Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed

[Marko Proberto]

When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine. Research
shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant medications
when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2 Another study
found that ADHD boys treated with stimulants such as methylphenidate are
significantly less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol when they are older
than are non-treated ADHD boys.3

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/ritalin.html

[Roger Schlafly]

> When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine. Research
> shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant
medications
> when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2

The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)

Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
of the word "addiction" is debatable.

[Mark D Morin]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:14:57 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>> When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine. Research
>> shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant
>medications
>> when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2
>
>The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
>similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
>and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)

Are you sure you read it?
The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.

>
>Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>of the word "addiction" is debatable.

Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
term.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[CBI]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> >of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>
> Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
> term.


Rog is doing a bit of weaseling. He knows that there is ample research out
there that shows that Ritalin, when used as prescribed, does not meet the
clinical meaning of the word addiction so he is wording the claim in such a
way that allows him to wiggle if you take him up on it.

--
CBI, MD

[PF Riley]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:50:24 GMT, "CBI" > wrote:
>
>"Mark D Morin" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>> >of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>>
>> Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
>> term.
>
>Rog is doing a bit of weaseling. He knows that there is ample research out
>there that shows that Ritalin, when used as prescribed, does not meet the
>clinical meaning of the word addiction so he is wording the claim in such a
>way that allows him to wiggle if you take him up on it.

And, of course, he just disappeared from the thread where the "Ritalin
= cocaine" fools were silenced by simple chemistry, and, as is his
usual mode, appears here repeating the same bull****.

PF

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> And, of course, he just disappeared from the thread where the "Ritalin
> = cocaine" ...

Huhh? I posted some articles that documented similarities between
ritalin and cocaine. That info was not disputed. I think that Jake
posted some similar info. I hope you learned something.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
> Are you sure you read it?

Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.

> The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
> were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
> publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.

That paper nothing to do with whether ritalin was addictive. It
looked at alcohol and other drug abuse among ADHD teenagers.

> >Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> >of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
> term.

The article does not even mention the term "addiction". Read it yourself:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20

The PDR and the DEA say that ritalin is addictive. I have no reason
to doubt that. If you have some scientific study to the contrary, then
go ahead and post it.

[Mark D Morin]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
>> Are you sure you read it?
>
>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.

uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
believe that ritalin is addictive.

>
>> The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
>> were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
>> publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.
>
>That paper nothing to do with whether ritalin was addictive. It
>looked at alcohol and other drug abuse among ADHD teenagers.

and that was stated up front. Your point is?

>
>> >Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>> >of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>> Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
>> term.
>
>The article does not even mention the term "addiction". Read it yourself:
>http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20

I have. I have the hard copy. The article talks about substance
abuse--a necessary condition for addiction.

>
>The PDR and the DEA say that ritalin is addictive.

Are you sure? My recollection is that they say it has the potential to
be addictive.

> I have no reason
>to doubt that. If you have some scientific study to the contrary, then
>go ahead and post it.

It's already been posted (the onset of action papers).

>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:
>
>>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
>>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
>>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
>>> Are you sure you read it?
>>
>>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
>
>uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
>that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
>believe that ritalin is addictive.

There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
and potentially dangerous drug...
The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
when taken as prescribed per subject line.

http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html


A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
its kind, is immune to being abused.

To the contrary: Abuse statistics have flourished alongside the boom
in Ritalin prescription-writing. Though it is quite true that
elementary schoolchildren are unlikely to ingest extra doses of the
drug, which is presumably kept away from little hands, a very
different pattern has emerged among teenagers and adults who have the
manual dexterity to open prescription bottles and the wherewithal to
chop up and snort their contents (a method that puts the drug into the
bloodstream far faster than oral ingestion). For this group,
statistics on the proliferating abuse of methylphenidate in
schoolyards and on the street are dramatic.

According to the dea, for example, as early as 1994 Ritalin was the
fastest-growing amphetamine being used "non-medically" by high school
seniors in Texas. In 1991, reports DeGrandpre in Ritalin Nation,
"children between the ages of 10 and 14 years old were involved in
only about 25 emergency room visits connected with Ritalin abuse. In
1995, just four years later, that number had climbed to more than 400
visits, which for this group was about the same number of visits as
for cocaine." Not surprisingly, given these and other measures of
methylphenidate’s recreational appeal, criminal entrepreneurs have
responded with interest to the drug’s increased circulation. From 1990
to 1995, the dea reports, there were about 2,000 thefts of
methylphenidate, most of them night break-ins at pharmacies meaning
that the drug "ranks in the top 10 most frequently reported
pharmaceutical drugs diverted from licensed handlers."


In short, methylphenidate looks like an amphetamine, acts like an
amphetamine, and is abused like an amphetamine.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those who value its medicinal effects tend
to explain the drug differently. To some, Ritalin is to children what
Prozac and other psychotropic "mood brightening" drugs are to adults —
a short-term fix for enhancing personality and performance. But the
analogy is misleading. Prozac and its sisters are not stimulants with
stimulant side effects; there is, ipso facto, no black market for
drugs like these.

