Long term physical effects of taking Adderall? [Archive] - ADHD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community

Gregster

02-15-05, 01:34 PM

stanzen

02-15-05, 07:45 PM

I see this more as a desire to live life in a normal way rather than as an addiction. Does that make sense? My first week taking this I came to realize this is what a normal person feels like. I wasn't over active at all, just able to do life. I'm already wondering if it will really work out for me because I am having to up the dose. I feel like I have a high tolerance to meds though.

You do make sense. I started Adderall last week after about 4 months on Ritalin. Both drugs make me more focused, less impulsive, and less likely to dawdle or procrastinate. I have focused, useful energy now. I feel like I'm waking up to my life.

BTW, you can expect to changd your dosage at first. Some people go up and some people go down, then they stabalize (docs call this titration). I stablized on 60mgs of Ritalin before I switched. Livinginchaos is a good example of someone with a stable dose for several years.

Cheers,

Imnapl

02-15-05, 10:05 PM

I just checked in a copy of _Driven to Distraction_, "motivation", as a topic, is not in the index. Any ideas about what subject it would be under? It's nice to have Gregster join this discussion.
L.

sunnysideup

02-23-05, 05:41 PM

Lack of motivation is - sort of - a symptom of ADHD. I wouldn't characterize is as a lack of motivation so much as an inability to get started on things you want to do - I have heard all of my life that I lack motivation and that is not true, it just appears that way to people who don't understand me. Now, on medication, it appears that I am more motivated, but really it's the procrastination factor that has changed. Pills will not change an unmotivated person into a motivated one.
Taking Adderall for the "energy" is another matter. If you are refering to the ability to get off the couch, get started on a job and stay on task, that's one thing, but if you're refering to the high energy, "speedy" feeling you get from stimulants, that's another thing entirely - Semantics makes a difference here. "Energy" of the speedy variety is not what you want to be taking stimulants for, because this effect does not last and requires progressively larger doses as time goes on. The symptoms you describe: "Then to try and keep up with my other younger 2 children that I stay home with was pretty much unbearable. I would go through my day JUST LIVING for the moment I could lay down. I often would feel like I just never could fully wake up" don't sound like ADHD to me, they sound like the normal way a parent of three children feels on a regular basis. Taking stimulants in order to keep up with 2 small children without having to lie down and to feel fully awake doesn't sound quite right to me - it smacks of the way stimulants were initially used and marketed in the 50's, as "mother's little helper". The appropriateness of the medication really does depend on root cause of the problem, and you do have to be carefull that you're taking it for the right reasons, since taking it for the wrong reasons will greatly increase the chances of becoming dependant.
This is why you need to have a solid relationship with your doctor - he/she is the person who will be interpreting your symptoms and judging the appropriateness of the treatment, taking medical and other factors into consideration.
GREGSTER -
I never realized that you had responded to what I wrote. You suggested that feeling tired from sun up to sun down was normal. I agree that being a mother of three would probably make a person tired all day long but what I am referring to is different than that. I would take 2 and a half hour naps during the day because my body/brain left me no choice. On many mornings I could hardly get out of bed to get my 7 year old to school. This IS NOT normal! I thought it was depression but after finally seeing a psychiatrist after 6 years of frustration he very confidently said this is ADD. He started me on 25mg of adderall. Yes, that was my starting dose of XR. Never once have I felt speedy. Even now on the adderall, I am in no way over acheiving. I am however finally able to look at a messy kitchen and not get overwhelmed because I had no idea where to begin. I can also make dinner now without feeling frustrated because it took so much energy to concentrate on what I was doing. I guess I do agree with your point on motivation, I always did have the motivation, but I could never follow through with it because as soon as I would begin to do the chore or task my brain would see it as too much for me to handle. I would get SO irritated with my kids and it was because my brain was always going all over the place. That is so much better now. So I am not taking this to be some super mom OR AS "MOMMY'S LITTLE HELPER", as you brought up. I never knew anything about ADD when I was in school or I may have gotten tested. I was always slower with books, directions, and tests. I never did that well in school. This didn't bother me. But to be a mom that can't get out of bed and could hardly carry on a conversation with my kids, this DID bother me. Everyone immediately says it's depression. Now I know it's not and never was.

Gregster

02-23-05, 06:10 PM

I hope I didn't offend you by suggesting your feelings of tiredness was normal - most mothers are tired, but by the sounds of it, yours is definately not the usual, "chasing the kids around the house" kind of tired. Depression is often the quick diagnosis for people in your situation - I've had that diagnosis too, but the expert that did my ADHD assessment had no doubt it was ADHD, and neither do I. Extream tiredness like you describe isn't typical of ADD - but ADD isn't a typical disorder, it often manifests itself in very different ways or is "comorbid" with other conditions/disorders like bipolar, OCD, ODD, SAD, etc.
I'm very glad that you were able to find a doctor that was able to diagnose and treat your condition so that you are able to do the things you need to do without frustration and that dreadful feeling of being overwhelmed.
Regards,
Greg

Stabile

02-23-05, 07:10 PM

Besides the potential for dependence and potential blood pressure problems, are there any long term physical issues of taking Adderall? I recently read that addicts taking meth have big problems with tooth decay as a result of the dry mouth.

As time goes on, we tend to learn more and more about what these drugs can do to our bodies. :confused:

Has anybody heard of other issues?

I take 20mg XR 5 days a week, and I'm back to taking holidays on the weekends due to concerns of dependency. I'm in great physical condition, exercise regularly, and my BP is in good shape.
The happy news is, there are no issues. The dry mouth thing is known with Ritalin, but has no known relationship with dental problems.

The connection to blood pressure is also not established, despite the common perception of some parts of the medical establishment. If this myth keeps up the way it's going, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the package insert sooner or later.

There is no known reason for taking 'drug holidays', although there is a tradition for it, and many devotees right here in the forums. But there isn't any actual research that suggests it's a necessary or even useful practice.

It seems like we have to face down these arguments (actually, non-arguments) every six months or so.

I've looked over the posts in this thread, and most of what needs to be said has been said. Thanks, Greg. But there is a false sense of a need to be polite about facts that sometimes infects these kinds of discussions, and this one could benefit from a reality check.

Facts are facts; there isn't need to present or honor a 'differing opinion', and tiptoeing around about it does us all a disservice.

So we'll put ourselves on the line once more:

There is no credible evidence in any literature we have seen of Adderall being addicting, or any documented case of a person becoming addicted.

That statement applies to Ritalin as well. We look for new stuff every six months or so; we've been watching the development of this fictitious debate since the Sixties, when Ritalin was arbitrarily and incorrectly reclassified by the FDA.

If I recall correctly, that act was an administrative decision made either contrary to or entirely without the advice of a board of medical experts. But the classification doesn't indicate anything at all about the drug itself, in a medical sense. It only refers to rules for how the drug is handled and accounted for.

Addiction and dependence are strictly defined, and those definitions are being completely ignored by those who claim to have been addicted, or witnessed another person who was addicted.

None of the stories posted here describe experiences that remotely meet the definition of dependency, which has a required physical component.

As easy as it is to do a quick check of the facts before posting, you have to wonder why this keeps coming up. As was mentioned, all this does is scare people who haven’t had a chance to get their bearings. It's misleading and draws us all down unfairly, threatening the credibility of the forum itself.

I could put a link to the last thread that addressed this, where there are several posts that go into more detail about what constitutes addition and dependency, and much more. But that would be missing the point; we do not need to pretend to negotiate the truth under the guise of being polite or fair.

When we pretend that facts are open to interpretation and support the appearance of honoring opinion where none is appropriate, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Until someone comes up with a formal peer reviewed study to discuss, lets just stop blowing smoke about this subject, OK?

