Vyvanse to treat amphetamine/Adderall addiction

[stillcloudstill]

I have used short-acting Adderall, Ritalin, Dexedrine, and Desoxyn at different times over several years under a doctor's supervision for AD/HD. I do not seek to get "high" and don't feel a euphoria from these medicines, but I do take more than I am prescribed at times to complete certain papers on deadline or cram for exams. I take so much when a certain college assignment is due, I often find myself not being able to sleep, around 1-2x/week. I never snort it, since I'm smart enough to realize the benefit is marginal if at all, and I don't want pieces of glass to enter the arterial walls of my veins.

When my doctor prescribed me 140 mg of Vyvanse, however, I finally was free from having to worry about thinking "when was the last time I took my dose? Should I re-dose? Might re-dosing help my productivity?" all day long. If I felt like I could use more, it didn't matter, because taking more after 7AM wasn't an option, since that would mean I couldn't go to sleep the next day (so it wouldn't be worth it). Also, 140 mg is close enough to the cut-off dose of 200mg, and anything past 200mg, according to Shire's patent, isn't metabolized. 140 mg = 60 mg of Adderall XR.

I was interested in learning if anyone else found this also to be true with them. I don't enjoy spending days without a psychostimulant because I took more than I'm prescribed of a short-acting earlier in the month. When I switched to Vyvanse, I finally was able to take it as prescribed, never taking extra, and never went without it because I spent it too early.

This may be of interest for people struggling with "meth" addiction. As studies on amphetamine have shown since the 1950's, amphetamine addicts can't tell the difference between regular amphetamine or methamphetamine when it's switched (and don't think it's more "pure" now-- studies used Desoxyn, which is 100% pure methamphetamine). Also, the DEA's own lab analysis has found that 60-70% of "meth" sold in this country is unmethylated amphetamine (not meth). So if you're on street "meth," chances are, you're taking regular amphetamine, which is closer to Adderall than Desoxyn. (This is true regardless of whether it's in crystals, since unmethylated amphetamine can be crystalline just as easily as methylated amphetamine).

Also, it's kind of nice you don't have to talk yourself out of whether to re-dose, since Vyvanse can't metabolize past 200mg.

 

[Renz Envy]

Yes, vyvanse is a great option for those seeking relief from (meth)amphetamine addictions.

To me, Methadone is to heroin as Vyvanse is to Methamphetamine.

I apologize for not reading your entire post, but it is best to avoid using methamphetamine as amphetamine has a lower addiction potential.

 

[stillcloudstill]

I have used short-acting Adderall, Ritalin, Dexedrine, and Desoxyn at different times over several years under a doctor's supervision for AD/HD. I do not seek to get "high" and don't feel a euphoria from these medicines, but I do take more than I am prescribed at times to complete certain papers on deadline or cram for exams. I take so much when a certain college assignment is due, I often find myself not being able to sleep, around 1-2x/week. I never snort it, since I'm smart enough to realize the benefit is marginal if at all, and I don't want pieces of glass to enter the arterial walls of my veins.

DEA's own lab analysis has found that 60-70% of "meth" sold in this country is unmethylated amphetamine (not meth). So if you're on street "meth," chances are, you're taking regular amphetamine, which is closer to Adderall than Desoxyn. (This is true regardless of whether it's in crystals, since unmethylated amphetamine can be crystalline just as easily as methylated amphetamine).

.

"methamphetamine" is usually amphetamine, and the only difference is one is more potent, but when you take it at prescribed doses, you're taking a dose no more potent than its equivocal dose of amphetamine (Adderall or Dexedrine). So the notion it's inherently "more addictive" seems to miss the point, since drug addicts consistently can't discern between amphetmine, methamphetamine, and Ritalin in studies, and the drug likability scores they report are equal to one another, except for Vyvanse, which has a far lower likability rating by addicts.

