Five Myths of Adderall and Ritalin Debunked
“Within the last 12 months, have you taken any of the following prescription drugs that were not prescribed to you: Stimulants (e.g. Ritalin, Adderall)?”
“Within the last 12 months, have you taken any of the following prescription drugs that were not prescribed to you: Stimulants (e.g. Ritalin, Adderall)?”
This was one of the questions asked in the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment that was administered to a random sample (~1,000) of UCSB students last spring. Nearly 14 percent answered “yes.” If we generalize that to represent all UCSB undergraduates, 13.7 percent would mean approximately 2,500 students reported using these prescription drugs illegally.
Phil Kiner
1) “It’s the same as drinking a lot of coffee.”
Let’s see, in a latte, there is water, coffee beans (containing caffeine) and steamed milk. Perhaps you add sugar and other flavorings. Adderall is made up of dextroamphetamine saccharate, amphetamine aspartate monohydrate, dextroamphetamine sulfate USP,and amphetamine sulfate USP. These increase levels of the neurotransmitters: dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. Adderall is not the same as coffee, diet coke or even caffeine pills.
2) “I have trouble focusing and/or concentrating, I daydream, I get bored easily, I have low reading comprehension — I probably have ADHD. So I’m just taking what I need.”
Drugs like Adderall and Ritalin have made life for many people with ADHD better. Under their doctor’s care, these drugs can help a person function and cope better with their symptoms. But you are not a doctor. ADHD is more than just an occasional inability to concentrate. If you think you have ADHD, consider getting tested. Contact the Disabled Student Program at (805) 893-2668 to make an appointment with the ADHD specialist to discuss your options.
3) “Adderall is prescribed and regulated by medical experts, so it must be safe.”
Adderall is a Schedule II drug, meaning it has accepted medical use for treatment but it has a high potential for abuse, and abuse of the drug can lead to psychological or physical addiction. All Schedule II drug prescriptions are limited to 30 days worth of doses with no refills. The Adderall prescribing information handout states, “Amphetamines have a high potential for abuse.” That sheet’s “warning” and “adverse events” sections list serious cardiovascular adverse events, hypertension, worsening mental illness, headaches, insomnia, loss of appetite and mood changes. Just because a drug is prescribed to one person doesn’t mean it is safe for another person to use.
And always keep in mind that the mixing of two or more drugs can cause a greater reaction than the simple sum of the individual drugs. Sometimes these combinations can be deadly.
4) “I only use it in moderation, during midterms, finals.”
How do you define moderation of a prescription drug that was not prescribed to you? By dosage? 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, 25mg, 30mg? How often? There are no responsible answers to these questions because the drug was not prescribed to you. Words like “moderation” and “not using in excess” can’t be defined when talking about nonprescribed use.
5) “I’m doing Adderall for the right reasons: not to get high, but to get higher grades.”
I call this the “end justifies the means” argument. “Doing well in college is the reason I’m here, so anything that helps me achieve higher grades is good.” But what defines “doing well in college” for you? Is it just the grade? What does the process of preparing for a test, discussion, lab and paper teach you about yourself? Does the knowledge that it is a federal crime to use a Schedule II drug without a prescription have an influence on your decision to use or not use? Those are questions you have to answer for yourself.
It’s worthy to note that the majority (86.3 percent) answered they did not illicitly use Adderall and Ritalin in the past year. If you generalize that finding to our UCSB population, it would be over 15,000 undergraduates. The more strategies you possess to fulfill your academic responsibilities, the more options you have to succeed. Don’t limit yourself to one strategy. Take advantage of study groups, Campus Learning Assistance Services, Educational Opportunity Program, faculty office hours, mentors, etc. Good luck with wrapping up the quarter and congratulations to our 2010 graduates!
This article strikes me as ridiculously biased against the use of any substance- for any reason.
“How do you define moderation of a prescription drug that was not prescribed to you? By dosage? 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, 25mg, 30mg? How often? There are no responsible answers to these questions because the drug was not prescribed to you. Words like “moderation” and “not using in excess” can’t be defined when talking about nonprescribed use.”