Mee

02-24-05, 06:18 AM

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 49

In many cases drug addiction problem may start in the doctor's office, not on the street corner. Addiction and dependence is the inability to discontinue the use of the drugs as a direct result of the build up of tolerance and when the original dose has progressively less effect and a higher dose is required over time. Tolerance produces a recognized withdrawal syndrome and can precipitate "mini withdrawals" "or inter dose withdrawals" between pills depending on the "half life" of the drugs. This often leads to doctors prescribing increased dosages and/or prescribing another drug to withstand the withdrawal symptoms. Many stories posted here describe experiences that meet the definition of dependency . Stabile you are lucky that you have never had a problem with this but it does exist quite often with amphetamines this is a fact and Ritlan and Adderall are amphetamines .

Again you and many here do not have these problems but there are some of us who do become physically and psychologically dependent on these amphetamines when there are prescribed to us for the condition of ADHD . Tolerance withdrawal can be one of the first sings of this dependence . I just think people need to know both sides of the story when making decisions on taking drugs for ADHD . Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing and promotion of drugs than on research and development - an estimated $15,000-$20,000 on every doctor with expenditures of $8.3 billion in the United States and that was back in 1998 .

Stabile

02-24-05, 02:48 PM

We're going to do this one more time, then we'll have to start getting the overworked forum administrators involved.

Intentional or not, your posts are dangerous misinformation. At this point, it looks like you have some personal agenda, because you demonstrate a reasonable command of the language – it isn't possible that you don't understand the objections that have been posted.

We're certain that isn't the case. But as open as these forums are, nobody has the free hand to misinform others about medical issues.

In many cases drug addiction problem(sic) may start in the doctor's office, not on the street corner. Addiction and dependence is the inability to discontinue the use of the drugs as a direct result of the build up of tolerance and when the original dose has progressively less effect and a higher dose is required over time. Tolerance produces a recognized withdrawal syndrome and can precipitate "mini withdrawals" "or inter dose withdrawals" between pills depending on the "half life" of the drugs. This often leads to doctors prescribing increased dosages and/or prescribing another drug to withstand the withdrawal symptoms. Many stories posted here describe experiences that meet the definition of dependency...
We'll skip the fact you offer no source for this, and get straight to the heart of it: you do not correctly understand the subject, and so your statements are a misrepresentation of the truth. We can't put it much more politely than that.

This is not addiction, or tolerance, or dependence. These things have formal definitions, and what you’re describing doesn't meet the definition.

You may be convinced of your own brilliance, and certain that you are correct. You might even be right. But you are required to adhere to the standard set by the rest of the social group; if you don't agree with the definition of these terms, if you want to skip the biochemistry and related behavioral aspects and redefine them strictly in terms of your own (apparently skewed) experience,

you have to take that step before beginning to blow smoke about it.

Until you forge a redefinition of these terms for the entire social group, the rest of us have the right to expect you to either stick by them, or remain silent.

You are not only offering opinion as if it were fact, deceitful enough in its own right, but you're breaking rules of communication in order to de facto declare that established facts are only opinion.

What is your point in doing that? It's more trouble than openly saying we’re wrong.

Stabile you are lucky that you have never had a problem with this but it does exist quite often with amphetamines this is a fact and Ritlan(sic) and Adderall are amphetamines…
I didn't describe anything that remotely resembles luck, and your implication is offensive to us. People have experiences similar to what you describe, but your labeling of them is out of line. The effect of your posts is to intentionally scare people, not warn anyone about some real danger. All this does is cause informed people to question your motives.

Ritalin is not an amphetamine. That much is a simple matter of chemistry, as true a fact today as when Dr. Korn first presented it to us in 1969, and we’re getting tired of repeating it.

It doesn't matter a whit how sloppy the common perception of that might be skewed by misstatements like yours; even if everybody truly believes it in their heart, it still won't put it in the same family of compounds.

It has similarities, but so do lots of other compounds that are not labeled amphetamines, or even called stimulants, which is probably what you meant to say. There's only a limited number of ways that stuff can be put together, from a limited number of basic building blocks.

Sorry, but these are not matters in which you have the right of an opinion. They are matters of fact, and you're going to have to yield to that, or deal with your opinion in some other way.

All you're doing is trying to paint your own vision of reality over the common vision, and the only point we can see is to scare people.

It's not one bit funny.

…Again you and many here do not have these problems but there are some of us who do become physically and psychologically dependent on these amphetamines when there(sic) are prescribed to us for the condition of ADHD . Tolerance withdrawal can be one of the first sings(sic) of this dependence . I just think people need to know both sides of the story when making decisions on taking drugs for ADHD…
There is no 'both sides to this story', and you need to stop trying to pretend there is.

You can talk all you want about your personal experience. You can talk about the similarities to other member's experiences. But you don't have the right to invent a false reality and misrepresent it to members of the group that might not be immediately prepared to recognize that it's your private fantasy, and not something to be concerned with.

There is no such thing as tolerance withdrawal, or at least, there wasn't before you mentioned it. If those words have been put together like that elsewhere, it isn't in any reputable literature that we've seen, and we both have formal training in this subject.

Again, your free interpretation of formal terms like addiction, dependence, tolerance and withdrawal are not allowed. It's not a prohibition under forum rules, but under necessary societal standards that allow us to communicate. If you want these terms to be redefined, there is a formal process you must go through first.

Go do that, and then come back and we'll talk.

Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing and promotion of drugs than on research and development - an estimated $15,000-$20,000 on every doctor with expenditures of $8.3 billion in the United States and that was back in 1998 .
Now, what the heck is that supposed to mean?

If that's your idea of a supporting factlet, you forgot to name your source, and also to say what the relevant connection is. Implying a connection in this context implies intent to deceive. It's a simple rule of discourse, taught in every college in the world: if you're making a point, it's always more work to imply it than state it directly. And nobody does extra work without a reason.

All this leaves anyone with is a bad feeling about your intent. Is that what you really wanted to communicate?

This is not a contest, and you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it is. We are concerned about the effect of your misstatements on members that might not be informed enough to recognize that your ideas about these meds are seriously out of touch with the reality of their use.

We both have formal training, and to an extent bear a responsibility to speak out when we see the potential for discussions like this to harm other forum members. Please think about what we and other forum members have tried to explain before you continue posting on this subject.

--Tom and Kay

Mee

02-24-05, 07:21 PM

We both have formal training

could you please tell me what formal training you have had .....

Lucid

02-24-05, 07:37 PM

Lot of unnecessary verbage here, but one fact remains. Amphetimines are a highly addictive drug. Period.

A relative of mine is a retired surgeon. He told me that when he went to medical school in the late 50's, the pharma companies handed out samples of Dexedrine like it was candy. He claimed that many med students, including himself, used Dex to focus on the books and stay up late. Many continued the use well into their professional careers.

I think the holidays are essential to keeping control of the relationship with the drug. Once you find that you cannot take a holiday, then you might be developing a dependancy. The fact that I can take a holiday, and function just fine in an non-work environment, gives me the confidence that my life is not being controlled by Adderall.

Mee

02-24-05, 07:54 PM

Lot of unnecessary verbage here, but one fact remains. Amphetamines are a highly addictive drug. Period.
I agree and I became very addicted to Adderall over a period of time when I would try to take days off they were hell .

So I can relate to what you said about drug holidays being essential to keeping control of the relationship with the drug I completely agree and believe that days off are the best way to keep things in check .

Chadwick

02-25-05, 12:22 AM

Lot of unnecessary verbage here I've seen pubmed reports of stimulants like amphetamines and methylphenidate causing obsessive compulsive disorder that might cause something like excessive verbosity. An example provided was a child who insisted on cleaning every last leaf on the lawn, I believe for several hours, during a very windy day that kept blowing leaves around from the street onto the lawn. Before medication, episodes like this were not a problem for that child one would assume. When obsessive compulsive orders like this develop, one might imagine either the person is OCD by nature or is on too high of a stimulant dose.

. . . days off are the best way to keep things in check .
I agree wholeheartedly. I've been taking one or two days off, every week. And most often, my drug-free day or days don't occur on the weekends.

Imnapl

02-25-05, 12:35 AM

"Message boards all across the web share a common problem that's the result of web forums being such an open venue. That problem is one of members who behave like children.

