I was on a regimen of slow-release (all day) Ritalin, then 6-hour Ritalin and finally Dexedrine for almost 2 years in college (not all three at the same time, just in that order). I never abused the medications in any way.

I have always felt very strongly that I am 'less sharp' now that I was before I started taking the medicine, like there is some permanent effect that taking those drugs did to my brain or body. Before, I was having trouble concentrating, etc (the usual ADD symptoms that I won't rehash here) but I seemed to have mental capacity to deal with it better before the period of time I was on the stimulants.

By 'less sharp', I feel I have less mental stamina, ambition and ability to process complex information than I did before. In a way, I feel 'less smart' than I used to. I tested with a high IQ as a child but I wonder if that is still the case now. The line before and after the drugs is very distinct in this respect, that is I can remember what I used to be like and how I am now.

Those drugs were very intense (especially the Dexedrine) and their side effects (changed personality, heart palpitations) were enough to make me stop and refuse to take stimulants ever again.

I feel like I am worse off from taking these drugs and wondered if there are others who feel the same. I just wonder if there is any documentation on permanent damage from stimulants, or at least anyone else who notices this effect on their lives.

Hmmmm. Your post addresses an issue I’ve been wondering about myself. (stuff in this post is very similar to stuff I’ve posted elsewhere on this forum by the way. Look ‘em up if you are interested.)

I’m a true believer in the use of psych meds as they can be enormously beneficial - something I know from my own experience with depression and anxiety. Lately I’ve been looking into treatment for ADD - something I hadn't been aware of in myself until recently, although it now sticks out like a sore thumb. (A revelation along the lines of "oh my god, there's a label for all these dysfunctional things I do?") Consequently, I’ve spent a fair amount of time examining the pros and cons of amphetamine treatment, having read accounts of very good response.

For the moment, I’m not sure what to think. I can well imagine that they’re often highly effective. It’s efficacy, however, frequently seems to be something of a limited time offer. (They stop working after a few months or a number of years - or the patient begins to feel like their body is somehow falling apart - or unfortunate side effects begin to occurr after quite a long period of effective treatment.)

From what I’ve read about the amphetamines (and this most definitely includes methamphetamine. Meth is an amphetamine molecule with an added methyl group to increase fat solubility. Since the brain is roughly two thirds fat the added methyl group affords greater potency. The amphetamine molecule in meth is still the psychoactive element. A good deal of attention, of course, has been paid to meth abuse and it's consequences.) ... anyway, longterm amphetamine abuse, from what I’ve read, can lead to such things as Parkinson’s-like symptoms - tremors, slurred speech, stuttering - which indicates diminished dopamine function.

Quoting:
“Previous research showed that methamphetamine damages the nerve endings of brain cells containing dopamine, a chemical messenger that plays a role in movement and pleasure. Animal studies indicate that a gradual, partial recovery occurs in the dopamine system when methamphetamine exposure is stopped. For example, a recent imaging and postmortem study of the brains of monkeys found substantial recovery in dopamine function over an 18-month period following the animals' last exposure to the drug. However, human brain imaging studies suggest that significant damage to nerve endings of dopamine-containing cells persists in the brains of chronic methamphetamine abusers for at least 3 years after they have stopped using the drug. The damage, which affects dopamine nerve endings located in the brain structures that make up the striatum, is similar to but less extensive than that caused by Parkinson's disease.”

From another website:
“...chronic doses of methamphetamine in drug abusers have been associated with increased impulsivity, and impairments in learning and attention.”

I also found a website that contains first person accounts of amphetamine abuse - and not infrequently the amphetamine is Adderall. (The Adderall abuse stories are usually highschool/college students purchasing them from classmates.) First person amphetamine abuse stories (from meth to Adderall) frequently describe a similar arc. At first, the drug makes them feel great - they feel confident and highly productive. This generally doesn’t last too long, so they begin a journey of increased dosage to continue these effects. (There is no doctor, of course, to put a cap on the amounts they are taking) In time, the side effects become increasingly uncomfortable and their behavior more bizarre. The end result is often an ugly dysphoric crash - the opposite of the euphoria they initially experienced. The side-effects and the crash have many of the hallmarks of severe dopamine dysfunction.