This argument relies on the assumption that non-prescription use of drugs is inherently “bad” or “immoral.” It uses the fact that it’s a “prescription drug” that is “not prescribed to you” to indicate that “you” (I mean this as a general, collective “you”) are incapable of judging for yourself the inherent risks and associated benefits of drug use.
To point out the fallacious nature of this argument, let’s look at another argument presented earlier in this article: “Let’s see, in a latte, there is water, coffee beans (containing caffeine) and steamed milk. Perhaps you add sugar and other flavorings. Adderall is made up of dextroamphetamine saccharate, amphetamine aspartate monohydrate, dextroamphetamine sulfate USP,and amphetamine sulfate USP. These increase levels of the neurotransmitters: dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. Adderall is not the same as coffee, diet coke or even caffeine pills.”
The article presents this in an attempt to draw an artificial separation between “drugs” like amphetamine, and caffeine. However, rather than make an actual logical argument here, the author simply stated the names of the various isomers of amphetamine and their associated salts, before stating his OPINION that adderall is “not the same as coffee, diet coke, etc.”
While the statement itself is true (indeed, it would be ludicrous to argue that caffeine and amphetamines are chemically identical- it’s simply not true), the author makes the fallacious implication that adderall is somehow WORSE than caffeine.
The statement made about adderall’s effects on neurotransmitters is true- that is simply how the drug functions. The same is true, however, for literally any psychoactive substance. Including caffeine. Caffeine functions by acting as a nonselective agonist of adenosine receptors in the brain. Thus, for the argument against the use of amphetamines presented here, one must also argue that the nonprescription use of caffeine is also inherently wrong or immoral, since it functions in a similar manner to amphetamine.
In addition, it should be pointed out that even such simple activities as regular exercise can affect alterations in the brains neurotransmitters. The “runner’s high” is a widely known phenomenon, caused by the release of dopamine. Should exercise, then, be illegal?
Why is the ingestion of a substance that alters dopamine reuptake inherently morally different than exercise, when both actions result in the same effect?
One could argue that the cases of caffeine use and amphetamine use are inherently different due to the different physiological means of action, and due to the differences in risk of physiological side effects. However, even this argument is fallacious, as caffeine carries with it the possibility of physical side effects of equitable severity to those of caffeine.
Using amphetamines with a heart condition can be dangerous; so can using caffeine. Amphetamines are physically addictive. So is caffeine. Amphetamines, in high enough doses or over a prolonged period of time, can cause cardiovascular damage, psychosis, blood pressure problems, hallucinations, and numerous other severe side effects. However, the same can be said of caffeine. The intake of too much caffeine can cause all of these side effects, and even more which are unique to caffeine intoxication. Caffeine intoxication can cause rhabdomyolysis (the breakdown of muscle tissue), among other effects.
Thus, it is misleading to present the case that amphetamines are somehow “harmful” while caffeine is somehow not.
Another fallacious argument presented by the author is this: “Adderall is a Schedule II drug, meaning it has accepted medical use for treatment but it has a high potential for abuse, and abuse of the drug can lead to psychological or physical addiction. All Schedule II drug prescriptions are limited to 30 days worth of doses with no refills. The Adderall prescribing information handout states, “Amphetamines have a high potential for abuse.” That sheet’s “warning” and “adverse events” sections list serious cardiovascular adverse events, hypertension, worsening mental illness, headaches, insomnia, loss of appetite and mood changes. Just because a drug is prescribed to one person doesn’t mean it is safe for another person to use.
And always keep in mind that the mixing of two or more drugs can cause a greater reaction than the simple sum of the individual drugs. Sometimes these combinations can be deadly.”
I would like to combine this argument with another made later in the article, so that I may address both at once. This second argument is presented as follows: “How do you define moderation of a prescription drug that was not prescribed to you? By dosage? 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, 25mg, 30mg? How often? There are no responsible answers to these questions because the drug was not prescribed to you. Words like “moderation” and “not using in excess” can’t be defined when talking about nonprescribed use.”