Very often they actually are children - usually teenage boys. And very often they are suffering from one of a variety of psychiatric disorders. The one thing they seem to have in common is the need for recognition.

To get that recognition, they engage in confrontational and rude behavior - an unfortunate way of shouting "Recognize me!" And, sure enough, on most forums there are people who will recognize/acknowledge them, mistakenly thinking that such folks can be satisfied with a kind word or a subtle rebuke.

The reality is that what satisfies such people is being noticed. Any sort of notice. The best, of course, is if they can make somebody lose their temper or self control. (We've all seen children do this - provoke others and escalate increasingly to try to get a response."
Thom Hartmann

Stabile

02-25-05, 12:55 AM

Lots of unnecessary verbiage is a useless criticism, dude. Get a life or contribute something positive. Snarf the text and edit it, for example; you could shut me up and prove your point in one easy step.

Won't happen, will it?

Regardless, your statement about amphetamines is bogus. There has never been a reported case of Adderall addiction, but that doesn't bother you a bit, I'm sure; you don't show any understanding of what addiction is, anyway, so there's no point to going on.

I've PM'd something more about our credentials to you, Mee.

But anything you needed to know was already posted; perhaps you chose to ignore it.

I don't suppose we could expect a return PM listing your credentials, but it would be nice.

Truthfully, some of us have been starting to doubt your posts were entirely above board. You've managed to set a lot of forum members on edge, to a surprising degree.

But Kay, true to her second rule, comes to your rescue with a remarkably benevolent take on your stories.

Here it is:

Kay's interpretation is that the Adderall was working, to an extent, and maybe pretty good.

Stop taking it, and your AD/HD flames back on. But if the Adderall is working, things are probably better with it than without. That's the point of taking it. (Duh!)

Thus, the perception that stopping it was like going through hell. Also, why your doctor would continue to prescribe it, regardless of whether you concealed your feelings (fears, really) about addiction.

That's not as uncommon a scenario as you might think. Denial is common among us ADDers, even after we think that we've accepted our differences.

And the perception that our drugs change us is common, too, as is a stubborn resentment of the perceived change.

Nobody wants something to change them arbitrarily. You could talk to our son Bryan about this; he knows exactly how Adderall affects his creative abilities. He feels like the drugs change him, too, and he has no problem keeping himself intact.

The thing is, what we’ve been trying to tell you comes down to two simple things: you don't have to worry about addiction, and drug holidays probably aren't what they're cracked up to be.

(The reasons for drug holidays that you and Lucid have been talking up aren't anything like what the medical community has to say about it, anyway.)

If your descriptions are accurate, then I’ll bet Kay is pretty close to the mark.

Stopping and letting your AD/HD take over control doesn't seem like a very pleasant experience for you. Maybe you should think about not bouncing on and off your meds, but whatever you do, you should discuss it with your physician first.

Straight from the horses mouth, that. Remarkable person, isn't she? I probably wouldn't have been so charitable…

Stabile

02-25-05, 01:01 AM

I've seen pubmed reports of stimulants like amphetamines and methylphenidate causing obsessive compulsive disorder that might cause something like excessive verbosity…
And there's a great example of it.

Can you point us to the actual source, and provide us a reason to expect that your further interpretation might have any merit?

And if not, why not? Credibility is a terrible thing to waste, dude…

Mee

02-25-05, 05:00 AM

In many cases drug addiction problem may start in the doctor's office, not on the street corner.

Just becuase the medical community does not endorse drug holidays I still believe it is a good thing to do to prevent addiction problems . ;)

Lucid

02-26-05, 08:56 PM

RhapsodyInBlue

03-06-05, 11:50 AM

free2bme

03-06-05, 12:36 PM

Imnapl

03-06-05, 12:59 PM

Hunger is an innate survival instinct which in large part ensures the future presence of living creatures. Are you saying that the abuse and/or addiction of a substance is somehow comparable to that?
A well known, commercial weight loss program addresses the dilemma of food addiction. The short version is: we don't need alcohol or cigarettes to survive, but we do need food.
L.

Stabile

03-06-05, 04:13 PM

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/InfoSheets/patient/adderallPT.htm

WARNING: ABUSE POTENTIAL

Amphetamines have a high potential for abuse. Taking amphetamines for long periods of time may lead to drug addiction. Particular attention should be paid to the possibility of people obtaining amphetamines for non-therapeutic use or distribution to others.

Misuse of amphetamine may cause sudden death and serious cardiovascular adverse events.
It's interesting that the wording of that warning has changed over the years, depending on what party is in office.

The history of these regulatory warnings is interesting, because it's a reflection of the relative success at any particular moment of the self-righteous splinter element of our society in fanning the flames of public opinion.

Much like the present debate here, eh?

The struggle to control the form of these consumer package insert warnings goes back to Harry Anslinger, the father of Reefer Madness.

He saw his position as uber-nanny of prohibition disappear with the repeal, and in response he used his remaining budget to create an appearance of the need for his services in fighting the drug menace.

There's a lot of the politics of corporate greed wrapped up in this story as well; one significant fact that you won't find on the FDA website is that the laws formally creating and regulating uniform 'corporate individuals' were enacted at about the same time as the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Marijuana was officially listed in the pharmacopoeia (at the time, the official list of meds that a physician could legally prescribe) until Anslinger's publicity assault, and extracts of the plant were in common use for a number of maladies. The controversy over medical marijuana use today is only a fight to restore the same therapeutic uses that were lost when it was removed from that list.

The control over the public perception of meds is been the point of much of the behind the scenes maneuvering that goes on, and the style and presentation of these patient package insert warnings is a perfect example of the art.

But they are only a sort of legal condom, protecting the manufacturers from lawsuits and the regulators from criticism. These warnings represent any tiny possibility that a side effect might occur. The burden of proof for inclusion in these warnings is so low that it literally includes rumor and popular perception.

If you want to get a feel for how serious the risk is in the FDA's formal scientific opinion, you have to look at the record of the debate at the approval hearings.

And there, the biggest clue is to how drugs like Adderall and Adderall XR are fast tracked. The point is to aim for the most direct and least complicated approval process, and the most successful strategy is to target a patentable delivery system for a previously approved substance.

These drugs were approved on the back of the FDA's long, relatively problem free body of experience with the basic ingredient, the levo and dextro isomers of amphetamine.

Most of the side effects listed in the warning have only been seen associated with methamphetamine use, including the potential for addiction. The only reason they're there is because they are from the same family of chemicals.

But the action is entirely different; looking for more active forms is what drove the development of meth and other more esoteric (and less active) chemically related forms.

We take the old original version. It is considered extremely safe. To put these warnings in perspective, you should look at the consumer package insert for other drugs that you take and trust, and you should try to find the prescribing physician's insert, too. It doesn't say a word about not prescribing it, or monitoring blood pressure or EKGs. It doesn't advise the physician to watch for addiction.

I recall once seeing a warning about screening for addicts faking symptoms, but I believe that was on an old package insert for Desoxyn.

Desoxyn is a salt of methamphetamine, and it has been used to tread AD/HD. We don't think that's such a good idea, and apparently others agree; it never attained much popularity, and has pretty much fallen out of favor. I don't believe there are any meth related sub forums in the drugs forum here; certainly there's no Desoxyn forum.

If the FDA regulated doorknobs, there would be a similarly scary statement about them. This is about a public perception of the facts that has been manipulated for years.

Maybe we're so used to that process that some of us are mistaking manipulation of opinion for debate.

It's not. We're not addicts, and our drugs are not addicting. We don't abuse our drugs, and there is no evidence beyond innuendo and this kind of misplaced legal statement that supports these despicable views.

Stabile

03-06-05, 04:16 PM

But we are illogical for thinking Adderall XR may be dangerous? Then we are not alone.
Yes, and no. You are being illogical, choosing what information to stress and what to ignore in order to manipulate your own perception, and then justify your apparent opinion and statements on the subject.

That is illogical, because there isn't any control over what opinion the process settles on. It's more of an exercise in making your mind available for manipulation, than one of critical thinking.

