem as if the founding fathers were anarchists? Sure, they wanted "freedom" for everyone, but did they want a country where anybody can do whatever they want(even if it meant harming other individuals/general public)? No.

If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were still governing, I'm pretty sure we'd have tougher drug laws.

 

[Excelsius]

Oh god...The moral superiority argument of every SDN SuperNerd...

Let me digress a little bit here and take a broader look at this overall issue.


Does the government have the authority and the right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot put into their own bodies?

No, it does not. There are no Constitutional provisions which allow for such laws. Current drug laws are an example of an attempt to legislate morality. Our government was not designed to protect people from themselves. The intentions of the founding fathers of this country was to give people the autodetermination to make their own beds, and to let them lie in them after doing so. That means the ability of the individual to make their own choices. While it is perfectly permissible for the Olympics, the NBA, the NHL, or any other organization to prohibit the use of certain substances (since they are privately owned enterprises), and while it is permissible for academia to prohibit the use of substances because of the aforementioned argument, it is not permissible for the government to prohibit the use of such substances.

The real issue at hand seems to be, the inferiority complex of many pre-meds who have feelings of inadequacy and perhaps do not have the desire or the means by which to obtain these performance enhancing substances. While that is certainly their choice, there may be other students who feel these things would be of a great aid to them. "Playing the hand you're dealt" is a ridiculous argument, and the fact that we all want to be involved in medicine some day is kind of.........the anti-thesis to that statement. The entire point of medical intervention is to reverse the effects of "playing the hand you're dealt." We prescribe Zoloft for people with depression, anxiety, &SAD. Beta blockers for people with high blood pressure, and bi-focal lenses for people with bad vision. All of those things alter the 'natural' state of a person. The people with these feelings of inadequacy will ALWAYS advocate a measure which will attempt to "even the playing field," however this is quite futile.

For instance...The playing field was never 'even' to begin with. The genetic makeup of each human being varies by about 50%. We all have traits which may make us excel at some things while doing poorly at others. Some of us have innate physical strength while others have innate mental capacity. Therefore, attempting to quantify what 'performance enhancing' is, is a rather futile argument because there is no baseline with which to evaluate what 'normal' is. A 50% variation means that each person compared to another in their 'natural' state is very unlikely to be like the next person. A baseline does not exist, and that is why the argument that "natural" ability should be the measure is absurd.

Often times the people who are against things which enhance performance are those that are gifted(or work hard) in one particular area, and want to keep others who may not be innately gifted in that area from being able to compete with them.

I think any drug which allows a person to significantly counter balance the genetic predispositions they were dealt is a good one. Why not? It is not your body, and it is not your decision. If someone wants to take ANY drug which enhances performance, in order to achieve certain goals, and achieve a better life for themselves, who are you to question them and keep them down?


That is my philosophical objection to that issue. I have never taken any amphetamines and never plan to, they are not appealing. But I certainly believe other people should have the RIGHT to take those drugs if they feel they will help them perform better and make their quality of life better in the long run (by earning better grades, getting a better job, etc). The same as in the fact that I do not necessarily believe in polygamist marriages, yet I support the right of those people to live in the manner which makes them happiest. I do not necessarily have to agree with the practice of something or endorse it, to advocate the right of those people to live that way.

That's the unbiased approach. It takes a lot of common sense and intelligence to advocate for something that you are impartial to. Just because many of us advocate for gay rights, doesn't mean we're gays. The same applies to drugs. I don't smoke, imbibe coffee, or drink alcohol, and I have never taken any drugs, Adderall or not. You don't have to be a pothead to advocate for legalization of marijuana.

Prohibition of 1918 didn't work. What did it do? It made the mobs rich. This is what's happening with marijuana and other drugs. The government says it's illegal, people still use them, and the drug cartels get rich.

If you think Adderall is unfair, just wait and see what happens with genetic engineering. While US is wallowing in the religious abyss where even stem cells can't be touched, Chinese scientists are creating chimeras. They are already beating us in competition. Imagine what will happen after they start creating genetically superior workforce.