 

[pancakepirate]

"methamphetamine" is usually amphetamine, and the only difference is one is more potent, but when you take it at prescribed doses, you're taking a dose no more potent than its equivocal dose of amphetamine (Adderall or Dexedrine). So the notion it's inherently "more addictive" seems to miss the point, since drug addicts consistently can't discern between amphetmine, methamphetamine, and Ritalin in studies, and the drug likability scores they report are equal to one another, except for Vyvanse, which has a far lower likability rating by addicts.

I find this really interesting! I didn't know the science behind it, but I knew of a lot of people in recovery who recommended Vyvanse as a safe alternative to Adderall. I have a profound affinity for stimulants, and I can use Adderall and Vyvanse interchangeably, whereas I would never think twice about spending money on Concerta or Ritalin. My understanding has always been that the chemical composition of Ritalin is closer to cocaine (just confirmed this on Wiki), where as Vyvanse is still classified as an amphetamine.

Sidenote: I love cocaine. I liked meth more.

 

[stillcloudstill]

The fact that a chemical appears similiar to another chemical doesn't actually translate to any actual knowledge about its likeness in terms of how it behaves. It's basic organic chem: you add a single element to a molecule, and that molecule can be a toxin, it can take a sedative and make it into a stimulant, vice versa, it can have zero abuse liability versus one that looks "just like it." That's how chemicals work-- a single element added to a molecule makes the molecule a completely different drug. Sometimes they make share a kinship, but that has less to do with their structural composition than you might think. What's more important is how other substances form reactions to a molecule, and the difference in those reactions by a mere addition of a single element or different orientation of one can produce stark differences in outcomes. This is why I really discourage reading wikipedia for science. It tends to attract people who don't know basic high school bio and chem (as is the case with the wikipedia post you cite) convinced they know science intuitively. Real scientists are too busy editing real journals to bother with wikipedia. I myself gave up on making corrections to the Desoxyn page-- a lot of it, well all of it, was hersay and emotion mascarading as science, as the subject of addiction tends to spur. Now it's become part of the meth page, which treats meth as if it's got demonic powers that have nothing to do with the fact people taking it never try to moderate their dose or take it in gelatin capsules... But I digress. Ritalin is milder than amphetamine, and you have no reason to fear it. But only take it if you really need it for school or work, because I'm habituated on amphetamines after taking them for severe AD/HD, and it would be nice not to be...

 

[pancakepirate]

The fact that a chemical appears similiar to another chemical doesn't actually translate to any actual knowledge about its likeness in terms of how it behaves. It's basic organic chem: you add a single element to a molecule, and that molecule can be a toxin, it can take a sedative and make it into a stimulant, vice versa, it can have zero abuse liability versus one that looks "just like it." That's how chemicals work-- a single element added to a molecule makes the molecule a completely different drug. Sometimes they make share a kinship, but that has less to do with their structural composition than you might think. What's more important is how other substances form reactions to a molecule, and the difference in those reactions by a mere addition of a single element or different orientation of one can produce stark differences in outcomes. This is why I really discourage reading wikipedia for science. It tends to attract people who don't know basic high school bio and chem (as is the case with the wikipedia post you cite) convinced they know science intuitively. Real scientists are too busy editing real journals to bother with wikipedia. I myself gave up on making corrections to the Desoxyn page-- a lot of it, well all of it, was hersay and emotion mascarading as science, as the subject of addiction tends to spur. Now it's become part of the meth page, which treats meth as if it's got demonic powers that have nothing to do with the fact people taking it never try to moderate their dose or take it in gelatin capsules... But I digress. Ritalin is milder than amphetamine, and you have no reason to fear it. But only take it if you really need it for school or work, because I'm habituated on amphetamines after taking them for severe AD/HD, and it would be nice not to be...

While I have only a tenuous grasp of what you're saying, I think I get the fundamental point. I was just trying to bolster my personal experience with some "science". Haha. Anyway, I know many people who have a strong preference for one or the other, but I will take either just as eagerly, and while I notice some subtle differences, it still feels relatively similar, and I still abuse it. I started using Rx amphetamines when I was 16 before moving to crystal meth at 17. The comedowns and intensity of the highs were somewhat different, but what really hooked me with crystal meth was the ritual of smoking it. I doubt I could discern which high came from which substances if given in the respective amounts of their equivalent doses. I know crystal meth isn't widely regarded as classy, but I remember trying to tell people that the high between them is almost indistinguishable and is just as habit-forming, if not more so because it doesn't carry the same stigma as its street doppelganger.