Even more peculiar is the analogy favored by the advocates in chadd:
that "Just as a pair of glasses help the nearsighted person focus," as
Hallowell and Ratey explain, "so can medication help the person with
add see the world more clearly." But there is no black market for
eyeglasses, either — nor loss of appetite, insomnia, "dysphoria" (an
unexplained feeling of sadness that sometimes accompanies pediatric
Ritalin-taking), nor even the faintest risk of toxic psychosis, to
cite one of Ritalin’s rare but dramatically chilling possible effects.


"we are now extending to the young cognitive aids of a kind that used
to be reserved exclusively for the old." He further suggests that,
given expert estimates of the prevalence of add (up to 10 percent of
the population, depending on the expert), if anything "too few"
children are taking the drug. Surely all these experts have a point.
Surely this country can do more, much more, to reduce fidgeting,
squirming, talking excessively, interrupting, losing things, ignoring
adults, and all those other pathologies of what used to be called
childhood.

[Jeff]

"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> >>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> >>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
form
> >>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
> >>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill
form
> >>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
> >>> Are you sure you read it?
> >>
> >>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
> >
> >uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
> >that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
> >believe that ritalin is addictive.
>
> There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
> and potentially dangerous drug...
> The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
> when taken as prescribed per subject line.
>
> http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html
>
>
> A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
> its kind, is immune to being abused.
>
> To the contrary: Abuse statistics have flourished alongside the boom
> in Ritalin prescription-writing. Though it is quite true that
> elementary schoolchildren are unlikely to ingest extra doses of the
> drug, which is presumably kept away from little hands, a very
> different pattern has emerged among teenagers and adults who have the
> manual dexterity to open prescription bottles and the wherewithal to
> chop up and snort their contents (a method that puts the drug into the
> bloodstream far faster than oral ingestion). For this group,
> statistics on the proliferating abuse of methylphenidate in
> schoolyards and on the street are dramatic.
>
> According to the dea, for example, as early as 1994 Ritalin was the
> fastest-growing amphetamine being used "non-medically" by high school
> seniors in Texas. In 1991, reports DeGrandpre in Ritalin Nation,
> "children between the ages of 10 and 14 years old were involved in
> only about 25 emergency room visits connected with Ritalin abuse. In
> 1995, just four years later, that number had climbed to more than 400
> visits, which for this group was about the same number of visits as
> for cocaine." Not surprisingly, given these and other measures of
> methylphenidate's recreational appeal, criminal entrepreneurs have
> responded with interest to the drug's increased circulation. From 1990
> to 1995, the dea reports, there were about 2,000 thefts of
> methylphenidate, most of them night break-ins at pharmacies meaning
> that the drug "ranks in the top 10 most frequently reported
> pharmaceutical drugs diverted from licensed handlers."
>
>
> In short, methylphenidate looks like an amphetamine, acts like an
> amphetamine, and is abused like an amphetamine.

True. However, when taken as prescribed, Ritalin, amphetamine, Concerta and
other ADHD drugs do wonders to help improve the lives of people with ADHD.
Whether or not these drugs, when taken other than they are prescribed, have
an abuse potential is irrelevent to whether or not these drugs are useful to
people with ADHD when taken as presribed.

> Perhaps not surprisingly, those who value its medicinal effects tend
> to explain the drug differently. To some, Ritalin is to children what
> Prozac and other psychotropic "mood brightening" drugs are to adults -
> a short-term fix for enhancing personality and performance.

Prozac and other antidepresents are used to help patients with depression.
Despression is not just a sad mood. But a major impediment to a person's
ability to enjoy his life, with feelings and despair and sadness that
prevent the preson from enjoying his life (and sometimes kill himself). They
are not short-term drugs to enhance personality and performance. They drugs
that used so that the person can function normally.

> But the
> analogy is misleading.

When the understanding of antidepressent is wrong, the analogy is wrong.

> Prozac and its sisters are not stimulants with
> stimulant side effects; there is, ipso facto, no black market for
> drugs like these.

Black markets are irrelevent. It has nothing to do with whether or not drugs
taken as prescribed are helpful to children and adults with ADHD.

> Even more peculiar is the analogy favored by the advocates in chadd:
> that "Just as a pair of glasses help the nearsighted person focus," as
> Hallowell and Ratey explain, "so can medication help the person with
> add see the world more clearly." But there is no black market for
> eyeglasses, either - nor loss of appetite, insomnia, "dysphoria" (an
> unexplained feeling of sadness that sometimes accompanies pediatric
> Ritalin-taking), nor even the faintest risk of toxic psychosis, to
> cite one of Ritalin's rare but dramatically chilling possible effects.
>

Why does a black market for Ritalin make taking Ritalin as prescribed wrong?
Morphine can be misused to get people high, too. Does that mean that we
shouldn't treat postoperative pain?

>
> "we are now extending to the young cognitive aids of a kind that used
> to be reserved exclusively for the old." He further suggests that,
> given expert estimates of the prevalence of add (up to 10 percent of
> the population, depending on the expert), if anything "too few"
> children are taking the drug. Surely all these experts have a point.