 

[M1medhr]

Enlighten us with the evidence for those purported side effects, will you? There are no studies proving that Adderall is harmful. There are no scientists out there who claim Adderall will damage you. There is no evidence that Adderall affects ADD patients any differently than "normal" patients. So what is your justification for "severe" side effects? Are you an expert? Why don't you just admit that this feeling that you have is just what you think is morally acceptable, perhaps arising from your religious and conservative background. As much as you may not like this, your moral standards do not represent everyone else. If you don't believe in Adderall, or if you believe in judgment day, that's fine. But you have no legal right or scientific background to impose your morality onto the rest of the country. And this has been already discussed a lot - please, let's leave out any overdose situations as they are completely irrelevant. You can die from Adderall just like you can die from caffeine or H2O.

And your comment about hippies... I thought you were intolerant to drugs. But it seems you're just intolerant.

lol dude I was kidding, chill out. I am against government intervention in peoples personal lives. I've stated on several occasions that I don't care what people take, several times that adderall affects everyone similarly. We are in agreement over literally every position that you've mentioned, except I don't agree that adderall is without it's side effects for everyone. Thats it. If you want to know why I even joined this discussion, it was because of comments like the one below. And c'mon, you have to jump right away to the "you're a conservative religious blowhard" thing, I mean that wasn't even warranted. I mean not once did I ever bring up any mention of morality or religion, it's irrelevent. Or at least it was until it somehow found its way to this discussion... Anyways, strong words that probably weren't necessary. People are getting so riled up, and I don't even disagree with them for the most part. jeez...

I never said that NO ONE has any side effects, but you imply that EVERYONE has side effects. There are plenty of people that have adverse reactions to adderall, but there are also plenty of people that notice nothing more than an improvement in their concentration with absolutely no adverse effects. Somehow you just can't seem to understand that.


Don't forget to pop your pill before you study. I would hate for you to have to have to deal with your genetic sub par concentration tonight.

I did, it was delicious!

 

[aznb0y129]

I have thought about this too. I think that when it becomes legalized, it won't be too hard to come up with a test to prove intoxication. Right now no one is really thinking about such tests. Therefore, we have no ready methods. Nevertheless, those physical orientation tests, such as standing on one foot or touching your nose with your eyes closed, should work for this purpose.

I presume it would be similar to that of alcohol. Instead of a BAL>.08, you would measure a plasma THC level. It's detectable in blood up to within 6 hours of last use according to Huestis et al. (2004) if you smoke one joint. The decay function is logarithmic though, so you get values close to 200 ng/ml within the first 10 minutes and subsequently, a rapid decrease. Obviously, these ranges increase as you smoke greater quantities.

So even if the high has worn off after the first hour or so, it's still present in your bloodstream for a while afterwards. Urine tests are probably ineffective since the metabolites remain in your urine for up to 30 days so the joint you smoked last week would show up in the tox screen but probably wouldn't have affected your driving tonight.

 

[Blesbok]

I presume it would be similar to that of alcohol. Instead of a BAL>.08, you would measure a plasma THC level. It's detectable in blood up to within 6 hours of last use according to Huestis et al. (2004) if you smoke one joint. The decay function is logarithmic though, so you get values close to 200 ng/ml within the first 10 minutes and subsequently, a rapid decrease. Obviously, these ranges increase as you smoke greater quantities.

So even if the high has worn off after the first hour or so, it's still present in your bloodstream for a while afterwards. Urine tests are probably ineffective since the metabolites remain in your urine for up to 30 days so the joint you smoked last week would show up in the tox screen but probably wouldn't have affected your driving tonight.

Blood tests aren't cheap and can't be done on the side of the road. Although, I am sure if someone tried hard enough the could come with an accuTHCheck

 

[aznb0y129]

Blood tests aren't cheap and can't be done on the side of the road. Although, I am sure if someone tried hard enough the could come with an accuTHCheck

Oh, you mean COST effective? In that case, I got nothin'

 

[cbrons]

Oh god...The moral superiority argument of every SDN SuperNerd...

Let me digress a little bit here and take a broader look at this overall issue.


Does the government have the authority and the right to tell its citizens what they can and cannot put into their own bodies?