Now, the author is correct to warn of the potential for psychological and physiological abuse of adderall, as there are very real risks involved with its use. However, to argue that the risk of addiction, along with the numerous possible side effects, somehow makes the nonprescription use of this substance inherently any worse than the nonprescription use of any other substance is illogical. Caffeine, as mentioned before, has many of the exact same risks the author mentioned, and is physically addictive as well. The same can be said of alcohol as well (although the side effects risked with alcohol overdose are different than either caffeine or amphetamine, the point still stands that alcohol, as a drug, is as dangerous and as addictive as amphetamines).
It is illogical to argue that the use of a substance is somehow immoral due to the risks involved with its use, especially when there are substances with similar potential for physical and psychological harm, but of which the use is socially acceptable.
The second argument mentioned handles the issue of use in moderation. It is absolutely ridiculous to state that there is no possibility for use in moderation without a legal prescription. The blessings of a medical doctor and the Federal government do not give the patient being prescribed a moral carte blanche for their use. It is misleading to even imply that something so simple as a prescription is equitable to use in moderation, and relies on the idea that the law of the land carries with it an inherent morality.
It is very, very possible for a patient who is prescribed amphetamines (or a wide variety of other drugs, for that matter) to develop a physiological or psychological dependence upon their use. It is also equally possible for someone not prescribed amphetamines to use them without developing such a dependency. Simply having the legal permission to choose a course of action does not alter the risks inherent with that course of action.
The biggest flaw in the author’s statement that “Words like ‘moderation’ and ‘not using in excess’ can’t be defined when talking about nonprescribed use” is that he ties the very idea of moderation to that of medical prescription. This is fallacious in that it implies the very concept of moderation would not exist without governmental intervention, and indeed there are numerous examples of substances for which this is proven false, both objectively and within the confines of “acceptable” society.
For example, consider again the case of alcohol. While it is a central nervous system depressant, rather than a stimulant, it still carries with it tremendous risk of addiction, in addition to numerous deleterious physical side effects associated with overindulgent use. It is readily available to most people (of legal age, at least, although age limits are obviously of little deterrence to those who wish to drink).
However, alcohol is not regulated by prescription (at least in present times, as it most certainly was prescribed and distributed by pharmacies during prohibition). Therefore, it stands to reason that literally ANY consumption of alcohol is “nonprescribed use.” By the author of this article’s own logic it is therefore impossible to consume alcohol in moderation.
As most people are aware, however, this is patently false. While there are many who choose to overindulge in alcohol intoxication, there are many more still who drink “in moderation.” That amphetamines (or any other drug, for that matter) are legally required to be prescribed by a doctor does not preclude their nonprescription use from similarly being “in moderation.”
The final point that the author tries to make is as follows: “I call this the “end justifies the means” argument. “Doing well in college is the reason I’m here, so anything that helps me achieve higher grades is good.” But what defines “doing well in college” for you? Is it just the grade? What does the process of preparing for a test, discussion, lab and paper teach you about yourself? Does the knowledge that it is a federal crime to use a Schedule II drug without a prescription have an influence on your decision to use or not use? Those are questions you have to answer for yourself.”
It is in this argument that the author most flagrantly displays his inherent bias regarding the subject of substance use.
His statement of “Does the knowledge that it is a federal crime…” makes it clear that he finds the nonprescription use of amphetamines immoral NOT due to the potential for physical of psychological harm, but rather simply due to the legality of their use.
This thought process relies on the flawed assumption that legality, as presented by Federal law, is somehow intrinsically tied with what is and is not moral. That the nonprescription use of amphetamines is illegal by Federal law does NOT indicate that their use (and the consequent breaking of that law) is somehow inherently moral. It simply is what it is- the act of breaking a law.
It is incredibly naive, and, most importantly, dangerous, to assume the morality of actions simply based upon their legality. What of slavery? Slavery was, for most of history, explicitly legal to practice- and yet today it is reviled in most cultures and is regarded as extremely immoral.
