toledo

It looks like we've lost the OP in all this bickering. The OP says he/she doesn't think he/she has ADD, but describes many of the classic symptoms. Besides long tests, the OP mentions trouble paying attention in class. I would recommend seeing a doctor and trying Adderall for a period of time. If the OP has ADD, he/she will notice a big improvement immediately.
My D takes it daily during the school year and when she starts it, she gets bad headaches. I don't think it's the kind of med you want to take occasionally, both for physiological reasons or the fact that it's illegal to "borrow" someone else's meds.

Shrinkrap

I can only hope that it's not as simple as it sounds to see a doctor and try adderall for a period. It is my impression that whether or not he has ADD, the odds are he will notice In improvement, but that does not address the issue of whether the risks are outweighed by the benefits for him..

I hope readers will forgive me any bickering, but drug diversion is a real thorn in my side, and I think its more complicated than we can go into on a forum..

leah377

^^your hopes would be dashed if you went to a doctor to get screened for ADHD..adderall's one of the most overprescribed medications in america..

Shrinkrap

Scientists back brain drugs for healthy people - Yahoo! News

"The commentary cites a 2001 survey of about 11,000 American college students that found 4 percent had used prescription stimulants illegally in the prior year. But at some colleges, the figure was as high as 25 percent.

"It's a felony, but it's being done," Farah said."


"One challenge will be finding ways to protect people against subtle coercion to use the drugs, the kind of thing parents feel when neighbor kids sign up for SAT prep courses, he said.

And if the nation moves to providing a basic package of health care to all its citizens, it's hard to see how it could afford to include brain-boosting drugs, he said. If they have to be bought separately, it raises the question about promoting societal inequalities, he said. "

apumic

Even that very one-sided article acknowledges the fundamental problem in the use of these drugs on healthy individuals -- we still don't fully understand the long-term effects of these drugs. While we generally understand their method of action, we do not truly know all of the risks, therefore it is foolish to prescribe or give these drugs out to people who do not absolutely need them. It's a felony for reasons other than the gov't wanting to keep the fun away from you!

Mr. Bojangles

The only reason my heart is still beating right now is because of amphetamines like adderall. I've been up studying for like 3 days straight...its miraculous.

Shrinkrap

I hope no one thinks I'm a fan!

Mr. Bojangles.....how FAST is your heart beating? ......You might want to check!

purdue13

I have a friend who went to doctor to get prescribed adderall. When the doctor refused, they went to another doctor who then prescribed them the drug. I find it funny that the only thing seperating the cheaters who take adderall from the non-cheaters who take adderall is the precription, yet some doctors seem to so readily prescribe this drug regardless if one had ADHD, ADD, or any other type of attention disorder an.
That being said I have some friends who "depend" on adderall, and their grades are still bad (<3.0). This is probably due to the fact that while adderall does help you concentrate, there are lots of things other than school work to concentrate on. Also taking adderall the night before a chm exam you have the next day at 8 pm when you have 100+ pages of reading to do is not going to help you pass it.
Honestly though I don't really care if people take it or not.

ee33ee

Referencing the article that Shrinkrap posted above, here is a post I made in another thread, in response to a brain-drug naysayer. My post is below, the naysayer's is in quotes.

While it centers around Provigil, many of the same arguments apply. Don't let people think you need a P.hD in science or an MD to make informed decisions about the stuff. They are widely used, and you can usually get a prescription just by complaining to the doctor long enough. Even doctors would tell you to experiment until you get the dosage right, etc.


------

Clearly, efficacy is not the only factor under consideration. Artificial stimulants, like the narcolepsy drug Provigil, have been shown to induce all the benefits sought after, while having almost no harmful side effects. We all take stimulants, from caffeine to sugar, and foster habits, like sleeping well or meditating, that change the chemical interactions inside our bodies. Some of these may be harmful or addictive. Too many simple carbs can lead to a sugar rush. Gambling can be addictive. As active stewards of our body, we weigh the harms and benefits of these actions. The same principle applies to brain drugs. The salient difference is that many people are likely to group these "brain drugs" as riskier or more dangerous than what is "natural". This is certainly true to a degree - caffeine's effects are time-tested, and the world itself is unbeatable as a testing ground - but I think it's inappropriate to lump "abuse" with "use" and/or relegate "addictive" and "potentially harmful" uniquely to artificial stimulants. Caffeine is an apt comparison.

No one doubts that caffeine has many ill effects that are both known and yet to be discovered. But if millions of people are going to take caffeine anyways, why not have them try a safer and more efficacious alternative? Often, as with Provigil versus caffeine, the differences are enormous: Provigil has no physical withdrawal effects, no feelings of jittery-ness, and no other regular effect besides increasing "wakefulness". It may be premature to claim that scientists have totally isolated the chemical for this one particular, yet still very complex, symptom, but so far it seems like they're close.