And you are in good company, not alone at all. Lots of people are falling into this sort of trap. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Whether or not a person becomes psychologically or physiologically dependent on psychoactive drugs, still adds up to addiction…
Sorry, but that is completely incorrect. You aren't even describing dependency correctly, but it doesn't add up to addiction. It is always a part of the picture, but only a part; lots more is needed before you get to actual addiction.

Horses are animals, but animals aren't horses. Every child gets that right. Losing sight of that simple, basic logical principal is exactly why we call these ideas illogical. They are, although maybe a better term would be 'alogical'.

It doesn't require too much effort to read up on what addiction is and isn't, but that would seriously impede the ability to pick and choose what to take as gospel and what to ignore.

…The dictionaries all says so, the encyclopedias says so...
Sorry, not ours, and we just looked. Ours are surprisingly accurate, given that this is a technical subject. The actual scientific definitions are more detailed, of course, but we’re certain you're up to the mental challenge. Really.

...and as far as Adderall XR goes, it appears these guys kind of think that those of us that worry about this drug may have reason…
If by these guys, you mean the people at the FDA, read our previous post. These warnings are a legal device. They protect drug companies and politicians.

If I am hungry, my brain tells my tummy to eat. So I eat due to psychological reasons?:rolleyes:
Yup. You are essentially one whole step removed from the direct link that controls lower animals. This is a complicated subject, though. It belongs in another thread entirely.

We've written quite a bit about the underlying mechanisms in the professional coaching forum.

These guys seem to think there is something to be concerned about, also.

http://www.druginjurylaw.com/Adderall-lawsuits.html
Yup, they're lawyers. What could you be thinking posting such a link?

Critical thinking isn't hard, and even if it strips you of some of your favorite illusions, you'll be in a better place for it.

It's about controlling what your mind is made up about, for yourself, and not being controlled. That part can be hard to accept sometimes.

stanzen

03-06-05, 06:12 PM

We're not addicts, and our drugs are not addicting. We don't abuse our drugs, and there is no evidence beyond innuendo and this kind of misplaced legal statement that supports these despicable views.

Speaking of abuse, it's odd that you conclude your statement with the above, but you demonize methamphetamine.

These drugs were approved on the back of the FDA's long, relatively problem free body of experience with the basic ingredient, the levo and dextro isomers of amphetamine.

Most of the side effects listed in the warning have only been seen associated with methamphetamine use, including the potential for addiction. The only reason they're there is because they are from the same family of chemicals.
...

I recall once seeing a warning about screening for addicts faking symptoms, but I believe that was on an old package insert for Desoxyn.

Desoxyn is a salt of methamphetamine, and it has been used to tread AD/HD. We don't think that's such a good idea, and apparently others agree; it never attained much popularity, and has pretty much fallen out of favor. I don't believe there are any meth related sub forums in the drugs forum here; certainly there's no Desoxyn forum.

My personal experience with desoxyn was that it's a bit more potent, mg for mg, than the similar isomers of amphetamine, and it seems to last longer; hey, no need for a costly new delivery system by Rippov Pharmaceuticals.

I believe it's gotten a bad name because of the availability of the drug on the black market, which is due to its ease of synthesis

Edited by moderator due to descriptions of illegal use, etc.

There is very little difference among these compounds, except availability, packaging, and the intention of the user.

And the intention of the user is paramount; medicinal use of theraputic amounts of Desoxyn or Dexedrine is not going to create an addict.

Daven

03-06-05, 06:23 PM

There is very little difference among these compounds, except availability, packaging, and the intention of the user.

I think I missunderstood this comment, but are you saying that there is little diffrence between a pharmeceutical amphetamine and meth?

Crystal Meth is methylated compound, which makes a big diff when it comes to fat solubility, and therefore makes quite a change in the effects of the drug.

Chadwick

03-06-05, 06:35 PM

Daven

03-06-05, 07:14 PM

The reading I've done indicates that methamphetamine is more fat soluble than dextro and levo amphetamine, which is why one usually requires a lower dose of it to obtain the same effects as you would from mixed amphetamine salts or dextroamphetamine. I don't think methamphetamine operates much differently inside of the body however. Just a longer half-life and higher potency mg/mg. That said, studies showing the effects of methamphetamine overdose/abuse can be extrapolated to apply to dextroamphetamine and mixed salts of amphetamine overdose/abuse.Yes, the action by definition is relitivily the same but it produces diffrent results. Let me explain...

I think my chemestry prof. in MIT put it best (Mungi Bawendi if anyone cares). Take steroids. Now most of the "roid rage" reports are false, being the cause of inflated egos, not an actual chemical influence on the subject, but for some reason, people pertaking of methylated steroids (17 beta-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethylene-17alpha-methyl-5 "Oxymetholone" and 17alpha-methyl-5-androstene-3beta,-17beta-diol "Methyl-androstenediol" in perticular) had a 84% chance of serious crime. Yes i know, statistics can be used to prove anything, but if you ever talk to a psychologist who has delt with it, they will tell you hands down the remarkable diffrance.

Now yes, it is more "usable" by the body, whitch in case, can produse diffrent results. Your body has a very hard time accessing lets say, 200mg of adderall, vs the same power of meth, if you want a more technical views on it let me know and ill post them tommorow, but im whipped and dont feel like looking it up right now. But substances that are absorbed via diffrent methods have diffrent effects, take injected cocaine, same substance, even if its the same ammount or less, but night and day diffrence in the effects.

Sorry if this isnt put well, ive had a hell of a long day. Ill try to correct all the spelling mistakes tommorow =p

Gregster

03-06-05, 09:57 PM

Daven

03-06-05, 10:11 PM

I haven't read anything that differentiates the way methamphetamine works from the others - but I've only seen info on "amphetamine". But I haven't spent any time in a University Med School Library looking, and that's probably where I would have to go to find out. I'd always presumed that they functioned in the brain in the same way but with differences in potency and half life due to the chemical differences. I'd also always presumed that "Meth" is produced illicitly not because it's more potent or better than the other amphetamines, only easier to make from available precursers. But I'm guessing here. I'd also atribute the lack of availability and the stigma associated with desoxyn to the reputation of street methamphetamine.
I would also expect that the long term effects of long term abuse would be similar, although I doubt that there are many people who've taken grams per day of dexedrine or Adderall or Ritalin for years - where would you get two or three hundred pills per day of dexedrine?methamphetamine is made by the addition of a single methyl group (CH3) to the amino group sticking off the middle carbon atom in the substance.

But you are correct that they work the same way, as I stated in my post above, but diffrent absorbtion changes the effects. Its still having the same action, but diffrent results. As my example with injected cocaine.

Maybe i should be more correct, and say they have diffrent "levels" of the effects. Its very hard, if not posible at all due to veriables with absorption levels in fatty tissues and many other factors, to have the absorption rate (aka levels active in the body) from the non methyl substances than from the latter. Puttting it very crudly, theres not enough "storage area" for the substance.

And yes, that is generaly not well known... I have my masters in chemistry from Rice University, and am working on physics at MIT so ive had a bit of exposure to it.

Daven

03-06-05, 10:44 PM

There is no credible evidence in any literature we have seen of Adderall being addicting, or any documented case of a person becoming addicted. Ok, lets take a look at the meaning of the word "addiction"

Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.

The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
An instance of this: had an addiction for fast cars.
As you can probly gather, that is a very encompassing word. You can be addicted to adderall, pinball, crack and discovery tv. Now some are more of a problem than others, but they are addictions none the less. I really dont see how you came up with that statment unless you mean that it hasnt been shown to cause a physical dependency in which you have already made us well aware of the proper defenition of that. This is a very gray area, and one that is very hard to give proof of, but that is the very nature of addiction sometimes. So, in reality, there may never be "proof" of an addiction, but the effects of the possible addiction are there. There are plenty of accounts of people going threw all their money, then start stealing, selling or what-have you, their abused substance. There is plenty of proof out there, but I guess the hundreds of psychologist that have had a paiteint that has had an addiction are not credible enough for you. Maybe you should volunteer at a clinic. There are thousands of people who are missinformed about themselves being addicted to something, and would like you to set them right so they can get about there lives, or start on somthing that can cause a physical dependancy, so they can say they are "really" addicted.