Read through the Adderall posts on this website (a goldmine of information, by the way - since it’s straight from the horse’s mouth and largely unedited) and it’s easy to glean the problematic nature of the amphetamines.

In no way am I out to demonize Adderall or anyone who takes it. I’ve been seriously contemplating trying it myself because of the many positive things I’ve read. There is also, however, a readily apparent darker side - and it makes me a bit nervous. The amphetamines are not benign - there’s a very good reason for them being a schedule ll controlled substance. For the moment, I am not dissuaded - but I gotta admit - the last thing I need is any kind of damage in the dopamine department.

One thing to keep in mind regarding the studies of amphetamine abusers is that recreational doses are often ten times higher than Rx'd doses for ADHD. That said, I'm curious about long-terms effects too; there is Parkinson's on both sides of my family, and I do notice subtle personality changes with Dexedrine, not all for the better. (I feel more level-headed, but a bit less creative.) I'll check Medline for any studies on long-term effects in people taking Rx doses of psychostimulants.

There is a large body of literature out there that addresses this topic.

If you believe that stimulants cause a decrease in cognitive functiong, look through the literature and see what the research says.

Then come back & let us know -- with citations, please.

The "scare" threads seem to go in bunches.

I was reading study recently done on kids who were on stimulent medication for several years -- they were given a brain scan before and after several years of taking medication. There was also a control group (now I have Barb's attention!:p ). I'm a little tired and lazy right now, not to mention the fact that my meds have worn off, so I'm not looking for the reference right now. But maybe tomorrow, if I remember:rolleyes: , I'll try to locate and post it. The unmedicated ADDers had less white matter than the control group. The medicated ADDers had about the same amount! Sounds like a good thing to me. Besides like Hallowell and Ratey mention in their Delivered from Distraction one also has to consider the side effects of not taking medication. The stress hormone cortisol can wreck havoc with your mind -- untreated ADD can generate a lot of stress hormone!

I think sometimes after being on meds and coming off it feels like you are less smart, but IMO that's probably because you've gotten used to how it is on the meds and have either forgotten what it was like before or stopped using the tricks you used to get by before meds.

Scattered

Yes I agree with the observations by spoobits and scattered. I can also add to this discussion that relatively recent evidence from MDMA studies shows that Ecstacy does permanent brain damage to seratonin receptors. I do not know if this extends to the amphetamine class of drugs generally.

There is another post in here in which I tried to reference another more positive research article suggesting what you do when on stims can actually re-wire the neural networks of the brain (neuroplasticity). I think the jury is still out on this issue but like scattered has noted there are several cons or pros either way.



I was reading study recently done on kids who were on stimulent medication for several years -- they were given a brain scan before and after several years of taking medication. There was also a control group (now I have Barb's attention!:p ). I'm a little tired and lazy right now, not to mention the fact that my meds have worn off, so I'm not looking for the reference right now. But maybe tomorrow, if I remember:rolleyes: , I'll try to locate and post it. The unmedicated ADDers had less white matter than the control group. The medicated ADDers had about the same amount! Sounds like a good thing to me. Besides like Hallowell and Ratey mention in their Delivered from Distraction one also has to consider the side effects of not taking medication. The stress hormone cortisol can wreck havoc with your mind -- untreated ADD can generate a lot of stress hormone!

I think sometimes after being on meds and coming off it feels like you are less smart, but IMO that's probably because you've gotten used to how it is on the meds and have either forgotten what it was like before or stopped using the tricks you used to get by before meds.

Scattered

I think sometimes after being on meds and coming off it feels like you are less smart, but IMO that's probably because you've gotten used to how it is on the meds and have either forgotten what it was like before or stopped using the tricks you used to get by before meds.

ScatteredI completely agree with you, Scattered. :)

I've been on Adderall IR since 1999. I haven't had any issues with it or as a result being on it for long term.

