Workers Seeking Productivity in a Pill Are Abusing A.D.H.D. Drugs

> Adderall is not the answer as these journalists like to claim though. It's useless for basically anything other than very rare usage and has difficult to manage loss of productivity during withdraw. It has an incredibly fast tolerance buildup. If your work requires steady output instead of rare bursts, it's questionable whether it even surpasses coffee because of these downsides.

The problem here is that Adderall isn't meant to be used in this manner, nor is it meant to provide the user with bursts of productivity or euphoria when dosed properly.

Proper usage, as in ADHD or sleep disorders, involves titrating the daily dose to a point at which the attention and/or wakefulness-promoting effects reach the appropriate therapeutic level over the long term. This process takes in to account the inevitable tolerance that comes with downregulation of the systems that are directly (norepinephrine, dopamine) and indirectly elevated by Adderall usage.

Casual users and abusers, on the other hand, are always chasing the initial rush of drug-induced euphoria and the associated productivity and mood boost that comes in the early phases of treatment. These effects are highly prone to tolerance and downregulation (as intended) and thus can't be maintained without constant dose escalation or taking frequent breaks to pay back the built-up tolerance. Neither situation is sustainable or healthy, which is precisely why Adderall should not be considered to be a substitute for the milder stimulants that people consume casually every day.

Beyond that, Adderall has some potential neurotoxicity issues due to the way it upsets dopamine sequestration in neurons (dopamine has neurotoxic metabolites and the systems that clean up these metabolites can be overwhelmed in certain Adderall dosing schemes). Coffee, on the other hand, is associated with a reduction of certain neurodegenerative diseases.

How does somebody tell if they actually have ADHD or they are just easily distracted?

Isn't "Do they respond to ADHD medication?" our only test?

This really shouldn't be a shocker. I was diagnosed with ADHD in elementary school and have been on and off medication ever since. A large number of friends in the professional world use these stimulants regularly.

I think that these drugs are very useful for short term sprints where one needs to focus, or do rather mundane tasks. But it's incredibly easy to become dependent on them. At one point, I could even begin to focus unless I had the max dose of adderall and a strong cup of coffee.

I don't judge anyone who uses stimulants to increase performance. Just because I was diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean I'm not using them as a performing enhancing drug; it's just legal for me to do so. However, I would encourage everyone - whether you're prescribed or not - to use them in moderation. It's very easy to build up a tolerance and become dependent, and once you're dependent, you're no better off than where you started.

> And thus these practices disturb statistics about the true prevalence of ADHD.

Maybe in the future doctors would say "You have no prior history with ADHD, so we'll have to run a long check to see if you really need these meds". Then of course parents will start getting ADHD perscriptions for their children when they're young, so they will have a history... and we come full circle.

Everyone is different, of course, but after 10 years it would be reasonable to assume that your brain was well-adapted to many of the effects of the Adderall and that you were taking a reasonable therapeutic dosage with a proper, healthy dosing schedule.

On the other hand, those who abuse Adderall for the initial euphoric and energetic properties with sporadic dosing schemes are likely to experience unpleasant withdrawal as those effects disappear.