No, it does not. There are no Constitutional provisions which allow for such laws. Current drug laws are an example of an attempt to legislate morality. Our government was not designed to protect people from themselves. The intentions of the founding fathers of this country was to give people the autodetermination to make their own beds, and to let them lie in them after doing so. That means the ability of the individual to make their own choices. While it is perfectly permissible for the Olympics, the NBA, the NHL, or any other organization to prohibit the use of certain substances (since they are privately owned enterprises), and while it is permissible for academia to prohibit the use of substances because of the aforementioned argument, it is not permissible for the government to prohibit the use of such substances.

The real issue at hand seems to be, the inferiority complex of many pre-meds who have feelings of inadequacy and perhaps do not have the desire or the means by which to obtain these performance enhancing substances. While that is certainly their choice, there may be other students who feel these things would be of a great aid to them. "Playing the hand you're dealt" is a ridiculous argument, and the fact that we all want to be involved in medicine some day is kind of.........the anti-thesis to that statement. The entire point of medical intervention is to reverse the effects of "playing the hand you're dealt." We prescribe Zoloft for people with depression, anxiety, &SAD. Beta blockers for people with high blood pressure, and bi-focal lenses for people with bad vision. All of those things alter the 'natural' state of a person. The people with these feelings of inadequacy will ALWAYS advocate a measure which will attempt to "even the playing field," however this is quite futile.

For instance...The playing field was never 'even' to begin with. The genetic makeup of each human being varies by about 50%. We all have traits which may make us excel at some things while doing poorly at others. Some of us have innate physical strength while others have innate mental capacity. Therefore, attempting to quantify what 'performance enhancing' is, is a rather futile argument because there is no baseline with which to evaluate what 'normal' is. A 50% variation means that each person compared to another in their 'natural' state is very unlikely to be like the next person. A baseline does not exist, and that is why the argument that "natural" ability should be the measure is absurd.

Often times the people who are against things which enhance performance are those that are gifted(or work hard) in one particular area, and want to keep others who may not be innately gifted in that area from being able to compete with them.

I think any drug which allows a person to significantly counter balance the genetic predispositions they were dealt is a good one. Why not? It is not your body, and it is not your decision. If someone wants to take ANY drug which enhances performance, in order to achieve certain goals, and achieve a better life for themselves, who are you to question them and keep them down?


That is my philosophical objection to that issue. I have never taken any amphetamines and never plan to, they are not appealing. But I certainly believe other people should have the RIGHT to take those drugs if they feel they will help them perform better and make their quality of life better in the long run (by earning better grades, getting a better job, etc). The same as in the fact that I do not necessarily believe in polygamist marriages, yet I support the right of those people to live in the manner which makes them happiest. I do not necessarily have to agree with the practice of something or endorse it, to advocate the right of those people to live that way.

Dude, come on. Don't go getting all RATIONAL on us.

Why is it that whenever someone brings up the "founding fathers" argument, they always make it seem as if the founding fathers were anarchists? Sure, they wanted "freedom" for everyone, but did they want a country where anybody can do whatever they want(even if it meant harming other individuals/general public)? No.

Forget a scarecrow... you couldve built a straw house that even the biggest and most badass of all wolves wouldn't be able to blow down with that gem. PREETTYY sure what he said had absolutely nothing to do with people harming others but everything to do with people having the right to do whatever they want to themselves (including harm or even kill themselves with their own stupidity).

If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were still governing, I'm pretty sure we'd have tougher drug laws.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. – Thomas Jefferson (1781)

That's the unbiased approach. It takes a lot of common sense and intelligence to advocate for something that you are impartial to. Just because many of us advocate for gay rights, doesn't mean we're gays. The same applies to drugs. I don't smoke, imbibe coffee, or drink alcohol, and I have never taken any drugs, Adderall or not. You don't have to be a pothead to advocate for legalization of marijuana.

Prohibition of 1918 didn't work. What did it do? It made the mobs rich. This is what's happening with marijuana and other drugs. The government says it's illegal, people still use them, and the drug cartels get rich.

If you think Adderall is unfair, just wait and see what happens with genetic engineering. While US is wallowing in the religious abyss where even stem cells can't be touched, Chinese scientists are creating chimeras. They are already beating us in competition. Imagine what will happen after they start creating genetically superior workforce.

