791
How some of us found out...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
791 points (98.4% liked)
ADHD Women
1945 readers
1 users here now
A community for women to find support and discuss living with ADHD.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m a therapist. In grad school, one of my professors said that the most reliable way to diagnose someone with ADHD is to give them a stimulant and see how they react. Understandably, that’s not how people are diagnosed for safety and ethical reasons… but it is effective.
A more ethical approach then: put the person in a room together with an adhd'er and see how quickly they bond. Seriously, it's like there's a hidden kinship, shit just works.
So much this. When we speak the same language, it won’t take long to become best friends!
That doesn't sound all that dangerous to me. I don't really understand what the ethical issues here are.
For people who do not have ADHD, the medication used to treat ADHD can be extremely addictive.
Its addictive for people with ADHD as well. There is a study from about a decade ago that researched and found over 50% of Americans incarcerated on methamphetamine charges were diagnosed as either ADD or ADHD.
I once told a therapist that I was skeptical of my diagnosis based off how the moment I ingest adderall, my entire prescription will be gone within 9 days, she then told me that she had not once in all her years of practice met an adderall addict who didn't have an ADHD diagnosis. She did however point out that those who actually truly did seem to not get high from amphetamines were more likely to enjoy opiates recreationally, which kind of tracks, because despite trying on several occasions, I've never once felt the effects of recreational opiate usage and thus very likely immune to forming an abuse disorder if ever prescribed them long term.
Please dont test out your theory of "I'm immune to opiate addiction". I promise you that you aren't the unicorn.
Well as I stated, recreational doses of street opiates (before cent became a thing that had to be worried about) have not once ever produced an effect on me, and I have had 30 day prescriptions of medical dosages last 2 years.
It takes a little time to get on the ride at first. If you never used two days in a row then its not crazy you never got hooked. Even with recreational opiates, taking home a 20 bag one weekend isn't going to end your life. There are actually weekend warriors who only use on weekends and do relatively fine, if they can stick to the limits they set.
Also opiates properly prescribed (the least amount needed for relief) are actually not too tricky to kick. I'm talking about 7 day or 30 day scripts that are take as needed or taken daily. You will likely experience nothing more than what feels like a minor cold or flu, symptom wise. You might have a few rough nights sleep.
There are variations to things, there are many additional gears left to shift into, so to speak, I'm just warning you shouldn't test them out because first gear didn't scare you.
I'm likely older than you and retired from the street drug consumption game.
Believe me, I have tried opiates. They dont do anything for me. It's a better ibuprofin but robs you of the ability to poop.
Believe me, my interest in researching the validity is zero, I'm just pointing out that there are people with ADHD who claim that adderall doesn't get them high, while at the same time, there are people with ADHD who are adderall addicts the moment they get the first pill ingested yet appear to have diminished or zero response whatsoever to opiates.
"...appear to have diminished or zero response whatsoever to opiates."
I still think its dangerous to post things like this on a forum without any sort of actual citation.
I understand its your personal experience, but there are so many compounding factors, it's nearly impossible to say why you had that experience, or if it would happen again if you tried some street fentadope thats available now.
Or just maybe... Some drugs dont work on certain people and they dont know why but ADHD appears to be involved?
Or just maybe you shouldn't share information that could cause someone to harm themselves.
Why would somebody harm themselves just because they found out something about somebody else?
To be fair I'm probably being oversensitive to it, but if you want to be technical about it, someone could read your post and think: "I should try street opiates and see if they have an effect on me, and if they don't like this poster, then I am very likely to have ADHD."
Let's imagine for this person, they struggle mentally all the time but can't afford or get to a doctor or proper care, and so this actually becomes the most reasonable test for them to administer themselves.
I understand I'm nitpicking and creating a scenario in my mind doesn't make it real, I just personally would choose to play it safe and at least word things more carefully.
Again I'm not saying you can't day what you said, just that there technically is a non-zero risk to it.
I sincerely hope nobody reads my post and decides to consume opiates. That is not my goal. I was just trying to point out that while some of us seem to have a mental barrier that prevents them from getting high off adderall, others of us it's our white whale of high we are chasing.
For me, having recreationally used everything under the sun almost, adderall is the only drug I was ever an "addict" of beyond nicotine.
Man, I wish it was more addictive. Then I would remember to take it.
I don't know what to tell you then. About a billion studies since have said that people with ADHD who use their prescription as directed will not get addicted. I've taken it every day for a month and then forgotten it. I regularly forget it before I leave for work so I keep a spare bottle in my purse with a single dose or two just in case.