Cocaine once had no faults against it in the medical arena, and was endorsed by countless doctors. So, if you lived in that time frame, and was discussing this among your peers, would you be in agreement with it because of the lack of documentation of abuse potential, or live in reality,and acnoledge the problems that are assosiated with it?

The happy news is, there are no issues. The dry mouth thing is known with Ritalin, but has no known relationship with dental problems.I have no idea where you got this...

Saliva aids in removing remaining food in the mouth, and aids in its break down. Anyone know what happends when too many food particals stay in your mouth after eating?

Heres some reading for you...

http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?Article=3749
http://panicdisorder.about.com/cs/medsbasics/a/drymouth.htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/66/79636.htm?z=4208_00000_9002_to_24
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/2F65D39C-FD59-4A3A-A8C9-8C2579EF960D.asp
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/diabetes_faq.asp
http://www.nohic.nidcr.nih.gov/pubs/drymouth/dmouth.htm
http://www.laclede.com/learnAboutDrymouth.asp
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0857/is_n5_v13/ai_17495696

If you want a true "report" your not going to find that easily on the internet, at least im not going to go searching for it. Your going to need to contact a dental school to get easy access to that. I dont think many people search for that on google generaly.

Or, you could call a dentist. Better yet, try some of that "Critical thinking" you were telling someone about in another post.

stanzen

03-07-05, 12:19 AM

Edited by moderator due to descriptions of illegal use, etc.

And the intention of the user is paramount; medicinal use of theraputic amounts of Desoxyn or Dexedrine is not going to create an addict.

Woops, walked away from my computer for a couple of hours and noticed that a third of my appropriate but oh-so-specific comments concerning drugs of abuse have been red-marked off.

Cool.

Stabile

03-07-05, 01:03 AM

Speaking of abuse, it's odd that you conclude your statement with the above, but you demonize methamphetamine…
Nope. Didn't mean to, and don't think that I did.

I'm differentiating between drugs that have been tested for relative potential for addiction. When we were taught this stuff, there were several standard tests that attempted to establish a metric for the potential that a drug might be addicting in long term use.

There are still similar tests in use today; the last I heard of them, crack cocaine had 'pinned the meter' so to speak, the most addictive substance ever tested by a factor of more than four, if my memory serves.

These tests have been fairly reliable predictors of the abuse profiles of well known street drugs, and less obviously, the non-existent abuse profiles of drugs that don't achieve popular status.

So heroin and cocaine show relatively high addictive potential, as do several modern pain killers. Commercially produced methamphetamine shows a much higher potential than the less active compounds. Because of this, it was common in the late Sixties/early Seventies for charts to show the members of the amphetamine family with a line separating meth from the rest.

The less active amphetamines were comparable to stuff like Darvon in addictive potential; Benzedrine's numbers were just under Darvon's, and Dexedrine about the same, if we remember that correctly. (We’ve been looking for the textbooks, but no luck so far.)

Commercial meth was roughly equivalent to cocaine, although the situation was being rapidly clouded by the appearance of crystal on the scene. Some tests of street meth indicated a significantly higher addictive potential than Desoxyn. Desoxyn was a holy grail street drug in the Seventies.

The explosion of what is now called crystal meth totally confused things. I never heard the final story about it, if there is one; it's impossible to do accurate testing on stuff literally cooked in small batches in kitchens by amateurs.

But the rumor was that common crystal meth on the street had a significantly higher addictive potential than most other street drugs, being much quicker to form addictive behavior than heroin, with approximately equal ill effects on the user once addiction took hold.

Of course, that is, until crack was invented. By the numbers, crack is considered instantly addictive, which would seem silly if it weren't for the large body of anecdotal evidence that seems to support the idea.

These tests are all based on an assessment of tolerance by chemical assay of the brains of lab animals, often accompanied by the appearance of specific behavioral cues.

During the process of becoming addicted to a substance, real tolerance (as evidenced by shifts in baseline brain chemistry) is always marked by specific behavioral changes.

In addicted humans, these changes are almost universally reflected in long recognized modifications in patterns of social behavior.

Those modified patterns aren't seen in people using the milder forms of amphetamines, even if the use is an illegal abuse of the drug.

Historically, the most common abuse of Benzedrine was probably as a 'pep pill', and of Dexedrine as a mood elevator, primarily among patients that had been prescribed the drug as an appetite suppressant.

Some of the truth of that is hard to sort out, because the easily obtainable 'data' about abuse is almost all anecdotal, mainly emanating from the FDA, DEA or related governmental organizations.

What is certain is that there are a few properly documented cases of enormously high doses (as much as 1500 mg/day of Dexedrine) causing wild side effects, the most serious of which appears to be acute schizophrenic psychosis accompanied by hallucinations.

In every case treated, the condition was temporary and appeared to have no lasting harmful effects. There is almost no mention of withdrawal, and no reports that we have seen of Benzedrine or Dexedrine abuse before ~1980 refer to addiction at all.

Addiction to commercial methamphetamine was reported, however, and by 1969-1970 the growing problem of the theft of pharmaceutical drugs like Desoxyn, as well as the appearance of black market fakes containing stuff like animal hormones, prompted student health services at many colleges and universities to issue one time prescriptions for small quantities of Ritalin around midterms and finals, if students requested them.

That only lasted for a few years, however, because it drew too much flak. Sort of like needle exchange programs today, but without as large a payoff, so they just quit. Long live caffeine.

My personal experience with desoxyn was that it's a bit more potent, mg for mg, than the similar isomers of amphetamine, and it seems to last longer; hey, no need for a costly new delivery system by Rippov Pharmaceuticals.

I believe it's gotten a bad name because of the availability of the drug on the black market, which is due to its ease of synthesis…

There is very little difference among these compounds, except availability, packaging, and the intention of the user.

And the intention of the user is paramount; medicinal use of theraputic amounts of Desoxyn or Dexedrine is not going to create an addict.
Boy, are you ever right about that. The intent of the user is almost the entire enchilada, in sociological terms. Study after study finds the most significant single predictor of addictive behavior is the social context of the user.

So when your mom told you not to hang with those bad kids, she was probably right.

(I'm just kidding here – that barely makes the top ten list of factors in studies of problem kids. How mom and dad get along is much more significant, for example, and whether mom and dad use drugs or abuse alcohol is usually at the top.)

Stabile

03-07-05, 01:05 AM

…studies showing the effects of methamphetamine overdose/abuse can be extrapolated to apply to dextroamphetamine and mixed salts of amphetamine overdose/abuse.
Nope, they can't. Studies of the addictive potential of different amphetamine compounds clearly show a significantly higher risk with meth, as I explained above.

As far as I know, these methods don't necessarily correlate with the perceived effect, the user's personal experience. That's one of the reasons for the tests in the first place – you can't tell how deep a puddle is from the top.

What the tests do correlate well with is the abuse profile of drugs on the street. When the addictive potential is high, there is often a significant street presence of the drug, even if it’s strictly available by prescription, unless it's been displaced by something more attractive. Oxycontin is a pretty good example.

Stabile

03-07-05, 01:09 AM

Woops, walked away from my computer for a couple of hours and noticed that a third of my appropriate but oh-so-specific comments concerning drugs of abuse have been red-marked off.

Cool.
Yeah, it is cool, isn't it?

I wonder how much of that last long one of ours will make it through the night…

RhapsodyInBlue

03-07-05, 02:45 AM

Hunger is an innate survival instinct which in large part ensures the future presence of living creatures. Are you saying that the abuse and/or addiction of a substance is somehow comparable to that? Perhaps I missed your point?
I don't think I explained that very well at all. I am withdrawing from Klonopin, and it is not a pleasant procedure, so please excuse my not so good explanations.

What I meant was that it is being continually said that psychoactive drugs [Stimulants in question here, but I do not limit the discussion to only stimulants], do not cause a physiological dependence. I disagree strongly on this, but I cannot prove it.