Yes I agree with the observations by spoobits and scattered. I can also add to this discussion that relatively recent evidence from MDMA studies shows that Ecstacy does permanent brain damage to seratonin receptors. I do not know if this extends to the amphetamine class of drugs generally.
Yes, there is a LARGE body of research that demonstrates that Ex causes nerve damage. Ecstacy is not Adderall.


There is another post in here in which I tried to reference another more positive research article suggesting what you do when on stims can actually re-wire the neural networks of the brain (neuroplasticity).
But you didn't reference the article. We can't evaluate what we can't find.....

There is also a LARGE body of research on the efficacy and safety of ADD meds.

You know... I'm quite lazy. In fact I've got ADHD so laziness is quite a misnomer. It seems that people in these forums are really hung up on referencing and citations. Did I miss something in the forum rules?

Now I'm too lazy to find references for everything I post in here. I post them in good faith on the assumption that if someone is really interested in investigating something they can google their own research. I usually will not post something or make claims if I know they cannot be referenced. I also do not espouse to any one view. I like to take a multidisciplinary standpoint and therefore respect all valid approaches.

So what's the difference between 'unconscious suggestion' and say... 'paired association'? My answer - none. They are different terms describing the same phenomena from different schools of thought.

Now I do know of course that MDMA is not Adderall. However as you might or might not know the 'A' at the end of MDMA is short for amphetamine. The amphetamine salts are present in all the stimulants. Whether or not the MDMA research is a pointer to the long term effects of Ritalin or Adderall is something that I do not know.

Did I miss something in the forum rules?
Nope. It's not in the rules. But, if you want to support what you say, or get answers to questions, the research is all there to review.

When I hear a claim, such as that stimulant use leads to tolerance or that Adderall causes nerve damage, I'm certainly not going to take the word of a stranger on a forum.


Now I do know of course that MDMA is not Adderall. However as you might or might not know the 'A' at the end of MDMA is short for amphetamine. The amphetamine salts are present in all the stimulants. Whether or not the MDMA research is a pointer to the long term effects of Ritalin or Adderall is something that I do not know.
Ritalin is not amphetamine.

The MDMA research is not a "pointer" to long-term effects of anything but MDMA. If Adderall caused nerve damage, you'd see that plastered in capital letters on the insert and all over the NY Times.

The reason people like me get a bit snippy about this is that comments about MDMA imply to newer members that it is somehow relevant. This promotes unwarranted fear and alarmist views.

IMO, if one posts about something that one is not familiar with, it's appropriate to either state the comment as a question or phrase it in some other way that indicates that it is speculation or inquiry. There are a great variety of scientist among the membership and several of them can quickly explain the differences between the amphetamines and the delivery systems. In fact, they have already and can be found by doing a search.

I work in drug and alcohol research. I'm a psychologist not a pharmacist, but I do know that the research findings in relation to MDMA and its effects on serotonin releasing neruons are not relevant to amphetamines or other stimulating medications for ADHD. Amphetamines when they are abused and taken in very large doses are toxic, but that does not mean that lower doses are. I don't know what research re lower doses says in general. There may be different effects on the developing brain in young people versus adults - just something people should be aware of when looking at the effects of drugs on the brain in research articles.

... I don't know what research re lower doses says in general. There may be different effects on the developing brain in young people versus adults - just something people should be aware of when looking at the effects of drugs on the brain in research articles.

Well let me help you out there. :)


From the National Institute of Drug Abuse
Brain scan shows Ritalin's effects.
American Journal of Psychiatry
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/...nlpr092998.html

"It is extremely important to clarify that different methods of taking a medication can alter its medicinal effects and can make it more or less dangerous in ways totally unrelated to its clinical indications," said Dr. Alan I. Leshner, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which jointly funded the research along with the Department of Energy. "This research helps explain why Ritalin rarely leads to abuse and addiction when taken properly as a treatment for ADHD."

and...

"Said Volkow, "The slow-acting effect we've seen with PET gives us confidence that the low oral doses given to children with ADHD cannot cause the quick and intense feeling of reward that is necessary to reinforce the behavior of taking the drug." This may also explain why medications such as the typically very addicting narcotic analgesics, when given orally, do not cause a high when used therapeutically."

and...