What do you mean things can't be fair? This is what happens when those damn liberals let our children grow up in schools where they read books like Harrison Bergeron... way too logical for this thread. Go sit in the corner and think about what you did:

 

[Nomdeplume]

Is the immediate issue of this thread whether or not these drugs should be legal, or whether or not it is ethical to use them as long as they ARE illegal?

I think we can all agree that these drugs are, in the US, illegal. Are then the users not unethical, as they are intentionally seeking an unfair advantage in what is essentially a competition, while also breaking the proverbial contract he's signed not once (living under the laws), but twice (the school's honor code)?

 

[Decicco]

Blood tests aren't cheap and can't be done on the side of the road. Although, I am sure if someone tried hard enough the could come with an accuTHCheck

All B.A.C. tests have to be verified by a blood test anyway. A field sobriety test can be given to see if you are high. Then, you can go to the "station" for verification, as with alcohol intoxication.

 

[Optimus123]

I know a TON of people that did this. It can be effective if you have to learn 10 weeks of material in a day. However, using drugs to do well in school has a TON of problems associated with it...

(1) If you get caught, you are absolutely screwed.

(2) You are dependent on an outside source for success, and people grow to believe they need the drug to have success, and it naturally grows into an addiction. Stimulants are so addictive because they come such an important tool in the lives of users.

(3) Rather than developing a skill-set that allows you to accomplish important things, you are getting high.

And many more.

 

[Optimus123]

It should be noted that people here are worried about medical schools using SDN to get information about them, so people are going to lie about their own personal use. I bet a lot of people here have messed around with this stuff at some point. Naturally this logic applies to me just as much as anyone else, but it should be mentioned if we are going to be discussing it.

 

[cbrons]

It should be noted that people here are worried about medical schools using SDN to get information about them, so people are going to lie about their own personal use. I bet a lot of people here have messed around with this stuff at some point. Naturally this logic applies to me just as much as anyone else, but it should be mentioned if we are going to be discussing it.

I take the stuff everyday but i gots a sub-scription from the doctor

 

[KempDrumsalot]

Is the immediate issue of this thread whether or not these drugs should be legal, or whether or not it is ethical to use them as long as they ARE illegal?

I think we can all agree that these drugs are, in the US, illegal. Are then the users not unethical, as they are intentionally seeking an unfair advantage in what is essentially a competition, while also breaking the proverbial contract he's signed not once (living under the laws), but twice (the school's honor code)?

The reason that this thread is going on is because some people think it is ethical. Maybe recheck your ethics guys, because it absolutely isn't.

 

[Chemdude]

Forget a scarecrow... you couldve built a straw house that even the biggest and most badass of all wolves wouldn't be able to blow down with that gem. PREETTYY sure what he said had absolutely nothing to do with people harming others but everything to do with people having the right to do whatever they want to themselves (including harm or even kill themselves with their own stupidity).

You'd be absolutely right if drug abuse resulted in the harm of only the individual abusing the drugs. The negative effects of drug abuse do not only affect the drug addict, but are also destructive towards society as a whole. In fact, there are historical examples of how drug abuse can destroy the social fabric of a very large country: The First and Second Opium Wars. By allowing people to "shoot" heroine or "sniff crack", you're only asking for trouble. Drug abuse can make the most innocent individual "criminal-minded."

 

[cbrons]

Forget a scarecrow... you couldve built a straw house that even the biggest and most badass of all wolves wouldn't be able to blow down with that gem. PREETTYY sure what he said had absolutely nothing to do with people harming others but everything to do with people having the right to do whatever they want to themselves (including harm or even kill themselves with their own stupidity).

You'd be absolutely right if drug abuse resulted in the harm of only the individual abusing the drugs. The negative effects of drug abuse do not only affect the drug addict, but are also destructive towards society as a whole. In fact, there are historical examples of how drug abuse can destroy the social fabric of a very large country: The First and Second Opium Wars. By allowing people to "shoot" heroine or "sniff crack", you're only asking for trouble. Drug abuse can make the most innocent individual "criminal-minded."

People who want to do the drug are already doing it, in spite of what the law says. What trouble would society be asking for?