Anyway, I'd personally choose Vyvanse and Adderall over Ritalin any day, but I guess I'm in the minority on this one!

 

[Diloadid]

To me Vyvanse is garbage. It was very, very ineffective. It would always kick in at bizarre times throughout the day even when I dosed way early in the AM. It really messed my blood pressure up, and for the most part I found the vasoconstriction worse than street grade amphetamine.

I'm sure Vyvanse really helps some people, but it is by no means a miracle prodrug.

If I am understanding you right, you are also saying that drug addicts can't discern between therapeutic doses of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and methylphenidate? I would really like to see the studies on that one, like really.

I can easily distinguish between formulations of regular amphetamine ie, dexedrine to adderall.

I really don't entirely understand the point of using lisdexamphetamine to combat racemic amphetamine addiction as the title of this thread points out.

I understand the concept of using similar drugs to combat more serious addiction like methadone to heroin, but I think that is mainly to help with the physical withdrawal symptoms and also allow for a tapering process.

I think in all seriousness a better solution to aid amphetamine addiction would be modafinil. Just my .02

 

[stillcloudstill]

the studies done on the ritalin/amphetamine/methamphetamine were initially done in a 1950's study, right around the same time the famous 50's study that found if you gave enough amphetamine to a healthy person over a 24 hour time period, they'd get psychotic. I read an account of the studies in a book intended for pharmacologists that focused on the amphetamines I borrowed once from my University's library, when I was big into researching the amphetamines, but it's not a controversial study, and it's been replicated again and again since. The books I read that mentioned the studies were very academic, dry, and filled with footnotes, so just trust me on this one.

It's widely established; there's no dispute. That doesn't mean I don't notice a difference on Ritalin or amphetamine, it just means if you told me ritalin was amphetamine, I would likely believe you. And if you don't believe the study, then ask yourself why like 95% of "MDMA" is actually amphetamine (I made up the 95% for effect). I've seen a kid compulsively mopping the floor at a rave, and then shouted out of his lungs "wake up" out of nowhere to people who were sleeping like a total speed freak, and the whole time, he thought he was on MDMA. I know, I took it too, and the DJ and my friends were also convinced it was MDMA; I didn't have the heart to tell them the reality on MDMA analysis surveys, or else be a buzzkill.

Modafinal is also a good solution, it's been tried with some success, but keep in mind your subjective experience with Vyvanse is rare; it's pure dextroamphetamine cleaved off from lysine when it's metabolized, and getting a "dirty" feeling is really just something that sounds like a placebo effect. We're talking about something mandated to be pure within 99%, usually upwards of the high end of the 99.X%.

I can distinguish between dexedrine and adderall as well, but that doesn't mean when a drug dealer or study researcher is telling you that it's one thing and it's the other thing, you will maintain complete objectivity with that biased information leading you on. A lot of how a drug causes its effects, in fact, is dependent on expectation by the user-- that's key, as I studied in psychopharmacology. For instance, cocaine initially makes me edgy when I first take it, until a few moments later I accept the high and don't try to fight it. I've done coke like 3 times in my life, but that's an example of how expectation changes how a drug feels. Another more obvious example is psychedelics-- the right mood, the right environment, the expectation it will be pleasurable, you're set-- don't expect you're being handed LSD that someone slips you, however, and you have a bad trip with potentially disastrous long-term damage to your mental health.

As for methadone, no. It's the last drug you'd want to take if you have any interest in tapering-- it takes 6 days to withdraw from heroin; 6 months to withdraw from methadone. Methadone is used for its mental effects, emulating the effects of heroin. It's substitution therapy, and it's intended for the lifetime of the user 9 out of 10 times, and no one tries to hide that reality. In amphetamine addiction, you get anhedonia, depression, lethargy, and feel like shit without any concentration, and it rarely goes away, even after years, although some claim success. If taking a low dose maintenance drug for amphetamine addiction, where you're never exceeding therapeutic thresholds in a drug that is far safer at low doses than methadone is at low doses, if that somehow doesn't seem justified but methadone does, I mean, we've lost all sense.