If my current syptoms of withdrawal are anything to go by, I wish it were "all in my head", but it isn't. I am feeling every inch of withdrawal physiologically. My psychological side is repulsed at the dosage I was given without being given a choice to at first try a lower dose. I do not want the drugs psychologically, and yet my brain cries out for them much as it will let us know when it is hungry.

The human brain controls most of our needs, and this includes any substances we place into our bodies, food included. If you were to stop your Adderall, or whichever drug you take abruptly, you would be hard pressed to say you were not suffering physiologically. It could also be dangerous for you to take a sudden drop rather than a slow taper.

I have been through this with high dose Doxepin/Sinequan many years ago for PTSD, and it was a hard drug to get away from. I wish I hadn't taken that drug. It didn't help me. It just made me not have to face reality and deal with my problems on a cognitive behavioral level.

-Viktoria

RhapsodyInBlue

03-07-05, 03:26 AM

Stabile=Yes, and no. You are being illogical, choosing what information to stress and what to ignore in order to manipulate your own perception, and then justify your apparent opinion and statements on the subject.

I am not attempting to ignore any data or information. But am I supposed to not comprehend when I read that stimulants deplete dopamine after taking them for a set time? I don't post everything I read. I am also not attempting to manipulate my own perception. If my own desires were all I catered to, I would also be on stimulants. I chose not to go that route due to what I read.

That is illogical, because there isn't any control over what opinion the process settles on. It's more of an exercise in making your mind available for manipulation, than one of critical thinking.

And you are in good company, not alone at all. Lots of people are falling into this sort of trap. That doesn't make it a good idea.

If, as you say, I am in good company, then does that mean that anyone who so chooses to question things is not critically thinking? Can you produce evidence to the contraire, that Adderall XR is not a dangerous substance beyond dispute? I read about a 3 year old being given 5mg of Adderall XR. That frightens me. That child had NO choice.

Sorry, but that is completely incorrect. You aren't even describing dependency correctly, but it doesn't add up to addiction. It is always a part of the picture, but only a part; lots more is needed before you get to actual addiction.

True! I did not adequately describe it, but I have in the above post to Free. I am feeling every inch of it at this moment.
Stabile, do you think you would feel physiologically nothing at all if you were to cease your meds cold turkey? I am not suggesting anyone ever do this. It can be dangerous.
I almost posted the dictionary definition of "addiction" when I made that post, but decided not to. Since then, someone else has. It states addiction is a psychological and physiological dependence. I must add, it does mean to "anything", not simply pharmaceutical products.

Horses are animals, but animals aren't horses. Every child gets that right. Losing sight of that simple, basic logical principal is exactly why we call these ideas illogical. They are, although maybe a better term would be 'alogical'.

Alogical is simply another way of saying "illogical". I understand your meaning about horses and animals easily. But that does not explain anything in terms of what we are discussing. This makes me think you are trying to be evasive here and use diversionary tactics, and will discount anything anyone says who does not simply agree with you. I do not disagree with everything you say. I respect your opinion. That does not mean I have to agree with it, as you do not have to agree with me, or anyone else who might disagree with you.

It doesn't require too much effort to read up on what addiction is and isn't, but that would seriously impede the ability to pick and choose what to take as gospel and what to ignore.

Going through drug withdrawals is probably the best way to find out. I am addicted to Klonopin, and yet I have never "needed the drug", never upped my doseage", but I am addicted. I own my problem, but I was stupid enough to not research a drug for myself.

Sorry, not ours, and we just looked. Ours are surprisingly accurate, given that this is a technical subject. The actual scientific definitions are more detailed, of course, but we’re certain you're up to the mental challenge. Really.

I do not have a response for this. It's a moot point when anything I say will be dismissed in total.

If by these guys, you mean the people at the FDA, read our previous post. These warnings are a legal device. They protect drug companies and politicians.

I am aware of this. I am also aware that in the legal profession, they are often way ahead in knowledge of what is "going down" than we, the general public are.

Yup. You are essentially one whole step removed from the direct link that controls lower animals. This is a complicated subject, though. It belongs in another thread entirely.

True!

We've written quite a bit about the underlying mechanisms in the professional coaching forum.

I will be sure to read some of what you have written.

Yup, they're lawyers. What could you be thinking posting such a link?

To prove that it is not just a few on this forum who see problems; it has progressed as far as the legal profession. So, are the legal profession and pharmaceutical companies all "clean" in my opinion? No! I don't, and cannot name a profession that is.

Critical thinking isn't hard, and even if it strips you of some of your favorite illusions, you'll be in a better place for it.

I do not mind being stripped of illusions. When I first read about children dying from Adderall XR, I reacted by non critical thinking and went into an anti-stimulant frame of mind. Now I have rethought greatly. Adderrall XR concerns me greatly. It is supposed to be a once a day drug, but it isn't working out that way. People are taking it more than the Adderall site claims it need be taken.

What about all the sexual dysfunction in males? Do they then take a substance such as Viagra+Adderall to help nature take it's course? Substances such as Viagra have their own health warnings, and one of those is in regards to the cardiovascular system. That will mean that there are two drugs being put into a human body with the possible potential to cause a reaction.

It's about controlling what your mind is made up about, for yourself, and not being controlled. That part can be hard to accept sometimes.

I'm not into "mind control", NLP, or anything. I have experienced all of those at an extreme level. No one is controlling me, and I am open minded enough to admit when I have changed my opinon. On many issues; I have.

-Viktoria

Stabile

03-07-05, 04:06 AM

Ok, lets take a look at the meaning of the word "addiction"

Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.

The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
An instance of this: had an addiction for fast cars.
As you can probly gather, that is a very encompassing word…
Yup, but that's not the definition of addiction. That's some English dictionary definition, and if we were just chatting about spending too much money on our '68 Camaro, it would be fine.

But we’re not; we’re talking about drugs, and the definition of addiction in this case is much more narrow and technical.

For example, in a true addiction there are specific behavioral changes that are expected, which in turn are related to specific chemical changes in the brain. Neither of these have been described here.

What you've been describing is more properly called 'habituation'. What many of you still pounding away at these arguments call 'tolerance' is normally described as 'lessening of effect' or 'loss of effect'.

Habit isn't addiction, despite the popular druggie use of the term. And a loss of effect isn't tolerance, even if after a time the same dose of the drug doesn't have as large an actual chemical effect in the brain. (There are many reasons for an apparent loss of effect, most of which have little to do with brain chemistry.)

Real tolerance is intimately related to addiction, and involves changes in the baseline chemistry of the brain. Those changes aren't normally permanent, but the recovery process (once the drug is withdrawn) usually involves a temporary inversion of the baseline changes, which over time return to something approximating normal.

In one form or another, this entire process (along with specific behavioral markers) is required to define addiction. We’re not seeing it here.

You can be addicted to adderall, pinball, crack and discovery tv.
Nope. Only crack makes the list. Sorry, but we’ve explained this too many times in simple terms. You are wrong, and the implication leads to some pretty screwed up places. Why would you choose to ignore the truth, when it's a lot more positive than the consequences of your misunderstanding?

Now some are more of a problem than others, but they are addictions none the less. I really dont see how you came up with that statment unless you mean that it hasnt been shown to cause a physical dependency in which you have already made us well aware of the proper defenition of that...
Again, nope. The continuum of personal difficulty doesn't define it. Physical dependency is a necessary part of the picture, but you probably have the wrong idea of that, too.

And that would be our fault, I guess, especially if you've read what we posted about it.

Physical dependency is not about addicts shivering on the corner, waiting for their connection. It's physical because it involves brain chemistry. That's the bit about tolerance from a couple of paragraphs ago.

It's specifically called physical to distinguish it from psychological dependency, which can strongly mimic some of the aspects of a real addiction. But no psychological dependency exhibits true tolerance to the drug, although there might be a loss of effect that mimics it.

And it is not addiction.