 

[majahops]

Where did anybody talk about hearts beating out of our chests at 10mg? Or at least where did *I* imply that? I was just saying that you generally get as much side effects as you do desired effects, with amphetamines specifically. You go to 10mg, you get a little desired effect and a little side effect, you go to 20mg, a little more of both, 30mg a little more of both, and so on... I should note that "side effect" doesn't always have to be a "bad" effect or even a "noticable" effect. It can just be a physiological effect - good or bad - that is not the explicitly intended effect of the drug. That's all I'm saying.

But like I said, I don't want to argue with you because Im confident that when it gets right down to it, you and I recognize the same things to be true.

Yes, I am quite aware of the quoted side effects for adderall. However, most patients have absolutely no complaints except maybe a little initial insomnia and a slight decrease in appetite, both of which generally disappear quite rapidly.

MOST people do not have problems with their hearts beating out of their chest on 10mg a day like you and the other poster seem to imply.

 

[Kaustikos]

I take em to lose weight...am I doing it wrong?

 

[cbrons]

I take em to lose weight...am I doing it wrong?

not if u have a doctors sub-scription and got it from the farmasee

 

[aznb0y129]

not if u have a doctors sub-scription and got it from the farmasee

That reminds me, I need to refill my prescription to Maxim, lol.

 

[DrMcGangsterMD]

Instead, have a cup of coffee in the morning and an echinacea supplement to aid the memory.

 

[cbrons]

sub-scription

 

[chessknt]

Someone should tip TIME or CNN off to this thread so we can improve the doctor's image in the US even more.

 

[halekulani]

there are people with add that use the meds responsibly, and perhaps even those without a prescription using them responsibly as well.

but the frustration against those who use meds w/o a prescription comes from the fact that many are using the meds to make up for procrastination. the intent for them is not to improve themselves as a student, but to give them more time to goof off. thus, non-prescription users are viewed as lazy. in reality this image is not 100% accurate of the non-prescription users. however, chances are you're going to run into someone who uses it because they're lazy and brag about it ("omg i was plastered on saturday, slept in sunday, then crammed sunday nite and got an A on my final") rather than someone who is using it to do more more work.

 

[silas2642]

Well suppose there were supplements that vastly increased your cognitive ability with few or negligible side effects, wouldn't everyone wanna be on this? For the sake of discussion, couldn't you argue that people who don't get polio vaccines are superior and people who do get them are pathetic? Isn't this cheating nature? So who's to say that cheating nature in one form is OK but in another (ie increased mental performance), it isnt?

Because it's illegal, that's why.

 

[Abulcasis]

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?

What the.......

I can't believe people resort to things like that now.

 

[Wants2give]

.

I've seen studies that demonstrate this happening permanently over a period of one to two months.

Personally, I do not think the risk is worth it.

ive seen studies that say its permanent for 3 seconds... wait what? its permanent for how long?



this statement make 0 sense

 

[Just Joshin]

For those of you surprised that people use Adderall to help with grades, you should look up the old thread on the MCAT forum. It's about 5-6 pages the last time I checked and it was started a few years ago.

Personally, I wish there was a way to catch people who don't suffer from ADD but take Adderall. The consequences should be like taking any other illegal prescription drug.

 

[bozz]

Honestly it's an ego issue for me. I'd never ever destroy my pride in my intellectual abilities by taking add medication. I feel that I've been fairly successful so far. It's kinds sad how kids rely on this stuff. It's not even the olympics where your whole life is at stake and where juicing can make all the difference.

 

[bozz]

there are people with add that use the meds responsibly, and perhaps even those without a prescription using them responsibly as well.

but the frustration against those who use meds w/o a prescription comes from the fact that many are using the meds to make up for procrastination. the intent for them is not to improve themselves as a student, but to give them more time to goof off. thus, non-prescription users are viewed as lazy. in reality this image is not 100% accurate of the non-prescription users. however, chances are you're going to run into someone who uses it because they're lazy and brag about it ("omg i was plastered on saturday, slept in sunday, then crammed sunday nite and got an A on my final") rather than someone who is using it to do more more work.