"This finding points out why Ritalin eases the symptoms of ADHD, without putting children at risk," said psychiatrist Nora Volkow, head of the research team and of Brookhaven's Medical Department.

"We saw a dramatic difference between Ritalin taken orally by ADHD children and Ritalin injected by teenagers and adults to get high, as well as the difference from cocaine," she continued. "And when the pathway to the brain is less direct, as with a pill, the effects aren't sudden enough to cause a high and to develop a reinforcing effect that leads to addiction. But they are enough to focus the attention of the child and calm the hyperactivity."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ugs/diller.html
From PBS -Dr. Diller

"Experiencing euphoria is, of course, one of the features of a drug that makes it a candidate for abuse. The most serious drugs of abuse are those that readily cause users to develop tolerance (the need for a higher and higher dose to obtain the same effect) or addiction (a physical and emotional craving for the drug). In the typical dose range of 5 mg to 20 mg, up to perhaps 60 mg total per day, Ritalin does not produce either tolerance or addiction. Ritalin does not accumulate in the bloodstream or elsewhere in the body, and no withdrawal symptoms occur when someone abruptly stops taking the drug, even after years of use. However, with teenagers and adults who abuse Ritalin--by taking high doses, sometimes via snorting or shooting the drug--the phenomena of tolerance, addiction, and withdrawal can occur".
Reply With Quote
scuro
View Public Profile
Send a private message to scuro
Find all posts by scuro
Add scuro to Your Buddy List

Yes, there is a LARGE body of research that demonstrates that Ex causes nerve damage. Ecstacy is not Adderall.


But you didn't reference the article. We can't evaluate what we can't find.....

There is also a LARGE body of research on the efficacy and safety of ADD meds.

Am I in the Twightlight Zone or something? This seems so elementary to me. You just can't go out and claim something MAJOR without proper documentation. Should I say all ADHDers have low IQ if I think this might be true or I read it two months ago? No, because I can't back up such a major premise and this will upset people. Basic Science literacy really needs to get beefed up in our society.

Basic Science literacy really needs to get beefed up in our society.
I'm doing absolutely everything in my power toward this goal. Unfortunately, I'm fight against a propoganda machine that is extremely powerful and works on fear (one of the easiest things to condition).

Thank you for the links, Scuro.

...and it's a fine job that you are doing.:) Hey moderators, give that lady an award of some sort. She is very deserving.

...and it's a fine job that you are doing.:) Hey moderators, give that lady an award of some sort. She is very deserving.
Awe, thanks, Scuro.

But, I think the moderators experience my other extreme a little too much -- I really make them work! The BP in me just doesn't allow a middle ground!! ;)

I didn't say there was a link between MDMA and Ritalin. I really wish people were attentive to details in here but I guess this is the ADDforums afterall. The evidence was SUGGESTIVE of a link and a proposition.

It is highly appropriate for a scientist to question knowledge in this way and propogate critical discussion.

I'm not going to pull my punches because newbies might mis-interpret the views.

It is not my intent to prosper fear and scare-mongering.

I think the research is ongoing and it is too soon to draw lasting conclusions.

I am not an expert on pharmaceuticals.

As far as I am aware there is not a huge difference between the two drugs?

MDMA is a compound amphetamine and dexedrine is an amphetamine. They are the same family of pharmaceutical are they not?

Ahh, the extremes of BarbyMa!


Since we're on the topic. I had volunteered awhile ago to put together a summary of posts concerning anti-medication issues.

This comes up over and over again -- see Milenimum Man et al. - I'll put some time in and get this done. Though the summary will still not scratch this itch, it would be a point of reference to allay the fears of newcomers.

The second issue that comes up is the need for a meaningful lit. review on the safety of AMPH and methylphenidate compounds. I have the cites but haven't gotten around to summarizing them either.

This not so straight forward, since the literature seems biased, due to the predominant funding stream that rewards research studies designed to show the damaging effects of potential drugs of abuse.

