Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed

When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine. Research
shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant medications
when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2 Another study
found that ADHD boys treated with stimulants such as methylphenidate are
significantly less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol when they are older
than are non-treated ADHD boys.3

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/ritalin.html

When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine. Research
shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant
medications
when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2

The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)

Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:14:57 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine. Research
shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant
medications
when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2

The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)

Are you sure you read it?
The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.


Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.

Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
term.


================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

"Mark D Morin" wrote in message
...

Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.

Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
term.


Rog is doing a bit of weaseling. He knows that there is ample research out
there that shows that Ritalin, when used as prescribed, does not meet the
clinical meaning of the word addiction so he is wording the claim in such a
way that allows him to wiggle if you take him up on it.

--
CBI, MD

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:50:24 GMT, "CBI" wrote:

"Mark D Morin" wrote in message
.. .

Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.

Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
term.

Rog is doing a bit of weaseling. He knows that there is ample research out
there that shows that Ritalin, when used as prescribed, does not meet the
clinical meaning of the word addiction so he is wording the claim in such a
way that allows him to wiggle if you take him up on it.

And, of course, he just disappeared from the thread where the "Ritalin
= cocaine" fools were silenced by simple chemistry, and, as is his
usual mode, appears here repeating the same bull****.

PF

"PF Riley" wrote
And, of course, he just disappeared from the thread where the "Ritalin
= cocaine" ...

Huhh? I posted some articles that documented similarities between
ritalin and cocaine. That info was not disputed. I think that Jake
posted some similar info. I hope you learned something.

"Mark D Morin" wrote
The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
Are you sure you read it?

Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.

The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.

That paper nothing to do with whether ritalin was addictive. It
looked at alcohol and other drug abuse among ADHD teenagers.

Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.
Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
term.

The article does not even mention the term "addiction". Read it yourself:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/104/2/e20

The PDR and the DEA say that ritalin is addictive. I have no reason
to doubt that. If you have some scientific study to the contrary, then
go ahead and post it.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"Mark D Morin" wrote
The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
Are you sure you read it?

Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.

uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
believe that ritalin is addictive.


The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.

That paper nothing to do with whether ritalin was addictive. It
looked at alcohol and other drug abuse among ADHD teenagers.

and that was stated up front. Your point is?


Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.
Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
term.

The article does not even mention the term "addiction". Read it yourself:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/104/2/e20

I have. I have the hard copy. The article talks about substance
abuse--a necessary condition for addiction.


The PDR and the DEA say that ritalin is addictive.

Are you sure? My recollection is that they say it has the potential to
be addictive.

I have no reason
to doubt that. If you have some scientific study to the contrary, then
go ahead and post it.

It's already been posted (the onset of action papers).



================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"Mark D Morin" wrote
The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
Are you sure you read it?

Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.

uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
believe that ritalin is addictive.

There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
and potentially dangerous drug...
The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
when taken as prescribed per subject line.

http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html


A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
its kind, is immune to being abused.

To the contrary: Abuse statistics have flourished alongside the boom
in Ritalin prescription-writing. Though it is quite true that
elementary schoolchildren are unlikely to ingest extra doses of the
drug, which is presumably kept away from little hands, a very
different pattern has emerged among teenagers and adults who have the
manual dexterity to open prescription bottles and the wherewithal to
chop up and snort their contents (a method that puts the drug into the
bloodstream far faster than oral ingestion). For this group,
statistics on the proliferating abuse of methylphenidate in
schoolyards and on the street are dramatic.

According to the dea, for example, as early as 1994 Ritalin was the
fastest-growing amphetamine being used "non-medically" by high school
seniors in Texas. In 1991, reports DeGrandpre in Ritalin Nation,
"children between the ages of 10 and 14 years old were involved in
only about 25 emergency room visits connected with Ritalin abuse. In
1995, just four years later, that number had climbed to more than 400
visits, which for this group was about the same number of visits as
for cocaine." Not surprisingly, given these and other measures of
methylphenidate’s recreational appeal, criminal entrepreneurs have
responded with interest to the drug’s increased circulation. From 1990
to 1995, the dea reports, there were about 2,000 thefts of
methylphenidate, most of them night break-ins at pharmacies meaning
that the drug "ranks in the top 10 most frequently reported
pharmaceutical drugs diverted from licensed handlers."


In short, methylphenidate looks like an amphetamine, acts like an
amphetamine, and is abused like an amphetamine.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those who value its medicinal effects tend
to explain the drug differently. To some, Ritalin is to children what
Prozac and other psychotropic "mood brightening" drugs are to adults —
a short-term fix for enhancing personality and performance. But the
analogy is misleading. Prozac and its sisters are not stimulants with
stimulant side effects; there is, ipso facto, no black market for
drugs like these.

Even more peculiar is the analogy favored by the advocates in chadd:
that "Just as a pair of glasses help the nearsighted person focus," as
Hallowell and Ratey explain, "so can medication help the person with
add see the world more clearly." But there is no black market for
eyeglasses, either — nor loss of appetite, insomnia, "dysphoria" (an
unexplained feeling of sadness that sometimes accompanies pediatric
Ritalin-taking), nor even the faintest risk of toxic psychosis, to
cite one of Ritalin’s rare but dramatically chilling possible effects.