The reason I know so much about Provigil is because it's been prescribed to me. However, I don't take it (but then again, I'm a purist in general and avoid caffeine and large amounts of sugar too). Now what's interesting about my prescription is that Provigil started out as a narcolepsy drug. Narcolepsy is very easily tested for by measuring the amount of time it takes for someone to fall asleep in a series of naps. Someone over the benchmark has narcolepsy, and someone under it doesn't. But I got it for idiopathic hypersomnia. What separates narcolepsy from hypersomnia is just a matter of degree of sleepiness, measured by the very same sleeping test. So in addition to the arbitrary marker dictating a narcolepsy diagnosis, there's now an arbitrary gray zone between narcoleptic and normal, between "disorder" and "healthy". Disturbingly, the associated cut-off points, from normal to hypersomnia to narcolepsy, involve convenient factors of 5 - how odd that nature would work so anthropomorphically. I hope you see how nebulous these distinctions are, which I think even the medical community would grant given their adoption of the gray zone that I inhabit. I would think that most people exist on a gradient of wakefulness, and thus it's hard to draw the line and relegate these drugs only to those who are "sick".

I see "safe and effective" stimulants as a general good. The ethics of fairness, however, is nonetheless contentious.

Oh, and this is hardly a rogue fancy. The quoted scientist in that article is a professor at UCSB.

augustuscaesar

Adderall may be considered cheating because it gives an UNFAIR advantage. The reason why it's unfair is not because it boosts your concentration or makes you less lazy. It does those things, but the reason is because not everyone can get it. A person without ADD can not obtain Adderall in normal circumstances. Hence, a person whose friend has Adderall and gives it to them is obtaining an unfair advantage. Therefore, Adderall is only fair if
1) Only people diagnosed with certain mental conditions are allowed to take it (and does not give it to their friends).
2) It's like Red Bull, anyone can use it anytime in any quantities.

In response to the OP's original question, I will not use in college and I do not favourbly view those who take it without a diagnosed medical condition.

P
ee33ee: Provigil does have "adverse" side-effects according to Wikipedia:
"Modafinil may induce severe dermatologic reactions requiring hospitalization. From the date of initial marketing, December 1998, to January 30, 2007, FDA received six cases of severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with modafinil, including erythema multiforme (EM), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) involving adult and pediatric patients. The FDA issued a relevant alert. In the same alert, the FDA also noted that angioedema and multi-organ hypersensitivity reactions have also been reported in postmarketing experience. "Modafinil (marketed as Provigil): Serious Skin Reactions". FDA (Fall, 2007).

Furthermore, we still don't have research regarding the long term consequences of such drug usage.

Finally, we do not have data regarding the difference in marks or learning ability resulting from the use of drugs. Those who take it may "feel" better, but it could be placebo. There has been more long-term and comprehensive research about the effectiveness as well as risks of such drugs before we start consuming them.

ee33ee

Let me respond.

Six cases of severe skin rashes in, hmm, 10 years? I'd imagine the number of people getting severe skin BURNS from coffee is much, much greater over a decade, even if controlling for the number of people using each substance. I said there were no REGULAR adverse side effects. By your standards, however, nothing is safe.

It's true we don't know the long, long, long term consequences. That much I conceded in my post. Caffeine has been used for thousands of years; Provigil has only been used for several decades. But several decades is good enough in my book!

To suggest that it's only the placebo effect working is highly uninformed. I'm too lazy to dredge up the study, but I recall that Provigil, which is primarily intended for wakefulness, can actually increase IQ points! So wait, IQ, the exalted natural intelligence, is variable according to such trivialities as wakefulness?? It sure is!

And hey, the air force prescribed these pills to fighter pilots for years. Even if it is the placebo effect, don't underestimate it...

phonyreal98

Quoted for truth.

tx2000

I just got a prescription the other day. I took my first pill today and haven't noticed anything, really... My doctor started me out on a low dose though.

BuzzLiteBeer

I think Adderall gives an unfair advantage. But we live in an unfair world.

Being unable to focus is a real problem even for those who are highly motivated and goal oriented. If there is a way to fight that, I'm all ears.

freshman1990

To the OP, you should not take Adderall if you don't have ADD. If you think you have ADD you could go get tested and learn more about it to see if you think you may have it. It sounds like you don't but I'm no psychiatrist. If you take Adderall and don't have ADD it is cheating. Seriously, this is a huge problem and it sucks for those who REALLY have ADD and have all these stupid, lazy college kids abusing ADD drugs.