Though there is a growing number of studies that look at theraputic levels of AMPH (even of meth-AMPH) and which show the lack of neurological damage (in rats, and primates).

On the other hand the pharmaceutical industry (another major funding source) has not made an effort to fund or publish peer-reviewed studies of long-term effacacy and safety.

But there are a few studies out there.

There needs to be better way to address these issues without personal opinnion or dualing citations that few forum members understand (something that also comes up again and again).

I got interested in that topic because I had this "less sharp" feeling a long long time. With me, it was related with depression.

When my depression was really deep, I felt mostly cognitive and physical effects. There is even "depressive pseudodementia" what was more or less exactly what I was suffering of. It was not only "less sharp", but my memory and my attention were as much affected as my general interest and drive to do anything, which is more typical for depression.

Have you ever had the feeling you could be depressed?

Have you felt "less sharp" when you were taking stimulants, too?

But especially for people with a high intelligence, there can be many psychological problems or believes that hinder us from living up to our potential.

If you are interested, I could suggest some books (from people with a PhD in psychology or related fields, Barb:D).

On the other hand, if you felt less sharp with the stimulants, as far as I know there are people who have the opposite effect from them.

About ecstasy and amphetamines and methylphenidate: they might be related, but chemically (and so physiological as well) their structures have distinct differences.
Actually comparable to the difference of some male and female hormones... we know the difference of their effects.
Or, to put it another way: the substances that we smell in mint and in caraway are "only" mirror images...

And, what might be most important: It is a huge difference whether you ingest a small dose daily (such as stimulant medication) or a large dose less often. E.g. in France or Italy it is quite common to drink some wine at dinner. Still, there are not more people having liver problems .... Compare that to someone who drinks every second weekend until he's really drunken!

I do not think that people who abuse metamphetamine (ecstasy) do take every day the same small dose.

Paracelsus, one of the first famous doctors after the Roman Empire, said: "Dosis fecit venum" - the dose makes the poison.

But still: the absence of a (good) study confirming damaging effects of stimulants does not prove there are none.
People are very different, and they might not have looked for the effect it might have on you.

If I were you, I'd see a psychiatrist and tell him your problems. At least he could have you re-tested and see whether there is anything obviously wrong.

Good luck!

P.S.: Even if you feel hindered now, with me, everything came back, it had even "matured" and grown, where ever it was hidden!!!!!

I didn't say there was a link between MDMA and Ritalin. I really wish people were attentive to details in here but I guess this is the ADDforums afterall. The evidence was SUGGESTIVE of a link and a proposition.
That's just it, Windup -- it's not.

As far as I am aware there is not a huge difference between the two drugs?

MDMA is a compound amphetamine and dexedrine is an amphetamine. They are the same family of pharmaceutical are they not?
They ae not. Ritaline is Methylphenidate. While they are in the same class (CNS stimulants) they are quite different.

Other substances in this class include nicotine and cocaine.

When considering the effects of substances on the human body, there a great many things to consider other than the classification. As several people have stated here, delivery systems and dosages are factors of much greater contribution to risks than the actual base chemical.

Though there is a growing number of studies that look at theraputic levels of AMPH (even of meth-AMPH) and which show the lack of neurological damage (in rats, and primates).

On the other hand the pharmaceutical industry (another major funding source) has not made an effort to fund or publish peer-reviewed studies of long-term effacacy and safety.

But there are a few studies out there.
Have you done a search recently? or is this opinion a holdover?

Reason I ask is I've seen a great many even by just doing a PubMed search.

If the pharmaceutical industry was funding a study, I would be rather suspicious of the findings. I do believe there are a great many studies funded by the NIH or other agencies. It's an undertaking, though, because it would require actually reviewing them all! Yikes.

But the abstracts I've read were all promising. Adderall seems to be the popular topic lately.

Happy hunting!

If you are interested, I could suggest some books (from people with a PhD in psychology or related fields, Barb:D).

:D


:soapbox:
Just for the record, Pia -- That comment on my sig is meant to tell the world that I really don't care about credentials.