So what exactly is responsible/acceptable use of the drug without a prescription

 

[majahops]

As a person with severe, lifetime ADHD who relies on medication just to get TO school, let alone to MAKE IT THROUGH school, I have [what I hope is] a somewhat informed [or at the very least "different"] perspective on the matter.

The thing is, taking stimulants has major downsides for the individual. It raises blood pressure, HR (to as high as 100bpm resting), gives you crazy-eyes, makes it difficult to get to sleep at night and can cause or exacerbate anxiety. If I didn't have bonafide ADD, there's no WAY I'd been taking stimulants, EVER... even if it meant the difference between just finishing undergrad and becoming an MD. However, the reality is that I couldn't have even gotten a high school diploma without stimulants, so it's sort of an irrelevant discussion in my case. In my case, it's just a matter of a chemical deficiency which is corrected by stimulants. It's nearly a binary function: completely inattentive vs. completely attentive for me, not a scale of attentive vs. "more" attentive.

HOWEVER, if someone who is otherwise capable of doing medical school / medical professional level work OFF of medication wants to take stimulants in order to perform at a higher level, I JUST DON'T SEE WHATS SO BAD ABOUT THAT! Is it a sacrifice on their part, if they do it for the long-term? You betcha! Is it likely to hurt their patients, though? VERY UNLIKELY! In fact, it is much more likely to make them more attentive, thorough physicians.

As a poster mentioned earlier "it's not the olympics." That's true. And these aren't body building drugs. They are drugs that increase your ability to concentrate/focus on the task at hand. And it's not a "competition" between physicians-to-be, it's a competition for each physician to become the best damn doctor they can become FOR THEIR PATIENTS... and if a person is willing to make the sacrifice to take stimulants to become an even better doctor, then while it wouldn't be the way I'd do it if I were in their shoes, more power to them!

This isn't "cheating" and it's not analogous to baseball players taking steroids. There is no "good old game" of medicine to taint. We need the brightest, smartest, most dedicated, most attentive doctors we can get. More so now than ever before.

 

[bozz]

As a person with severe, lifetime ADHD who relies on medication just to get TO school, let alone to MAKE IT THROUGH school, I have [what I hope is] a somewhat informed [or at the very least "different"] perspective on the matter.

The thing is, taking stimulants has major downsides for the individual. It raises blood pressure, HR (to as high as 100bpm resting), gives you crazy-eyes, makes it difficult to get to sleep at night and can cause or exacerbate anxiety. If I didn't have bonafide ADD, there's no WAY I'd been taking stimulants, EVER... even if it meant the difference between just finishing undergrad and becoming an MD. However, the reality is that I couldn't have even gotten a high school diploma without stimulants, so it's sort of an irrelevant discussion in my case. In my case, it's just a matter of a chemical deficiency which is corrected by stimulants. It's nearly a binary function: completely inattentive vs. completely attentive for me, not a scale of attentive vs. "more" attentive.

HOWEVER, if someone who is otherwise capable of doing medical school / medical professional level work OFF of medication wants to take stimulants in order to perform at a higher level, I JUST DON'T SEE WHATS SO BAD ABOUT THAT! Is it a sacrifice on their part, if they do it for the long-term? You betcha! Is it likely to hurt their patients, though? VERY UNLIKELY! In fact, it is much more likely to make them more attentive, thorough physicians.

As a poster mentioned earlier "it's not the olympics." That's true. And these aren't body building drugs. They are drugs that increase your ability to concentrate/focus on the task at hand. And it's not a "competition" between physicians-to-be, it's a competition for each physician to become the best damn doctor they can become FOR THEIR PATIENTS... and if a person is willing to make the sacrifice to take stimulants to become an even better doctor, then while it wouldn't be the way I'd do it if I were in their shoes, more power to them!

This isn't "cheating" and it's not analogous to baseball players taking steroids. There is no "good old game" of medicine to taint. We need the brightest, smartest, most dedicated, most attentive doctors we can get. More so now than ever before.

I disagree with that because (from knowing people who take ADD) people tend to use it as a last minute kinda thing. It encourages procrastination, and is more of a tool used for people to spend more time goofing off (like someone else said earlier). It sure sounds nice to think that people are doing it to be "better and more compassionate doctors... 100% for the patients" But in the end, it's being abused for short term benefit. Not to mention, we're all gonna be doctors, and we're going to be preaching drug abuse to others and prescribing meds to others.