What of civil rights? For most of history, suffrage was denied both to women and to ethnic minorities. Does this mean that the denial of their basic right to representation was moral?
Blind belief in the morality of law is an incredible danger, especially to modern society. It is the civic duty of every citizen, and society as a whole, to CONTINUOUSLY QUESTION the morality of the law. To neglect this would be to invite stagnation and injustice.
It is of utmost importance, when confronted with the prohibition of a substance or an action or a thought or a belief, to question the justification of that prohibition. It is through this that society matures as a whole.
This article, however, simply espouses the viewpoint towards drug use which is held by the current United States federal government, with very little independent thinking or analysis. It simply states “this is bad, because it’s bad” and offers nothing more to support its case other than that provided by its obviously biased and circuitous logic.
I would like to also mention the case presented by that of cannabis. It is a Schedule I drug, according to the scheduling system of the federal government. Which, according to this article’s assertion that amphetamines are dangerous due to their status as a Schedule II substance, would indicate that the use of cannabis is markedly more dangerous or deleterious upon its users.
However, this is not the case; in fact, the use of cannabis (especially through methods of consumption alternative to combustion) has fewer deleterious effects on the mind and body than even caffeine. Its status as a Schedule I substance asserts the claim that it has “no recognized medicinal use,” which is patently false, as it has many, many medical uses (None of which are recognized by the federal government as valid. The position of the federal government is that synthetic THC alternatives, such as Marinol, preclude the acceptance of raw cannabis as medicine. This position, however, ignores the numerous non-THC cannabinoids present in various strains of cannabis, many of which alter the medicinal effect of the strain. It also ignores the experiences of many Marinol users who complain of intensely negative side effects- indication that it is markedly less effective as medication than cannabis).
The case of cannabis, and the history of its prohibition (along with those histories of other drugs) highlights the political nature of our drug scheduling system.
In closing, it is ridiculous to assume that legality and morality are equal. None of the author’s arguments validly support the assertion that nonprescription use of amphetamines is inherently immoral, as this assertion conflicts with contemporary views of other drugs, despite having similarly harmful effects.
The morality of substance use is something which is to be individually determined, not established by indiscriminate, politically biased laws masquerading as morality. Everyone should have the right to inform themselves of the inherent risks- and benefits- of the use of a substance, and the right to decide for themselves if they wish to partake.
What is more immoral, to me, than the use of any substance, for any reason, is the imposition of one’s own moral views upon another, and the subsequent stripping of that individual’s ability to make decisions for themselves.
This article was neither educational, nor informative, but rather a derisive lecture with a clear agenda.
I am a.d.h.d and was on adderall for about 5 and a half years. now i am on ritalin instead. these medicines are nothing to play around with.there is a reason they are prescribed by a doctor. adderall is very addicting!im not sure about ritalin yet as I just began taking it.
“There are no responsible answers to these questions because the drug was not prescribed to you.”
Actually it is.
This isnt an article this is a lecture.
Could very well around 10 used books within the mother – free for a particular taking. I’ve got a box of other books too within swinging by, one could glimpse and find out if you value them. Furthermore , i may other baby stuff available (bottles etc.) , although not sure at that time. Move the post if interested. Thanks.
David Urzua is right.
This article lacks any reasoning or real facts to back it up- it’s complete bs. I didn’t even finish it.
The best reason not to take Adderall is because it’s a drug and when taken regularly a dependence (not addiction) can be developed. Withdrawal isn’t something anyone wants to go through.
The 1st show of the new series, broadcast on Saturday, featured a kissogram, a naked Doctor along with a “sexed up” Tardis.Throughout the unique 65-minute episode, The Eleventh Hour, in which Physician Who had 20 minutes to save Earth from aliens identified as the Atraxi, his new companion, Amy Pond, was revealed as a kissogram dressed in a skimpy policeman’s outfit, complete with mini-skirt and handcuffs. In 1 scene, Amy, played by the actress Karen Gillan, told the Dr that her kissogram repertoire also included nuns and nurses’ outfits. Discover out a lot more at Sci Fi Fan.