I don't care if an author is a gas station attendant or a Nobel Prize winner!
Everyone gets the same chance to "prove" themselves with solid premises, valid logic, and empirical evidence....:soapbox:

Just wanted to be sure my feelings on this were out there somewhere.....


I think I have a few of the books you're planning to recommend, but since I can't find them at the moment, please share!

I scan the literature every now and again, but I am (always) behind, and eturnally ROFNI (ready and open for new info). And often forgetful of the old. ;)

The two-year longitudinal studies that have appeared in the lit. recently are percolating out of an extended phase III clinical trial funded by Shire. I haven't read the recent papers, except whatever Shire reported in their early promotional releases, and am curious who dropped out of the study, especially those who didn't last beyond the intitial trial period.

This trial pertains to extended release Adderall which is currently under US patent protection for Shire.

It great that they're reporting positive long-term effacacy and no deaths or increased risk for hypertension. But that is not really new info. Its just that no one else was going to pony up the money to conduct clinical trials on a compound (amphetamine) that was off-patent by the 1960's.

For everyone's benefit: Adderall by any other name is still amphetamine.

Well Barb, I for one do care about credentials.

Actually, they [stimulants] are not as different as you claim, however, I'm not continuing participation in this thread because my brain hurts.

Anyone got an aspirin?

Awe, thanks, Scuro.

But, I think the moderators experience my other extreme a little too much -- I really make them work! The BP in me just doesn't allow a middle ground!! ;)

I'd rather see 1 person on this board striving for real truth and understanding then 100 Oprahs. For some of us, support means more then emotional support. What you post is typically bang on. Some folks simply, "can't handle the truth". At that point it's simply better to move on. That is the flaw that I see.

Sorry Barb....

The huge problem is that so far I did not find many articles about this issue... Of cause, Terman... and then?
I mean "real" studies.

And I found so few people publishing on that, that I've got the feeling they could copy each other, and "peer-reviewed" might not make much sense then.

But maybe I am missing something?

Actually, I only own one English book about giftedness itself. It's "gifted adult" from Mary Elaine Jacobson. The other one, "Smart Girls" (Barbara Kerr) might only fit half of us. :D


Surprisingly, there is a really nice book on ADD and giftedness in German. I have not found one in English so far.

As soon as I finished my degree and have some time left, I could try to translate the interesting parts.

I have to have a look where I found some articles about Dabrowski.
I did not understand him, though.

Barb, did you understand him?????

Maybe you have those extra IQ-points I am missing :D:rolleyes::D

Here is an abstract of a review of studie of the long term effects of stimulant meds on the brain. I found another too but the abstract wasn't too informative so I will get the full article and I will let you know what it says when I get it.

Vitiello B.
Institution Division of Services and Intervention Research, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9633, USA. bvitiell@nih.gov
Title Long-term effects of stimulant medications on the brain: possible relevance to the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [Review] [69 refs]
Source Journal of Child & Adolescent Psychopharmacology. 11(1):25-34, 2001.

Abstract In spite of extensive data supporting the short-term efficacy and safety of stimulant medications in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), only limited information is available on the long-term effects of these drugs. On one hand, it is unclear whether treatment of ADHD with amphetamine-like stimulant medications for extended periods of time during child development can carry negative consequences, as manifested by an increase in use of illicit drugs, higher incidence of mania, psychosis, or other manifestations of psychopathology. On the other hand, it is not known whether the beneficial effects of stimulants extend beyond acute symptomatic relief and affect important outcome variables, such as later psychopathology, educational achievement, antisocial behavior, and social or occupational status. Data from naturalistic follow-up of clinical samples are limited by lack of appropriate controls and self-selection biases that are difficult to determine and control. These studies have reached conflicting conclusions, although most of them found no lasting negative effects of chronic stimulant treatment. Studies in animals, mainly in rodents, indicate that repeated exposure to stimulants leads to behavioral sensitization to the psychomotor effects of these medications. Extrapolation of these data to therapeutic use in humans is difficult given interspecies differences and the relatively high doses and parenteral route of administration usually employed in animals. This report is based on the proceedings of a workshop organized by the National Institute of Mental Health in December 1999 to discuss possible research approaches to studying the long-term effects of stimulants in children with ADHD. Both clinical and basic neuroscience data are reviewed, and opportunities for future research are highlighted. [References: 69]

I got interested in that topic because I had this "less sharp" feeling a long long time. With me, it was related with depression.