This is a very gray area, and one that is very hard to give proof of, but that is the very nature of addiction sometimes. So, in reality, there may never be "proof" of an addiction, but the effects of the possible addiction are there. There are plenty of accounts of people going threw all their money, then start stealing, selling or what-have you, their abused substance. There is plenty of proof out there, but I guess the hundreds of psychologist that have had a paiteint that has had an addiction are not credible enough for you. Maybe you should volunteer at a clinic. There are thousands of people who are missinformed about themselves being addicted to something, and would like you to set them right so they can get about there lives, or start on somthing that can cause a physical dependancy, so they can say they are "really" addicted…
Jeeze, that's quite a little outburst. Is this what it's been about all along?

Nothing we’ve been saying implies in any way that people with problems aren't really having a problem. Read anything we've posted carefully, and you'll see our objectives are exactly opposite that.

What we are trying to do is limit the range of possibilities to real problems. Imagining that we are addicted to our drugs would an impediment to progress, not an identification of a real problem. It just isn't so, and until the real problems are brought into focus, dealing with an imaginary addiction will just waste time and energy.

And the real problems will continue to worsen, all the while. We don't see any reason for that. If we can snuff out these little flare-ups before they take hold like some urban myth, we are going to save a lot of people a lot of unnecessary pain.

Cocaine once had no faults against it in the medical arena, and was endorsed by countless doctors. So, if you lived in that time frame, and was discussing this among your peers, would you be in agreement with it because of the lack of documentation of abuse potential, or live in reality,and acnoledge the problems that are assosiated with it?
Actually, cocaine is still in the pharmacopoeia. It's used all the time, today, as an anesthetic, mostly for numbing broken noses while they're yanked back into place. I've had it done to me.

What we've been talking about is determined by lab tests that weren't around at the time you're probably referring to. These tests attempt to measure the addictive potential of a drug, and they show cocaine (and meth, too) to be potentially more dangerous than our drugs, significantly so. Our drugs have about as much addictive potential as stuff like Darvon.

We posted a bit more about that just a little while ago.

I have no idea where you got this...

Saliva aids in removing remaining food in the mouth, and aids in its break down. Anyone know what happends when too many food particals stay in your mouth after eating?

Heres some reading for you...

(lots of stuff snipped)

If you want a true "report" your not going to find that easily on the internet, at least im not going to go searching for it. Your going to need to contact a dental school to get easy access to that. I dont think many people search for that on google generaly.

Or, you could call a dentist. Better yet, try some of that "Critical thinking" you were telling someone about in another post.
I'm not sure what you're going on about here. If you're talking about dry mouth as a side effect of our stimulant meds, you must have misread something we posted.

But we are pretty good at critical thinking, and we in fact have talked to both our dentist and our doctor about this. I'm certain anything we said was partly based on what they told us, 'cause we trust both of 'em.

But Kay has direct experience with this, and the bulk of whatever you read was certainly based on her experience and knowledge. She's responsible for the medical care (including dental care) of lot of folks that have been on drugs that cause dry mouth for a really long time.

She's licensed to take that responsibility, too, so I don't think we’ll bother looking for any more studies on the subject. I still don't know what you meant to poke at, here.

Did you think we were incorrectly assessing the risk of dry mouth? You do know, I presume, that the dry mouth side effect of stimulant meds isn't related to the normal saliva flow that occurs when we chew food?

It's not even the same stuff. Chewing food causes a whole different bunch of secretions, specific to digestion, just as you say. The dry mouth from stimulant meds is different, and when you want to eat it's easily fixed (albeit temporarily) by taking a sip of water.

But once you start to chew a different mechanism cuts in, and there generally isn't any more problem until after you're done eating. There shouldn't be any problem with residual food particles.

RhapsodyInBlue

03-07-05, 05:20 AM

Our drugs have about as much addictive potential as stuff like Darvon.
http://parent.aadac.com/addiction_info/codeine_abcs.asp

Then my decision to not take stimulants was not an illogical decision based on my research, and now, on what you yourself have written, Stabile.

-Viktoria

Stabile

03-07-05, 05:29 AM

But am I supposed to not comprehend when I read that stimulants deplete dopamine after taking them for a set time?
Yup, I think you don't comprehend what that means. In fact, I'm pretty certain that you don't, and wherever you got it, they're probably wrong about what it means, too, or you wouldn't have these silly ideas about it.

Think for a minute, and try to tell me what the consequence of depleted dopamine is.

I doubt you can do it, but regardless, and assuming you could, next tell me why you think that depletion is caused by the drug, and not by your brain adapting to the positive benefit of the drug.

That I am sure you have no answer for, because nobody out there is even in the right ballpark on that.

What you're supposed to do when you read stuff like that is wonder how they know. If they don't say, don’t buy it.

If, as you say, I am in good company, then…
Look, this is really silly. 'Being in good company' only means there are a lot of confused people out there just like you. It doesn't mean any of you is right. This isn't a power in numbers thing; it's not a popularity contest, or an election, or anything like that.

I don't really think that the three year old girl had a choice (if she actually exists), nor does it make sense to talk about a three year old girl making a choice. That's what parents are for, and by your own previous arguments, the choice is theirs regardless of what opinion you and I personally hold on the matter.

Once it gets into the family unit, we’re pretty much out of the loop unless you can convince everybody that you can prove there is an absolutely undeniable danger.

If even one reputable source disagrees with you, the whole thing collapses, and the choice reverts to the family again. It's tough to make changes in the common reality that are strong enough to abridge a parent's rights.

This is exactly where the idea of personal opinion does apply. It doesn’t apply to anyone forcing others to accept their opinion as correct.

The facts about our drugs are more than enough to cast doubt on the idea they really represent a clear danger. You have to leap over that first. And you can only do that by finding a way to discredit the established facts. It's not even enough to discredit the guy who presents them.

That would be argumentum ad hominum, incidentally.

Stabile, do you think you would feel physiologically nothing at all if you were to cease your meds cold turkey? I am not suggesting anyone ever do this. It can be dangerous…
That's OK, I do it all the time. There's nothing dangerous about it. Stimulant meds don't have the same kind of build up that (for example) antidepressants do.

It's not really cold turkey, though, unless you don't mean to intend the drug reference. In druggie terms, I would have to be addicted before quitting suddenly could be called 'cold turkey'.

And regardless of your arguments, and passion, and personal experience, it's still not tolerance, and not addiction, either. You're missing key parts of the picture when you describe it.

If they're not there, you aren't experiencing addiction or tolerance or withdrawal. Sorry, but that's the fact of it, and no matter how much you feel like you're experiencing these things, believing it is only going to blur your therapeutic picture.

That's not to say that someone's doctor won't act in a way that seems as if s/he believes it, too, but that is also an illusion. The doctor is just acting as directly as possible to get the patient in a good situation. Challenging a distressed patient's beliefs isn't usually a useful strategy.

lots of stuff…
The dictionary definition is part of the problem here, and please see our response to that post. It doesn't apply, and every one here should know better.

Alogical is not the same as illogical. Illogical implies flawed logic, and alogical is the absence of logic.

Going through drug withdrawals is probably the best way to find out. I am addicted to Klonopin, and yet I have never "needed the drug", never upped my doseage", but I am addicted. I own my problem, but I was stupid enough to not research a drug for myself.
I'm not really familiar with Klonipin, and Kay's asleep right now. But that description is far closer to what we expect in real addiction than anything else posted here.

You have to understand that personal subjective experience doesn't make it when it comes to addiction. We just get it all wrong; if it was otherwise, we would all see it coming and nobody would ever fall into the trap of it.

That's why we need specific technical definitions, and tests that show one drug to be more dangerous than another that seems the same.

…it's a moot point…
Wait, wasn't I was describing our dictionary here? How is your opinion on that relevant? It's mooted because we own the book…

…in the legal profession, they are often way ahead in knowledge of what is "going down" than we, the general public are…
Not in any world we've ever lived in. Lawyers are so tied up in the specifics of the law that they are seldom in contact with reality, in our experience.

If you really trust lawyers' opinions like this, well, it's a first for me. I've never met anyone that thought lawyers were keyed into anything real.