You all are correct in stating that the author of the article had more of a patriarchal tone rather than an educational tone. Instead of presenting the research and allowing readers to make their own opinion, they stated their own opinion….which I agree with. I will present the more “educated” research. I apologize for the lack of citations but I really don’t feel like going through my 5 inch binder but if you would like to check my sources it is easiest to tell you to google/pubmed McCabe’s research and others (I apologize for not listing your names but you all know that his group has so damn much out on the topic!). I will preface by saying that Adderall and other ADHD prescription stimulants have shown to be effective for individuals that are properly diagnosed with ADHD by a physician.
1. ADHD Stimulants have been shown to be efficacious and relatively safe for individuals with ADHD. However, there are no studies indicating potential health risks over the long term. There are studies indicating that children taking ADHD stimulants ended-up being shorter (statistically significant) than children their same age. There might be more but I haven’t looked at that literature since 2007. ADHD stimulants affect your brain similarly to cocaine by increasing dopamine in your midbrain. Increased midbrain dopamine has been shown to be associated with substance dependence and abuse. In contrast, caffeine (aka coffee) binds to the adenosine receptor which is involved with ATP. Google if you are interested, I don’t give a crap about caffeine. Thus, we can see that Adderall increases dopamine which is linked to substance dependence and coffee is not.
2. Clearly an individual shouldn’t try to self-medicate unless they are an MD (even though I have incredibly low faith in MDs these days as I see how current med students learn…with ADHD stimulants! I kid). But following your comment asking for other “justifications” for use, I will include some debunking of justifications. At least one study, has examined students’ perceptions of non-medical ADHD medication use and they found that students guessed that ~30% of students at their school used prescription stimulants non-medically within the past year when the real number was 6%. The students that were likely to overestimate the normality of this behavior were more likely to be users. Multiple studies indicate that students’ believe that non-medical prescription stimulant use is safe and not a problem (also users). Also, now that drug companies are allowed to advertise medications to the general public, we as a nation are more likely to feel that prescriptions are the norm and are safe despite the fact that they often have nasty side effects.
3. I’m skipping this one because I don’t care.
4 and 5 should be lumped together. Dear students, You are not using them in moderation and you are not using them just to study, do not lie!! OK, so here is a load of research quickly and hopefully the selling point of the argument. The majority of published studies, report that about 50% students report using ADHD medications as a study aid and 50% report recreational use….these two categories are NOT mutually exclusive. The majority of the students who claim to use ADHD medications to study also use them recreationally. (pubmed for references). Non-medical prescription stimulant use (regardless of motivation) is associated (statistically significant) with use of alcohol, binge drinking, use of other illicit drugs, high scores on the drug abuse screening test, lower gpas (ironic for people who claim to use as a study aid), and depression. Also, students report using them orally and intranasally. Intranasal administration is not the recommended administration. It allows the drug to reach your brain much faster, release dopamine quickly and all at once, and is associated with substance dependence. Think snorting a line of cocaine. In addition, ~50% of students who use non-medical prescription stimunants report using them at the same time that they drink alcohol. Motivations for doing so include being able to drink more for longer and getting more buzzed. Seems like a good way to stay awake so you can party but this simultaneous use has been shown to be associated with increased negative alcohol-related consequences such as drinking and driving and having unwanted sex (there are more). Also, the combination of alcohol and Ritalin produces the metabolite ethylphenidate that has been seen in several overdose cases in which individuals had both drugs in their system. Ethylphenidate has been compared to the metabolite, cocaethylene, that is created when someone drinks and uses cocaine at the same time and is also toxic. Remind you of the recent cases of Four Loco poisoning…stimulants with alcohol?
I hope this provided you all with more detail on this topic. These postings emphasize the need for researchers to learn how to disseminate their findings to the general public in a way that will effectively increase the desire to decrease substance use.