I honestly couldn't say how much ADD really helps someone... but the mindset that people have when they use it is a little off. IMO..

If we need the best, smartest etc... doctors, wouldn't that be someone who doesn't need to rely on ADD to get into/get through med school?

 

[Just Joshin]

As a person with severe, lifetime ADHD who relies on medication just to get TO school, let alone to MAKE IT THROUGH school, I have [what I hope is] a somewhat informed [or at the very least "different"] perspective on the matter.

The thing is, taking stimulants has major downsides for the individual. It raises blood pressure, HR (to as high as 100bpm resting), gives you crazy-eyes, makes it difficult to get to sleep at night and can cause or exacerbate anxiety. If I didn't have bonafide ADD, there's no WAY I'd been taking stimulants, EVER... even if it meant the difference between just finishing undergrad and becoming an MD. However, the reality is that I couldn't have even gotten a high school diploma without stimulants, so it's sort of an irrelevant discussion in my case. In my case, it's just a matter of a chemical deficiency which is corrected by stimulants. It's nearly a binary function: completely inattentive vs. completely attentive for me, not a scale of attentive vs. "more" attentive.

HOWEVER, if someone who is otherwise capable of doing medical school / medical professional level work OFF of medication wants to take stimulants in order to perform at a higher level, I JUST DON'T SEE WHATS SO BAD ABOUT THAT! Is it a sacrifice on their part, if they do it for the long-term? You betcha! Is it likely to hurt their patients, though? VERY UNLIKELY! In fact, it is much more likely to make them more attentive, thorough physicians.

As a poster mentioned earlier "it's not the olympics." That's true. And these aren't body building drugs. They are drugs that increase your ability to concentrate/focus on the task at hand. And it's not a "competition" between physicians-to-be, it's a competition for each physician to become the best damn doctor they can become FOR THEIR PATIENTS... and if a person is willing to make the sacrifice to take stimulants to become an even better doctor, then while it wouldn't be the way I'd do it if I were in their shoes, more power to them!

This isn't "cheating" and it's not analogous to baseball players taking steroids. There is no "good old game" of medicine to taint. We need the brightest, smartest, most dedicated, most attentive doctors we can get. More so now than ever before.

In that painfully dry dissertation, you forgot to mention the part where it's ILLEGAL! All you bleeding hearts can preach all you want that they should be able to do whatever, but the fact is that it's an illegal thing these people are doing using addreall without a prescription, and that all by itself speaks to their integrity.

And they're doing it to get higher grades, higher board scores, and whatever else. Well that affects the rest of us. The MCAT is a curved exam. When people who are capable of a 33 without adderall make a 43 with adderall, it affects the rest of the scores and what happens is those law-abiding students who don't stoop to such things and are willing to accept their 33 and play it by the book, get the shaft in comparison to the 43 "genius" because no one knows the 43'er has a drawer full of adderall and no integrity or respect for the law.

If you don't find anything objectionable about that, there's something wrong with you.

 

[Shawnpremed]

So why is caffeine/5 cups of coffee to aid studying/mental alertness allowed (a 'drug' you're allowed to have, as opposed to ADD drugs you may not be allowed to have)? Is the problem having an unfair advantage, or is it just you not having a prescription?

I'm not against it, just asking.

 

[Just Joshin]

So why is caffeine/5 cups of coffee to aid studying/mental alertness allowed (a 'drug' you're allowed to have, as opposed to ADD drugs you may not be allowed to have)? Is the problem having an unfair advantage, or is it just you not having a prescription?

I'm not against it, just asking.

I think this is pretty self-explanatory. If adderall was available to all freely over-the-counter, then whoever wanted to could try it and no one would have any reason to complain, just like coffee. The fact is that it's not. It's sold by prescription only and those who don't have a medical need for it are breaking the law by getting it to give themselves an advantage over those of us who have more respect for the law. We shouldn't have to choose between doing something illegal and allowing others to have an advantage on things like the MCAT.

 

[majahops]

Dang... that kind hurt my feelings.