When my depression was really deep, I felt mostly cognitive and physical effects. There is even "depressive pseudodementia" what was more or less exactly what I was suffering of. It was not only "less sharp", but my memory and my attention were as much affected as my general interest and drive to do anything, which is more typical for depression.

Have you ever had the feeling you could be depressed?

Have you felt "less sharp" when you were taking stimulants, too?

But especially for people with a high intelligence, there can be many psychological problems or believes that hinder us from living up to our potential.I'm no expert in these things -- but I agree with Pia's earlier post that depression can sometimes enter the picture unannounced or emerge after the ADD symptoms are treated. When I started something to boost my serotononin levels 10 months or so after I started meds, what a difference -- I expected a difference in my mood, I had no idea how much my mental functioning was affected by my anxiety/depression symptoms. Since 85% of ADDers experience some kind of comorbid condition not everything should be blaimed on ADD or ADD medication.

A while back I was reading findings from the long term Nurse's Study that coffee drinkers (a stimulent we do have long term experience with) had less Alzheimers than those who didn't drink. (I realize it's not the same stimulent and that coffee may not be the causitive facotor). I think there's still just an awful lot we don't know and I sure do appreciate those of you out there who are actively engaged in looking for the answers.
Scattered

Well short impulsive and simple.... i have been on stimulants for adhd most of my life and minus my tolerance issue with rtialin i have had no health issues whatsoever and i could care less about the warning... simply put

i know what you mean last fall i was abruptly taken off ritalin on account of high blood pressure. i had some reserves and sort of tapered myself off. i started drinking more coffee and smoking more without thinking, to self medicate i suppose.
after 2 years on stimulants, there was a serious transition time in whcih i felt mighty slow, much less sharp, and depressed.

i have just started wellbutrin and will soon findout if that sharpness comes back.

i think some of the dullness in thought is that i physically adapted less while on medication, i think of it as muscles that have gone unused for quite some time.
i find productive multi tasking difficult for example, and before meds, it was essencial.

I've posted on this several times before; but there are a series of 3 studies covering a period of 13 years, indicating that the use of ANY stimulant decreased the likelihood/risk of a Substance Use DIsorder (SUD) by up to 85%.

i've read things to that effect before. i wonder if the study calls caffiene, nicotine stimulants like ritalin and adderal. or substances that are abused?
I'm not fully following your train of thought.

In terms of those replacing Ritalin as a clinical treatment, that's a myth.

anectotally, i'd say that using ritalin and aderal were much more effective than nicotine and coffee. but isn't the idea of self-medication that a person finds their own way to deal chemically, and that is what leads to drug abuse? and on some level abuse is defined by not being sanctioned by a doctor?

and being sanctioned by a doctor to take medicine almost changes how you see the medicine as medicine and not drugs. or something like this. i took 40mg of ritalin per day. if i were to keep taking that amount without doctor's supervision would i be abusing the drug? personally i'm off of it because of my blood pressure, but you get the point.

what do you think about the dullness others were talking about?

ps nice to meet you. i've been looking for a while, but just joined.

:soapbox: It seems like this topic is almost like choosing the lesser of two evils. (I have seen all of the following posted in other threads with citations ;) )

People are concerned about taking stimulants because of long term effects although there is research to support that there are few, if any, negative long-term effects. I personally believe that, with how long they have been used, the FDA would be much more concerned if they felt there was sufficient evidence of negative effects. They are there for our safety and it is in their best interest to pull a drug off the shelves if there is valid, reliable research to say that it is harmful.

However, people are choosing not to medicate themselves or their children because of the concern that stimulants have negative effects, while research has shown that untreated ADDers actually have higher probability of substance abuse.

Never an easy choice and each case is different, but for me, the lesser of two evils are the stimulants.