Nothing at all. Methamphetamine, which is not very different than the dextroamphetamine in Adderal, has proven to be a remarkably safe substance and in general, society benefits a great deal when people ingest methamphetamine. I'm sure schoolchildren being prescribed dextroamphetamine to take every single day for years is a very good idea as well.
Are you honestly comparing crystal meth from the street to something prescribed under the guidance of one's doctor? Your post strikes me more along the lines of hysterics than a rational foray into discussion.
For shits and giggles, let's compare apples to apples. Desoxyn (Methamphetamine HCl). There you get the scary M word, but one that's FDA-approved and prescribed--though, admittedly, not commonly--by doctors. Same chemical substance minus the crystallized form, impurities, and of course, the world of illicit meth.
Oddly enough, Abbott Pharmaceuticals isn't synthesizing Desoxyn in their backyard meth lab ala shake-and-bake and Walgreen's isn't hawking it from the saddle bag of their pharmacists' motorcycles. Same substance, different context.
If you want to argue against possible long-term effects of d-amphetamine on developing children, do so. You certainly won't be alone, though for all the hysterics and despite thousands of long-term studies on its effects, there's a rather glaring dearth of support for that position. But, hey, "methamphetamine!"
And yet, different contexts lead to vastly different results. One is prescribed under a doctor's guidance at therapeutic doses and administered orally; the other is smoked, at [i]significantly[/i] higher dosages, to speed up absorption with much higher concentration levels accumulating directly in the brain.
In other words, your argument is inherently simplistic and purposely misleading. Despite similarities in structure, the pharmacodynamics differences between therapeutic usage of Adderall and illicit meth are significant. When you gloss over the differences, you're radically undermining your position. My point with Desoxyn, which you completely ignored, rebuts your position even more clearly.
Most medications have the potential for hazardous effects higher up the dose-response curve. That potential, however, doesn't magically negate clinical effects lower on the curve. A little is good, a lot (or with acetaminophen for instance, a little more) can be deadly. That's nothing new. Just as with potential for side effects, you and your doctor work to manage it during treatment.
On another note, when you raise the specter of crystal meth usage, you aren't just isolating it to matters of pharmacology. Especially when you're talking about usage externalities and societal benefits: the external costs associated with manufacture and distribution all come along as mental baggage with the words "crystal meth." Your hysterics purposely ignore this in order to make the comparison seem more damning on a purely emotional level.
The reason I appeal to sets of things is because I find it completely ridiculous that children are routinely prescribed this dangerous stimulant drug for what I consider very flimsy reasons.
Most people don't really realize what Adderall is, and American society as a whole seems to assume that doctors and pharmaceutical companies know what they are doing and are trustworthy, despite many indications to the contrary.
The pharmacology of "illicit meth" is no different than the pharmacology of legal methamphetamine, other than some contamination. The pharmacology of dextroamphetamine is not so different either, mainly it comes on slightly more slowly and lasts less time.
The reason that crystal meth usage is so bad for society is because the drug is truly terrible for you. I am well aware of everything you said, and I disagree that "just a little bit of amphetamines" is helpful for kids to be receiving for ADD.
I'm confident that history will see me out on this. If you want to give your children speed, have fun.
Methamphetamine in fact IS prescribed by doctors to treat certain disorders. It's unfair to compare prescription methamphetamine to street meth since street meth is not only often very impure, but is typically taken in dosages 30x - 50x greater than a therapeutic dose.
This logic could also be used to argue that acetaminophen / ibuprofen should be Schedule I narcotics since taking a dose 30x - 50x larger than the therapeutic dose would almost certainly result in death.
Anyone who took a dosage 30-50 higher times the prescribed dosage of methamphetamine would quickly die. The impurities are irrelevant: the drug is toxic even at normal doses.
I disagree with your comparison of acetaminophen and amphetamines. It seems to be based on your deluded idea about dosage, but other than that, the drugs differ in some rather significant ways such as abuse potential, habituation, psychoactivity, and so forth.
A therapeutic dosage of methamphetamine (Desoxyn) is about 5mg - 15mg, whereas a recreational dosage can be as high as several hundred milligrams. Though certainly toxic at higher doses, research hasn't shown that the drug is toxic at therapeutic levels. Like the majority of drugs, doctors must balance its benefits with any potential side effects.
You can disagree with my comparison if you'd like, but the fact remains. Don't take my word for it - I encourage you to read some of the research out there surrounding therapeutic methamphetamine as well as the more common levo/detroamphetamine.
I'm sure all the pharmaceutical corporations would love to have me hooked on their methamphetamine, and the history of these companies and the way they have taken advantage of and poison of the American public should be well known by now.
Amphetamines are highly addictive. They require perpetually higher doses to maintain the same activity in the body, like most other highly addictive substances. I'm sure there are some legitimate therapeutic usages for these drugs (narcolepsy). However, I see them as massively over prescribed to people who do not actually require them.
I don't think it's reasonable to compare the effects of street methamphetamine (which is most likely not pure and the dose is not regulated) with the effects of therapeutical doses of dextroamphetamine prescribed by a doctor.
First off, I recommend you ask a licensed professional that type of question.
My experience being switched from Adderall XR to Vyvanse a few years ago when it first came to market in the U.S. has been positive. Vyvanse seems less addictive (missing a week or two between prescriptions is not a big deal) or prone to side effects like insomnia.
This was my experience as well. After 6 months on adderall I had already shown signs of addiction (dosage was needing an increase in order to maintain its effectiveness). I have been on the same dosage of Vyvanse for 4 years now, without any problems.
You are right. But this "perhaps" is not the kind of "Perhaps it's that, perhaps it's something else". He is saying "perhaps" because they are still checking, double checking and extra checking the data. He says "It's preliminary data that must be checked (on) organic, not biological, molecules"