I think it's easier for a person with an addiction to get a diagnosis and then abuse it than it is for a person with ADHD to get addicted to the medicine. But also it doesn't do any of those things for me that would get me addicted; I'm told it causes euphoria in people. I'm told it causes high energy. I'm told it's basically a party drug! I can take it and all it does is make me focus on stuff I'm supposed to instead of whatever I happen to focus on.
As for the opiate thing, I've been prescribed them for pain and I hate how they make me feel. My pain has to be truly god awful for me to actually take one.
So I guess what I'm saying is obviously your experience isn't invalid but I disagree on your takeaway. (Wish I replied after I woke up and took my meds so this answer wouldn't be a billion words long and meandering lol)
You made a few points. I will try to address them all, please point out if I missed any.
2)If people with ADHD are immune to getting high from it, that caveat of "at the reccomended dose" to prevent addiction wouldn't need to be applied. The only drugs people go ham on are the ones that get you high. Therefore, it is known by the medical community that recreational levels of these drugs do in fact get people with ADHD high.
Most people diagnosed with ADHD were diagnosed as children. Its highly doubtful that they were already addicted to adderall and then faked their symptoms to get a prescription.
its a party drug maybe for people who are too young to legally get into venues where actual party drugs exist. Maybe for a DND party. But a real party or venue? No. I understand fent has hit the streets hard, and perhaps that is pushing people who never experienced real party drugs into safer alternatives, as adderall is percieved to be. There may be a generational gap between us on this specific point.
yes, it creates focus in literally everybody who takes it.
I get it, the drug helps many people with ADHD, but the conversation can't only be framed as "people with ADHD can't get high or addicted to it," when the actual people who seek treatment for adderall addiction just so happen to be people who have ADHD. Nobody has ever lost their diagnosis because they got addicted to an addictive drug. I assure you of that.
If you can get addicted to something from trying it just once, there is something already wrong with you at that point. This sounds like a misunderstanding of how addiction works.
... There are lots of people like that and it's mostly genetic so I'm unsure if you're agreeing or not with this standpoint... Because that's a big fucking ethical issue lol.
You're going to need some serious evidence for that one. Most people become addicts because they have something to run from like mental health issues or bad life circumstances. You can have a genetic susceptibility to addiction, but that would probably require you take it more than once unless another issue is in play.
Edit: in fact even then getting addicted to amphetamines on one try, from the relatively low doses doctors give for ADHD is very unlikely.
I think both of y'all have a rough understanding of addiction. There is no such thing as people who get addicted to substances after a single use. There are instances of people trying a drug and then continuing to use it, usually due to availability.
Its a lot like any other opportunity that enters your life. Sometimes its really hard to turn down the idea of using to fix whatever problems you have in the short term. Noone plans to use forever you know.
Is it so shocking that average people are just as capable of addiction as the people they see at their local methadone clinic?
You are right that taking something once at a low dose is unlikely to make you addicted. It doesn't make sense though to ignore psychological, situational, and genetic risk factors for addiction.
I never said that those factors should be ignored.
The point I'm making is that when people frame this as "some people just aren't built to handle it" they put people into two groups: the easily addicted, and normal people.
People want to be part of and prove they are in the normal group. Something is wrong with you if you are in the addict group. Those in the normal group feel protected by being part of it. They think they aren't capable of addiction that they must have gotten lucky.
I think that's an incredibly dangerous framing of addiction. Everyone is capable of becoming an addict. Just because some never do, doesn't mean they had some special mutation that protected them. Addiction is an incredibly social disease, and with how little we know about it we should be more cautious rather than callous when discussing it.
What makes you think I am doing that? All I was trying to say is that something serious must be happening for someone to get addicted from trying low dose amphetamine once. Suggesting that's a common outcome is the most DARE shit I have ever fucking seen.
You're aiming this at the wrong person. I am not the one suggesting here that addiction is purely down to genetics. Addiction comes down to a lot of different situational and psychological risk factors. Poverty being a big one, as well as stress, depression, anxiety, and so on. You don't need any genetic predisposition to become an addict, I agree with you there.
This is also the most DARE shit I have ever seen. People are very unlikely to become addicted to amphetamines from one low dose given by a doctor, not matter what their genetics might be. Genetics are only one small piece of the addiction puzzle, and alcohol is probably more addictive anyway.
The thing is that with ADD/ADHD specifically, we don't have a reaction to low doses. My Adderall prescription is 40mg twice daily. That much Adderall would absolutely be enough to get someone without ADHD addicted, if they have the predisposition to get addicted to amphetamines.
All of the evidence is against this idea. Stop spreading misinformation. https://www.vice.com/en/article/exqm9j/reasons-why-you-cant-get-addicted-to-drugs-after-one-hit
And how would you say "most reliable" is figured? Is it like a 15% success rate and the next best test is 13%?
Is this more of a gut feeling thing or is there some sort of data to back up the claim?