"we are now extending to the young cognitive aids of a kind that used
to be reserved exclusively for the old." He further suggests that,
given expert estimates of the prevalence of add (up to 10 percent of
the population, depending on the expert), if anything "too few"
children are taking the drug. Surely all these experts have a point.
Surely this country can do more, much more, to reduce fidgeting,
squirming, talking excessively, interrupting, losing things, ignoring
adults, and all those other pathologies of what used to be called
childhood.

"jake" nospamhere@all wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"Mark D Morin" wrote
The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill
form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
Are you sure you read it?

Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.

uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
believe that ritalin is addictive.

There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
and potentially dangerous drug...
The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
when taken as prescribed per subject line.

http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html


A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
its kind, is immune to being abused.

To the contrary: Abuse statistics have flourished alongside the boom
in Ritalin prescription-writing. Though it is quite true that
elementary schoolchildren are unlikely to ingest extra doses of the
drug, which is presumably kept away from little hands, a very
different pattern has emerged among teenagers and adults who have the
manual dexterity to open prescription bottles and the wherewithal to
chop up and snort their contents (a method that puts the drug into the
bloodstream far faster than oral ingestion). For this group,
statistics on the proliferating abuse of methylphenidate in
schoolyards and on the street are dramatic.

According to the dea, for example, as early as 1994 Ritalin was the
fastest-growing amphetamine being used "non-medically" by high school
seniors in Texas. In 1991, reports DeGrandpre in Ritalin Nation,
"children between the ages of 10 and 14 years old were involved in
only about 25 emergency room visits connected with Ritalin abuse. In
1995, just four years later, that number had climbed to more than 400
visits, which for this group was about the same number of visits as
for cocaine." Not surprisingly, given these and other measures of
methylphenidate's recreational appeal, criminal entrepreneurs have
responded with interest to the drug's increased circulation. From 1990
to 1995, the dea reports, there were about 2,000 thefts of
methylphenidate, most of them night break-ins at pharmacies meaning
that the drug "ranks in the top 10 most frequently reported
pharmaceutical drugs diverted from licensed handlers."


In short, methylphenidate looks like an amphetamine, acts like an
amphetamine, and is abused like an amphetamine.

True. However, when taken as prescribed, Ritalin, amphetamine, Concerta and
other ADHD drugs do wonders to help improve the lives of people with ADHD.
Whether or not these drugs, when taken other than they are prescribed, have
an abuse potential is irrelevent to whether or not these drugs are useful to
people with ADHD when taken as presribed.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those who value its medicinal effects tend
to explain the drug differently. To some, Ritalin is to children what
Prozac and other psychotropic "mood brightening" drugs are to adults -
a short-term fix for enhancing personality and performance.

Prozac and other antidepresents are used to help patients with depression.
Despression is not just a sad mood. But a major impediment to a person's
ability to enjoy his life, with feelings and despair and sadness that
prevent the preson from enjoying his life (and sometimes kill himself). They
are not short-term drugs to enhance personality and performance. They drugs
that used so that the person can function normally.

But the
analogy is misleading.

When the understanding of antidepressent is wrong, the analogy is wrong.

Prozac and its sisters are not stimulants with
stimulant side effects; there is, ipso facto, no black market for
drugs like these.

Black markets are irrelevent. It has nothing to do with whether or not drugs
taken as prescribed are helpful to children and adults with ADHD.

Even more peculiar is the analogy favored by the advocates in chadd:
that "Just as a pair of glasses help the nearsighted person focus," as
Hallowell and Ratey explain, "so can medication help the person with
add see the world more clearly." But there is no black market for
eyeglasses, either - nor loss of appetite, insomnia, "dysphoria" (an
unexplained feeling of sadness that sometimes accompanies pediatric
Ritalin-taking), nor even the faintest risk of toxic psychosis, to
cite one of Ritalin's rare but dramatically chilling possible effects.


Why does a black market for Ritalin make taking Ritalin as prescribed wrong?
Morphine can be misused to get people high, too. Does that mean that we
shouldn't treat postoperative pain?


"we are now extending to the young cognitive aids of a kind that used
to be reserved exclusively for the old." He further suggests that,
given expert estimates of the prevalence of add (up to 10 percent of
the population, depending on the expert), if anything "too few"
children are taking the drug. Surely all these experts have a point.

Ritalin and other drugs do wonders for many kids and adult with ADHD.
However, these drugs are not right for all people with ADHD. But for many,
these drugs are Godsend that lets them achieve much more than they could
without the drugs.

While Ritalin is only part of the care of children with ADHD, it is a very
important part.

Surely this country can do more, much more, to reduce fidgeting,
squirming, talking excessively, interrupting, losing things, ignoring
adults, and all those other pathologies of what used to be called
childhood.

No. The things that you do to help most children with fidgeting, squirming,
talking excessively, etc., don't work with children with ADHD. Children with
ADHD are biologically different than other kids. Kids with ADHD don't just
misbehave, they can't control themselves normally, concentrate on studies or
in school like other kids. While ADHD meds do is provide a way for kids to
help themselves do these things normally. Or perhaps, because glasses are
not normal, we shouldn't let kids wear glasses in school.

Jeff