According to Medscape's review of studies covering Provigil for amphetamine addiction, the biggest problem is compliance. They've tried all things, including expensive pill caps that link to the Internet to report to the clinic when the drug has been opened so they know to give cash, and all, but compliance is still a huge problem. It may be doses are too low; I know that I only found any effect on Provigil at doses like 400mg, which isn't rare my doc said, since the dosing can range up to 600mg, but almost always docs only prescribe 100-200mg tops per dose.

Also, 70mg of Vyvanse is only equal to 30mg of Adderall XR. I need 60mg Adderall XR to notice a thing for my studies, so I required 140mg of Vyvanse. You were probably on too low of a dose. Also, vasoconstriction? Did you use a vasoconstriction measuring contraption or something? If you're referring to it making your veins more blue, that's not problematic, and has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Diloadid]

the studies done on the ritalin/amphetamine/methamphetamine were initially done in a 1950's study, right around the same time the famous 50's study that found if you gave enough amphetamine to a healthy person over a 24 hour time period, they'd get psychotic. I read an account of the studies in a book intended for pharmacologists that focused on the amphetamines I borrowed once from my University's library, when I was big into researching the amphetamines, but it's not a controversial study, and it's been replicated again and again since. The books I read that mentioned the studies were very academic, dry, and filled with footnotes, so just trust me on this one.

It's widely established; there's no dispute. That doesn't mean I don't notice a difference on Ritalin or amphetamine, it just means if you told me ritalin was amphetamine, I would likely believe you. And if you don't believe the study, then ask yourself why like 95% of "MDMA" is actually amphetamine (I made up the 95% for effect). I've seen a kid compulsively mopping the floor at a rave, and then shouted out of his lungs "wake up" out of nowhere to people who were sleeping like a total speed freak, and the whole time, he thought he was on MDMA. I know, I took it too, and the DJ and my friends were also convinced it was MDMA; I didn't have the heart to tell them the reality on MDMA analysis surveys, or else be a buzzkill.

Modafinal is also a good solution, it's been tried with some success, but keep in mind your subjective experience with Vyvanse is rare; it's pure dextroamphetamine cleaved off from lysine when it's metabolized, and getting a "dirty" feeling is really just something that sounds like a placebo effect. We're talking about something mandated to be pure within 99%, usually upwards of the high end of the 99.X%.

I can distinguish between dexedrine and adderall as well, but that doesn't mean when a drug dealer or study researcher is telling you that it's one thing and it's the other thing, you will maintain complete objectivity with that biased information leading you on. A lot of how a drug causes its effects, in fact, is dependent on expectation by the user-- that's key, as I studied in psychopharmacology. For instance, cocaine initially makes me edgy when I first take it, until a few moments later I accept the high and don't try to fight it. I've done coke like 3 times in my life, but that's an example of how expectation changes how a drug feels. Another more obvious example is psychedelics-- the right mood, the right environment, the expectation it will be pleasurable, you're set-- don't expect you're being handed LSD that someone slips you, however, and you have a bad trip with potentially disastrous long-term damage to your mental health.

As for methadone, no. It's the last drug you'd want to take if you have any interest in tapering-- it takes 6 days to withdraw from heroin; 6 months to withdraw from methadone. Methadone is used for its mental effects, emulating the effects of heroin. It's substitution therapy, and it's intended for the lifetime of the user 9 out of 10 times, and no one tries to hide that reality. In amphetamine addiction, you get anhedonia, depression, lethargy, and feel like shit without any concentration, and it rarely goes away, even after years, although some claim success. If taking a low dose maintenance drug for amphetamine addiction, where you're never exceeding therapeutic thresholds in a drug that is far safer at low doses than methadone is at low doses, if that somehow doesn't seem justified but methadone does, I mean, we've lost all sense.