When I first read about children dying from Adderall XR…
See, there's the problem. You didn't read about children dying from Adderall, XR or otherwise. Nobody did.

Let me help you understand this, please, because the thorn that's driving all of this is trapped right there, in that statement.

You read about children dying, and also that those children had been prescribed Adderall XR. You read that nobody knows if those two pieces of information are related, and that the number of children that died was probably about the same number that would be expected to die if you look at enough people, for enough time.

Nobody wants to hear about children dying, granted. But it's a fact of life; any population watched long enough will disappear, and some of the deaths will seem more poignant than the rest.

But that's emotion, the thing that proves that we're real human beings. It's not thinking, what you need to do to get past the raw feelings and look at numbers that create a view of ourselves and our situation that nobody was ever intended to see.

We generate this point of view by looking at the statistics until we can wring something out of them, anything, the tiniest speck, and then we personify that mathematical abstraction back into a picture of real, living people.

It's a mistake. You didn't read about children dying from Adderall, just that a child died, and Adderall was in the room at the time. But you could legitimately decide to be cautious and choose to act as if the connection had been established, and apply that opinion privately, within you own family.

And I can do the same, or perhaps not, and come to a different conclusion. And when I apply that to my family, privately, there is still no proof of a connection, or even (to state it rigorously) any suggestion that a connection actually exists.

All you can say is that the shadows look right, and they might be cast by a big old monster. But they might be just a coat thrown carelessly over the back of a chair, too.

If I don't run, and you do, it doesn't make me wrong, does it?

Well, it doesn't make you wrong, either. Now what was it we were arguing about?

Adderrall XR concerns me greatly. It is supposed to be a once a day drug, but it isn't working out that way. People are taking it more than the Adderall site claims it need be taken...
But they’re not taking more than their doctors prescribe, generally, are they?

You have to address that first; it turns out that the use of Adderall XR has always been a bit 'off label', but that is true for almost all AD/HD meds. Physicians all around the world have the power to prescribe as they see fit, as long as it doesn't get into areas that are dangerous to the patient.

The FDA knows full well what they're doing, though. If you want to read about the accepted safe prescribing practices for Adderall XR or any other AD/HD drug, you have to look at the professional organizations that set the standards for medical practice.

The drug manufacturers information only reflects the circumstances of the approval process. This is just the way the system works, and when you think you see something in the package insert that seems upsetting, you have to look a little harder before you can decide it's really a monster after all.

Look at the same resources that physicians use to determine how to prescribe Adderall XR, and you'll see exactly the dosage schedules that seem scary to you.

What about all the sexual dysfunction in males?
Yeah, what about that? It seems a little off topic, but I'm all for getting men straightened out. Fix men up a bit, and most of that nasty dysfunction will go away, you bet.

I'm not into "mind control", NLP, or anything…
No, not 'mind control'. It's about controlling your own mind. We’re all born with mechanisms that are designed to let others control how and what we think, and it's worse for women than it is for men, in a way.

The point is to transcend that, and take control of your own mind.

Jeeze. I thought you would like that idea, at least.

Stabile

03-07-05, 05:36 AM

http://parent.aadac.com/addiction_info/codeine_abcs.asp

Then my decision to not take stimulants was not an illogical decision based on my research, and now, on what you yourself have written, Stabile.

-Viktoria
Darvon isn't very problematical; it’s the same situation as our low activity salts of amphetamines.

It was once considered for OTC status here in the states. It's not a very interesting opiate, as opiates go. Kay was taught that is isn't really an opiate, anyway, in the strict chemical sense, but I'm too tired to argue the point.

Most people know Darvon as a non-threatening pain reliever that nobody would take if they really hurt. It's not very potent, and nobody in their right mind would bother abusing it for more than a minute.

That was the connection we were trying to evoke.

Mee

03-07-05, 05:43 AM

Addiction and Other Dangers

Given propoxyphene's similarities to methadone, it's not surprising that the drug is as addictive as it is.

In fact, the medical journal Clinical Pharmacology even argued that propoxyphene's "most prominent effect...may be its addictive quality."

And that danger hasn't been lost on a generation of users, either.

Darvon produces psychological and physical dependence like other narcotics, and treatment for Darvon dependence is much the same, too.

Other risks are tied to the presence of substances often found in propoxyphene preparations. Aspirin and acetaminophen are particularly dangerous since they can damage the liver and kidneys when overused.

Similarly, heavy doses of caffeine (found in Darvon Compound and Darvon Compound-65) can cause jitteriness, insomnia, and anxiety-which some users relieve by taking tranquilizers or sleeping pills, which further compounds the risk of overdose.

That brings us to a final danger of Darvon that's confronted too many users over the years: a potentially-fatal overdose syndrome.

Symptoms are similar to other narcotics overdoses, and include convulsions, stupor, pinpoint pupils, respiratory depression, and coma.

But propoxyphene overdoses are doubly deadly because they happen so quickly.

In fact, one study has shown that 20 percent of fatal overdoses occur in the first hour after ingestion of the drug.

Due to the seriousness of a propoxyphene OD and the rapid onset of symptoms, medical help should be sought immediately.

This seems very problematical ..........

Daven

03-07-05, 08:22 AM

um... i dont even know why im replying to this, but you do recognise that your post made little if any sence at all, your just playing words... but oh well, here I go.

Yup, but that's not the definition of addiction. That's some English dictionary definition, and if we were just chatting about spending too much money on our '68 Camaro, it would be fine.Ok. So what Is the deffinition of addiction. Im guessing that you yourself are responsible for the deffinition? I just checked 4 diffrent dictionarys, and 2 textbooks that say just about the same thing. You should contact them so they can get it right finaly. ha.

Nope. Only crack makes the list. Sorry, but we’ve explained this too many times in simple terms. You are wrong, and the implication leads to some pretty screwed up places. Why would you choose to ignore the truth, when it's a lot more positive than the consequences of your misunderstanding?
Once again, is this based on your agreement of the word addiction? Wow, once again, please inform the medical community as soon as you can.

Again, nope. The continuum of personal difficulty doesn't define it. Physical dependency is a necessary part of the picture, but you probably have the wrong idea of that, too.

And that would be our fault, I guess, especially if you've read what we posted about it.

Physical dependency is not about addicts shivering on the corner, waiting for their connection. It's physical because it involves brain chemistry. That's the bit about tolerance from a couple of paragraphs ago.

It's specifically called physical to distinguish it from psychological dependency, which can strongly mimic some of the aspects of a real addiction. But no psychological dependency exhibits true tolerance to the drug, although there might be a loss of effect that mimics it.
You seem to change that around. I was not talking about physical dependancy, but in this statment, I was, and you are correcting me. That makes sence. My point was that an addiction is diffrent from physical need. Do you understand that or are my words to fast, should I slow it down?

Actually, cocaine is still in the pharmacopoeia. It's used all the time, today, as an anesthetic, mostly for numbing broken noses while they're yanked back into place. I've had it done to me.
Um, once again you missed my point so maybe i should slow it down...

Cocaine
is
addicting
Yes it has theraputic use, but if you sold it like they used to, there would be deaths, mania and more from its use. Thats why its restricted. Now did I say anything of it not having a use in the medical feild, im afraid not sorry...

I'm not sure what you're going on about here. If you're talking about dry mouth as a side effect of our stimulant meds, you must have misread something we posted.um, did you miss the quote I stated from you?

The happy news is, there are no issues. The dry mouth thing is known with Ritalin, but has no known relationship with dental problems. now that doesnt seem that easy to missread.

But we are pretty good at critical thinking, and we in fact have talked to both our dentist and our doctor about this. I'm certain anything we said was partly based on what they told us, 'cause we trust both of 'em.
Did they show you a study? :) Maybe you should try a diffrent dentist.ha. And yes, critical thinking is taking alot of what they said for truth, not looking up everything for yourself and drawing your own conclution. Or is your view on critical thinking, again, diffrent from everyone elses? Maybe you should write a short dictionary for us all so we can use your words in the correct cotext.