Dr. Carl hart: Adderall and meth are the same drug [update]

^ I wasn't aware of such a program, good to know.

But no, I was more talking about making taboo drugs like meth available OTC to any adult in pure or pill form. Sure, meth heads won't put the glass dick down given the choice, but others will have the ability to consume meth and/or amphetamine safely just like SJB said. You can't convince an alcoholic to stop drinking vodka or cheap strong beer in favor of sophisticated wine or weak cider, but it doesn't mean you have to prohibit alcohol altogether to force people to drink ethanol with god knows what else in it if they want to drink. I'm positive that freedom of choice AND harm reduction education would remove the illusory disparity between substances like meth and amphetamine.
 
fwiw meth and amp are the same charge in the us. they are both schedule II. if you get caught with addies or street speed (which sometimes is just plan amp not meth) its all the same thing in the US. more societal stigma but legally there isn't much difference. manufacturing aside of course.

IV crystal was a different experience than oral pharmie amps for me. I think orally it was more intense too. more rubber bandy and tweaky on the comedown. im sure dosage is a major factor and ROA but meth seems to make me feel more calm and it seems a bit cleaner in some ways. the tail end is way worse too. I feel like there are some differences but they are minor. I thought it was pretty well established that a methyl group will increase intensity and duration.

I think meth and amps both get a bad rap. some people are more inclined to like amps than others but they are useful drugs. i don't get into the meth scene and have only known a handful of people that were into it but the drug itself isn't nearly as fucked up as people make it out to be. its not even that enjoyable if you dose too high ime. they are very useful for add and i think people should have access to them if they need them even pharmaceutical meth because it will work better for some. it always sucks when someone needs a drug but the DEA butts their nose into someone elses business. the DEA and the gov aren't medical professionals. Keep that to the doctors and let them prescribe what the patient needs.

the dose makes the poison. if you use it infrequently, watch dosage, and be half way responsible its prob no worse than alcohol.
 
I think your post is misleading for a few reasons.

More generally than with meth, people use amp to complete some given work activity, not to get high and avoid withdrawal.

Also, relating to that is that amp comes in, at most, 30mg pills. So even if someone had 30 of those pills and they weren't prescribed it, that would be 900mg of amp. But few people who aren't prescribed it actually have that many pills, because cost-wise it's ridiculously inferior to meth. So the demographic of people who use it are people looking for a temporary boost, a work crunch. They aren't nearly as involved in the illegal setting. They are paying a premium to be sure what they're getting is real, and to not risk their neck.

Compare that to meth. It's not uncommon at all for someone to buy multiple grams at once of high purity. Even if someone buys a half gram of meth, given the commonly high purity, that's roughly equal 900mg amp.

You never hear of people using hundreds of milligrams at once of amp in this society, because if they were actually looking to get high, anyone would figure out the large cost disparity.

Not to mention that adderall essentially can't be smoked or injected.

So who does the police care more about, the teen college kid who needs to bang out an essay in a night and take 60mg adderall for it, or the junkie who recently held an elderly woman at gunpoint to get his 1500mg a day meth fix?

The difference is based on sociology, not strictly on law.

I don't think any drug dosed high enough is enjoyable, unless you include OD'ing and dying.

Stimulants make people into assholes who always calculate and bow before authority. That's my opinion at least.

It's their business if it's strongly linked to violent crime and primitive rage, oh yes it is. Also, if it destroys brains.

I think there should be more factual medical information inducted into governmental law, but it's not like there isn't any of it.

You're just wrong. Alcohol can be horrible, but meth? Sheesh.
 
^ Nice post, Ho-Chi-Minh.
I agree with you that the main differences are based on social differences (including availability and legality).
And, to me, meth has a tendency to be far, far more dangerous than alcohol - though this may be partly due to the social situation (esp. illegality). Meth is so crazily addictive, I have never tried anything else remotely similar.
I am a strong-willed person, but it is too much for me.
For example, when I visited my friend who had some meth (about a year ago), I didn't want to use it, since it was a weeknight and I had responsibilities the next day. However, when he offered me some, I found my mouth saying "sure" even though I knew I didn't really want any. It was like my mind was not even given a choice - all I knew was that he was offering me meth, and nothing else mattered at that moment. Any concerns about staying up all night were suddenly invisible. Very scary.
Yet this friend has been addicted to meth for 20 years, and continues. He does not miss work, and he makes sure to sleep. He uses meth before and after work, and then sleeps (with the help of some pills) every night. So, despite what I had imagined, it is possible to be a long-term meth addict without it escalating or destroying your life (for social reasons). On the other hand. I shudder to think of his brain, teeth, and liver.
 
A lot of hasty generalization fallacy in this thread. "I find meth very addictive, so it is very addictive". It doesn't work like that.

I'm not sure who you're addressing, Ho-Chi-Minh, but you're only partially correct. Yes, the difference is based on sociology, but such a state of sociology is a result of drug laws. You have to see past that. Unless there is convincing experimental evidence that meth is significantly more damaging with other factors constant, I'm going to stand by my opinion that the bias towards meth is uncalled for and actually detrimental.
 