According to Medscape's review of studies covering Provigil for amphetamine addiction, the biggest problem is compliance. They've tried all things, including expensive pill caps that link to the Internet to report to the clinic when the drug has been opened so they know to give cash, and all, but compliance is still a huge problem. It may be doses are too low; I know that I only found any effect on Provigil at doses like 400mg, which isn't rare my doc said, since the dosing can range up to 600mg, but almost always docs only prescribe 100-200mg tops per dose.

Also, 70mg of Vyvanse is only equal to 30mg of Adderall XR. I need 60mg Adderall XR to notice a thing for my studies, so I required 140mg of Vyvanse. You were probably on too low of a dose. Also, vasoconstriction? Did you use a vasoconstriction measuring contraption or something? If you're referring to it making your veins more blue, that's not problematic, and has nothing to do with anything.

This is all going to be very long to reply to - So I'll reply like Irreversible
I do get vasoconstriction from Vyvanse, worse than high quality amphetamine paste. You can feel vasoconstriction, trust me, try taking a piss after 140mg of lisdex . Amphetamines in general are known to be vasoconstrictors, and vasoconstrictors are sometimes medically used to elevate blood pressure. I was RX'd 70mg Vyvanse daily, and I abused it on multiple occasions, and am well aware of the conversion of lisdex - dexamp. Also, I think vasoconstriction to the point of turning ones veins blue is problematic and def. has something to do with everything about said subject. My tolerance to amphetamine(s) is pretty much through the roof at this point, so I know just a wee bit.

I can understand modafinil not being a super efficient choice to treat amphetamine addiction.

I am also well versed in the ways of methadone. I was successfully tapering on methadone until...

NSFW:

My last overdose from Methadone and xanax %) . Some will probably disagree with I didn't expect to be on methadone for the rest of my life. Some people just really don't have the will to want to quit. Obviously you get depression and lethargy when you quit using drugs of any type, and with amphetamines in general the best thing to do is get some fucking sleep and start living a more positive life. Sure Vyvanse is safer than Methadone, but that is like comparing a spoon to a razor-bladed-dildo. And It doesn't make sense, to me at least. Using a horrific time-released formulation of a chemical that is already pretty grounded to wean down from said grounded chemical just seems so counter productive. For issues like concentration, drink a cup of coffee or talk to your doctor?

Most of what is discussed in the fourth paragraph is subjective.

The second paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me. Somebody that has never taken MDMA might find MDMA like placebo effects from Amphetamine. For those experienced in either (which is what we are overall discussing) would certainly distinguish the difference.

I can't really say much about the first paragraph, you got me.

What I can say overall is that sometimes factual science doesn't match factual reality. What seems sound in theory can easily be tossed outside from real experiences. Even Shulgin came to this conclusion a few times.

I don't have really anymore to say on this except -

If you use Vyvanse to treat Amphetamine Addiction

You're gonna have a bad time.

 

[stillcloudstill]

I wouldn't call my experience on amphetamines "abuse"- it was always prescription, even when it was meth (Desoxyn). Sure, sometimes I took extra during finals week here and there, but I never did it to get high, except to experiment with what it was like to get high the first time I was prescribed Desoxyn. I took it after taking a solution of baking soda to alkanize my stomach, took just enough to get euphoria, and felt giddy and laid down on the floor staring at the ceiling for a bit (not for 2 hours, just initially). It was quite pleasant. But after 2 hours of it, I said to myself, "alright, that was an experience, time to come down before it wears my receptors thin." So I took klonopin and that neutralized the exocitation. If all meth heads did that, they would never have problems. Although I'm including them doing it just once and giving it a rest. I never tried to get high from my Desoxyn after that.

I'm glad you recovered from your overdose, and were able to come off of methadone. But I think opiate addicts assume amphetamine users do it to feel super awesome. I don't know, the trailer trash seems to, but I'm an intellectual, and I have actual AD/HD, and I take these things to read, coffee doesn't work. I was first prescribed Ritalin in my microeconomics class, after I reported to my doc I couldn't understand what the professor was writing on the board the whole time. I went overnight from feeling clueless in class to grasping the details, and got a B-. It was my proudest grade in college, because it didn't come naturally to me. I'm an English and Psych major.