I disagree with that because (from knowing people who take ADD) people tend to use it as a last minute kinda thing. It encourages procrastination, and is more of a tool used for people to spend more time goofing off (like someone else said earlier). It sure sounds nice to think that people are doing it to be "better and more compassionate doctors... 100% for the patients" But in the end, it's being abused for short term benefit. Not to mention, we're all gonna be doctors, and we're going to be preaching drug abuse to others and prescribing meds to others.

I honestly couldn't say how much ADD really helps someone... but the mindset that people have when they use it is a little off. IMO..

If we need the best, smartest etc... doctors, wouldn't that be someone who doesn't need to rely on ADD to get into/get through med school?

 

[cbrons]

Personally, I wish there was a way to catch people who don't suffer from ADD but take Adderall. The consequences should be like taking any other illegal prescription drug.

So let me get this straight... if you take Adderall but you don't have a prescription for it (since it is a prescription drug, you need a prescription), the consequences you should suffer should be similar to taking any other prescription drug without a prescription?

What new insight have you offered?

I think this is pretty self-explanatory. If adderall was available to all freely over-the-counter, then whoever wanted to could try it and no one would have any reason to complain, just like coffee.

What about people who are allergic to caffeine or have severe hypertension?

It's thread comments like this that remind me of that time in 7th grade when my smoking hot English teacher read us Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

 

[cbrons]

I'm having trouble figuring out which point you are arguing here. Interesting reference though

He said that caffeine is legit because everyone has access whereas Adderall is a DEA C-II controlled substance you need a prescription for (therefore, not everyone has access to it). His argument was based on the premise that coffee/soda/caffeine containing products are legitimate as a study-uppers because they are legal and therefore anyone who wants them can get them.

My point was, just because something is legally accessible doesn't mean it is practically so. So what about those people who can't have caffeine for health reasons? Is it fair that you get to sit with your EK books in the library all night hyped up on Rockstar while the other pre-med across the room who is allergic to caffeine has to fight off sleepiness the old-fashioned way?


Harrison Bergeron is a science fictional account of a society that is brought to "complete fairness" and "equality" by masking those with above average aesthetics, distracting those with above-average IQs, and regulating talent in such a way that "ensures" everyone in society is equal. I think the moral of the story parallels quite nicely with over-idealization of fairness behind many posts in this thread.

 

[Just Joshin]

He said that caffeine is legit because everyone has access whereas Adderall is a DEA C-II controlled substance you need a prescription for (therefore, not everyone has access to it). His argument was based on the premise that coffee/soda/caffeine containing products are legitimate as a study-uppers because they are legal and therefore anyone who wants them can get them.

My point was, just because something is legally accessible doesn't mean it is practically so. So what about those people who can't have caffeine for health reasons? Is it fair that you get to sit with your EK books in the library all night hyped up on Rockstar while the other pre-med across the room who is allergic to caffeine has to fight off sleepiness the old-fashioned way?


Harrison Bergeron is a science fictional account of a society that is brought to "complete fairness" and "equality" by masking those with above average aesthetics, distracting those with above-average IQs, and regulating talent in such a way that "ensures" everyone in society is equal. I think the moral of the story parallels quite nicely with over-idealization of fairness behind many posts in this thread.

The users of one are committing an illegal act while the users of the other are not. If you can't understand that linear line of thought, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[yessira]

Didn't anyone here drink alcohol underage? But people shouldn't do other substances which are illegal?

 

[koffein]

Since it is cramming season I thought I'd make this long overdue post.
Others have commented on the foolishness of taking a friend of a friend's advice on this stuff or relying on user-generated content. I agree. I think too many people choose to abuse psychostimulants while being completely oblivious to their consequences. It is not at all harmless. So, here are two papers for you to look at:

Melega WP, Raleigh MJ, Stout DB, Huang S, Phelps ME. (1997). Ethological and 6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA-PET profiles of long-term vulnerability to chronic amphetamine. Behavioural Brain Research, 84, 259-268.

Melega WP, Raleigh MJ, Stout DB, Lacan G, Huang S, Phelps ME. (1997). Recovery of striatal dopamine function after acute amphetamine- and methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity in the vervet monkey. Brain Research, 766, 113-120.