Good study except maybe meth users aren't the best class of subjects to perform such a study on as they may be inherently biased towards meth to start with. Also I didn't really understand the part of the procedure where they had to click to receive money or drugs, I understand that the more of either you wish to get, the exponentially more work you have to do, but 11000 responses? That's a lot of clicking, goddamn.
 
belligerent drunk said:
A lot of hasty generalization fallacy in this thread. "I find meth very addictive, so it is very addictive". It doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...
Of course, personal experiences are not equivalent to controlled studies, and I wouldn't place as much faith in individual recounts of experiences (e.g. Erowid) as I would in methodologically sound studies published in journals with high reputations.
But, for me at least, the experience was real and valid, and I was simply sharing that.


belligerent drunk said:
I'm not sure who you're addressing, Ho-Chi-Minh, but you're only partially correct. Yes, the difference is based on sociology, but such a state of sociology is a result of drug laws. You have to see past that. Unless there is convincing experimental evidence that meth is significantly more damaging with other factors constant, I'm going to stand by my opinion that the bias towards meth is uncalled for and actually detrimental.
Click to expand...
Of course you're right that the laws lead to the social situation, but I am pretty sure that Ho Chi-Minh never doubted that.
And I agree that there is a society-wide bias against meth, and that it is unfortunate. I very much enjoyed the times I used it, and I wish I had the ability - and the self-control - to purchase a small amount at the pharmacy once a month or so.
 
slimvictor said:
Of course, personal experiences are not equivalent to controlled studies, and I wouldn't place as much faith in individual recounts of experiences (e.g. Erowid) as I would in methodologically sound studies published in journals with high reputations.
But, for me at least, the experience was real and valid, and I was simply sharing that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, no harm no foul. My comment wasn't really directed at you as I know you know better than that, but it was triggered by reading what you said.

slimvictor said:
Of course you're right that the laws lead to the social situation, but I am pretty sure that Ho Chi-Minh never doubted that.
And I agree that there is a society-wide bias against meth, and that it is unfortunate. I very much enjoyed the times I used it, and I wish I had the ability - and the self-control - to purchase a small amount at the pharmacy once a month or so.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I may be wrong, but I think many people would come to the same conclusion had they asked the question. The problem is, many people don't ask the question to start with, not that they can't answer it correctly.
 
Yeah I wasn't detailing the specific variables of the reality, but relating it in a practical sense, mostly because though the legislature is woefully inadequate, it's not something that we can snap our fingers and change. I don't think it does much good in the present to theorize what should be. It misleads people into doing dangerous things.
 
On the contrary, I believe that it is important to think and especially talk about what would be if drug laws were completely different, because it's an effective way of showing people how inadequate the laws are. That's one way to get the ball rolling. If people consider laws constant and axiomatic (as in, don't question their validity), then it's less likely that real change is going to occur soon, it'll just be the same beating around the bush. Well, at least that's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
Adderall is a shitload safer than "street crank" even from Walter White, this dumbass obviously don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

First of all Amphetamine R, and L salts are not Neurotoxic.
METHAMPHETAMINE is neurotoxic, and over time will really be hell on your dopamine neurons and shit.
Second, Adderall is a prescription medication. IT'S FUCKING CLEAN, FDA REGULATED, AND dosages are weighed to the microgram.

I, for many years, HAD AN ADDERALL PRESCRIPTION, I abused it yeah, because the dose was so low. But it never caused me any harm, even on binges of relatively high doses, which I usually took to focus when driving to school 50 miles away, and so I had the goddamn wherewithal to actually make myself follow through and not hesitate.

Currently, my ADD is untreated, I electively went off of Adderall, partly to show doctors i'm not a drug seeker to get adequate pain meds. Which worked HALFWAY!

Honestly, the most "normal" I've felt, and most productive I've been, since like before puberty, lol, was the few times I combined 30mg Adderall along with 30-40mg hydrocodone.

I hate to say it, but I always crave that combo, mainly because I crave a productive mindset, and the opiates almost give me that, but the combination REALLY does. Too bad Americas doctors are all overprotective, i'll probably never accomplish anything thanks to the underprescribing, and the generally misled, or otherwise plain ignorant views, such as those in this article, and the very similar harsh & judgemental attitude of most people in general, toward the use of RX narcs. RESPONSIBLY.

Ahh but I guess MOST people cant.
 
Good meth smashes adderall into the ground lol. Only done meth a handful of times but when I did it lasted FAR longer and the euphoria was much more intense. As well as the intense crash that left me depressed as shit.. Which adderall does not do.
 
SixBuckets said:
The methamphetamine substitution program at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney has had great success in doing exactly that. They provide methamphetamine dependent patients with a daily dose of oral dexamphetamine for the duration of their treatment.
Click to expand...

Damn so this is basically the equivalent of a methamphetamine maintenance program?thats wild, never heard of such a thing before
 
belfort said:
Damn so this is basically the equivalent of a methamphetamine maintenance program?thats wild, never heard of such a thing before
Click to expand...

Yep. The Aus government has just announced that they're funding an expansion/replication of the program, but no details have come through on where/when.
 
I've never gotten euphoria from adderal. Maybe that's because I'm ADD and need it and take it as prescribed for the most part, maybe I'll take an extra dose if it's a long day or something. It puts me in a good mood and gives me extra energy but euphoria is a stretch. Maybe a little excitable at the most.
Never done meth but have been around users and I don't feel like our behaviors are similar.
 
I'm a bit ignorant on how the chemical makeup compares, but I've heard a lot more people say Vyvanse felt like meth.
I took Vyvanse for awhile and eventually got used to it, but the first few times taking it (this is when it was first on the market) I would be up for 3 days at a time, hyper focused but not always on anything productive, I think I watched The History Channel (back when the programming was about history) for 24 hours straight once. Then I'd eventually crash so hard I'd take a pillow and blanket to the hallway and sleep because it was the darkest area and I could sleep during the day with no light coming in through any windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top