Enough procrastination, off to work on my thesis after popping some Adderall… not prescribed to me. I joke.
I’m skipping this one because I don’t care.
Nip jap
This is a bit off discussion, which I apologize for, but would you and your readers mind giving your opinion about the recent oil spill, you’re opinion seriously helps and I can’t thank you enough for taking a few moments to give it. I left the URL in the appropriate field, thank you!
@ David Urzua: Popped some Adderall just before commenting, huh?!?!?!
The last person’s comment is spot on. There is very little logical argument here. This is not going to inform anyone’s decision about whether to take Adderall illegally. What would convince someone not to abuse Adderall is a logical argument about its negative consequences, backed by scientific research.
Why doesn’t the author give more convincing evidence? Probably because there isn’t much of it. Although illegal, SMALL doses of Adderall probably does little damage to a young, healthy individual. A night of heavy drinking, or a few fast food meals, is almost certainly worse for you.
If I am wrong, please correct me. But please do so with evidence from scientific studies, not anecdotes or moral claims.
While I would like to think of myself as neutral regarding this issue, I felt compelled to comment on the author’s shoddy logic and lax attitude when it came to backing up his claims. Rather than engaging the 5 ‘myths’ with well researched facts, sound advice from experts in the field or a balanced account of the risks and benefits of ADHD stimulants on regular people, he seems more preoccupied rebutting these ‘myths’ with mere assertion, loose facts and a judgmental attitude trying to impose his own beliefs on others.
Not only does this article fail to debunk these ‘myths’ it fails to dissuade its audience from engaging in recreational use of ADHD stimulants as it is so transparently biased against its use, that it is easily dismissed as BS.
These are my top five examples of the way in which this article is inherently NOT real journalism but a moral rant:
1) While it is obvious that coffee is not the same as Adderall, it is true that they are both psychoactive stimulants that affect the nervous system in different ways. The points students make when referring to coffee, its not that coffee and Adderrall are the same, rather they refer to the overall experience of the stimulant as being comparable to caffeine. What the author fails to address, is concerns of whether there is any significant difference between the risks of taking coffee viz a viz taking Adderall.
2)Stating obvious facts like “you are not a doctor” misses the point of that quote from students, the more interesting and troubling question is “why do students feel like they are justified in taking prescription drugs that where not prescribed to them?” These justifications range from a series of short term benefits of drug use, low risk of getting caught, punishment for using drugs is small, culture, peer pressure, academic pressures to perform, etc. All of these justifications would have made for more interesting debunking, investigating if any of these beliefs are based on truth or fiction could have helped students reach a much better decision the next time the opportunity arises. There is no need to educate students, rather it is best that they listen to you and just say no.
3)I dont know of any real student that believes that if a drug is regulated by the government, then it is safe to use for anyone at any time in any quantity.
Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, right next to heroin and ecstasy, while cocaine remains at schedule 2. Rather than explaining why the stimulants have been assigned as schedule 2 drugs by the FDA, you’d rather skip ahead to the part where you denounce it as a very dangerous drug, why? well look! its right next to cocaine.
4)Again with the argument from authority, while it is true that experts in the field are a very reliable source for medical information regarding the use of pharmaceuticals, the author assumes that students are not intelligent enough to do some research online, at the library or by appealing to friends who use the drugs as a way to find a reasonable dose of the drug. The author himself could have investigated what a “safe” dose of Adderall for a regular student might be. I would suspect that there is no “safe” dose but rather a recommendation for those who choose to abuse the drug.
5)As far as I can see, this is nothing but a series of patriarchal questions that are meant to instill fear, guilt and shame on students. Nothing short of counter-productive. One would think that a journalist would be interested in reporting rather than judging the news. One would also think that a health educator would be more interested in educating students rather than dictating what they should do.
Congratulations, this article was definitely Fox News material, welcome to the no spin zone. I look forward to the day when the front page of the daily nexus can actually be distinguished from the editorial section on the back of the paper.