As for MDMA, you're right, I've spoken to someone who said she can tell, primarily because of the half life being so much shorter, etc., when it's real MDMA, and she's well aware of how rare it is to get it, but she's had it before in all of the times she was "given MDMA" in the past. I never read a study that claimed drug addicts can't tell the difference between MDMA and meth; it's just kids in general are never exposed to real MDMA these days, because dealers have little incentive when they get paid just as much for giving meth by idiot kids.

And I'm not addicted to amphetamine. If I were addicted, I would have broken into windows and stolen shit, sold it and used the cash to pay a dealer for street amphetamines. I'm habituated, so when my clinic docs refused to give me an amphetamine rx for a full year because the research Shire put out on Vyvanse being safe in psychotic patients hadn't come out yet, I sucked it up. That's habituation, because I still had cravings per se, but I don't have compulsive behavior along with those cravings. I got psychosis from taking more Dexedrine that I was prescribed over several months, because I was poor and had little to do and liked the stimulation it gave me when I would read or write poetry. But that was habituation.

As for your claim you "abused" Vyvanse: the amphetamine in it stops cleaving off from lysine (stops metabolizing) after 200mg, which is within the therapeutic threshold. Maybe you got euphoria, but I still wouldn't call taking a therapeutic dose abuse. It's like someone saying they "abused" methadone when they took a dose that was under 50mg/day (I only know of methadone academically, but know doses can be prescribed up to 300mg/day by docs thinking it's the only means to deter heroin use). Did that person lacking a prescription mean they "abused" it? Maybe, but that's an awfully liberal construction of the word abuse.

I don't like the word abuse in general, it's too emotional-- things are either be use or misuse.

Shire is studying doses up to 200mg for negative symptom predominant schizophrenia as an adjunct to an antipsychotic, starting Phase III trials this month. If you took more than 200mg, and you think it gave you more of an effect than 200mg gave, it was placebo. If I took Vyvanse instead of Dexedrine, I would never have been able to pharmacologically condition my D2 receptors to over-produce dopamine enough to have visual and auditory hallucinations for a day. And the reality is I just got A's and B's in my college classes this past semester, and in high school, I didn't finish, after getting straight F's while having parents who thought taking AD/HD meds was a sign of weak parenting.

Coffee isn't going to take me from the straight F's I use to get to A's and B's in 300-level college classes, 4 of which were in my major all in the same semester. Maybe people without pre-existing AD/HD can deal with abstinence, and more power to them, but this works for me. I'd rather get a diploma than feel self-righteous for not taking meds as prescribed. It's not prescribed for addiction; I'm just suggesting others might benefit from that use.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

The fact that a chemical appears similiar to another chemical doesn't actually translate to any actual knowledge about its likeness in terms of how it behaves. It's basic organic chem: you add a single element to a molecule, and that molecule can be a toxin, it can take a sedative and make it into a stimulant, vice versa, it can have zero abuse liability versus one that looks "just like it." That's how chemicals work-- a single element added to a molecule makes the molecule a completely different drug. Sometimes they make share a kinship, but that has less to do with their structural composition than you might think. ...

...But I digress. Ritalin is milder than amphetamine, and you have no reason to fear it.

methylating amphetamine does create an entire new drug. However they are very structurally similar and related in effects. Think of methylphenidate and ethylphenidate slight alteration changes effects slightly, but never heard of an stimulant becoming a sedativ or vice versa.

Personally I find methylphenidate/ Ritalin is not milder then dextro-amphetamin or as usefull as racemic amphetamin at roughly equivalent dosages. Although that's hardly objective as i never got a chance to do a proper test. Dextro methylphenidate vs dextro-amphetamin and methylphenidate vs racemic pharmaceutical amphetamin. I have no affinity for phenidates or DRI's in general but do feel the effects are subjectively more in your face. and so are the side effects.