Ritalin and other drugs do wonders for many kids and adult with ADHD.
However, these drugs are not right for all people with ADHD. But for many,
these drugs are Godsend that lets them achieve much more than they could
without the drugs.

While Ritalin is only part of the care of children with ADHD, it is a very
important part.

> Surely this country can do more, much more, to reduce fidgeting,
> squirming, talking excessively, interrupting, losing things, ignoring
> adults, and all those other pathologies of what used to be called
> childhood.

No. The things that you do to help most children with fidgeting, squirming,
talking excessively, etc., don't work with children with ADHD. Children with
ADHD are biologically different than other kids. Kids with ADHD don't just
misbehave, they can't control themselves normally, concentrate on studies or
in school like other kids. While ADHD meds do is provide a way for kids to
help themselves do these things normally. Or perhaps, because glasses are
not normal, we shouldn't let kids wear glasses in school.

Jeff

[Mark D Morin]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:23:22 +0100, jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>>>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>>>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>>>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>>>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
>>>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
>>>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
>>>> Are you sure you read it?
>>>
>>>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
>>
>>uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
>>that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
>>believe that ritalin is addictive.
>
>There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
>and potentially dangerous drug...
>The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
>when taken as prescribed per subject line.
>
>http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html
>
>
>A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
>its kind, is immune to being abused.

I don't know where you are getting that myth from.

>
>To the contrary: Abuse statistics have flourished

I guess it all depends on how you define "flourish"

>Perhaps not surprisingly, those who value its medicinal effects tend
>to explain the drug differently. To some, Ritalin is to children what
>Prozac and other psychotropic "mood brightening" drugs are to adults

mood brightening?

>a short-term fix for enhancing personality and performance.

When i see "enhancing," I read "raising over the level of normal
performance." Prozac is perscribed when people are functioning
normally?


================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Marko Proberto]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> > When taken as prescribed, methylphenidate is a valuable medicine.
Research
> > shows that people with ADHD do not become addicted to stimulant
> medications
> > when taken in the form prescribed and at treatment dosages.2
>
> The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
> similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill form
> and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
>
> Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> of the word "addiction" is debatable.

Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.

[Marko Proberto]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Mark D Morin" > wrote
> > >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> > >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> > >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> > >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
> > >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill
form
> > >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
> > Are you sure you read it?
>
> Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
>
> > The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
> > were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
> > publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.
>
> That paper nothing to do with whether ritalin was addictive. It
> looked at alcohol and other drug abuse among ADHD teenagers.
>
> > >Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> > >of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> > Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
> > term.
>
> The article does not even mention the term "addiction". Read it yourself:
> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20
>
> The PDR and the DEA say that ritalin is addictive. I have no reason
> to doubt that. If you have some scientific study to the contrary, then
> go ahead and post it.

It is addictive when abused.

From the Biederman article:

Conclusions. Consistent with findings in untreated ADHD in adults,
untreated ADHD was a significant risk factor for SUD in adolescence. In
contrast, pharmacotherapy was associated with an 85% reduction in risk for
SUD in ADHD youth. Key words: ADHD, pharmacotherapy substance use
disorders.

Now, lets use a spot of logic. If properly USING the medication prevents
addiction, can USING the medication CAUSE addiction? Seems highly unlikely
to me.

[Marko Proberto]

"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> >>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> >>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
form
> >>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
> >>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill
form
> >>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
> >>> Are you sure you read it?
> >>
> >>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
> >
> >uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
> >that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
> >believe that ritalin is addictive.
>
> There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
> and potentially dangerous drug...
> The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
> when taken as prescribed per subject line.
>
> http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html

This is a political statement by a right wing don't-think-tank.

> A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
> its kind, is immune to being abused.

Who has ever said that? Can you document that anyone in any of the groups
this is cross posted to has ever said that?

snip

[jake]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:23:45 GMT, "Marko Proberto"
> wrote:

>
>"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> >>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>> >>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>> >>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
>form
>> >>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
>> >>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill
>form
>> >>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
>> >>> Are you sure you read it?
>> >>
>> >>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
>> >
>> >uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
>> >that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
>> >believe that ritalin is addictive.
>>
>> There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
>> and potentially dangerous drug...
>> The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
>> when taken as prescribed per subject line.
>>
>> http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html
>
>This is a political statement by a right wing don't-think-tank.

Whilst certainly opposed to the aims of the Heritage Foundation..
even a stopped clock is right twice a day..


>> A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
>> its kind, is immune to being abused.
>
>Who has ever said that? Can you document that anyone in any of the groups
>this is cross posted to has ever said that?

methinks you doth protest too much..
I thought you were all in favour of myths being debunked..

do you actually find this normal and acceptable?

"Ritalin, Ritalin, seizure drugs, Ritalin," in the words of its
sing-song opening. "So goes the rhythm of noontime" for a typical
school nurse in East Boston "as she trots her tray of brown plastic
vials and paper water cups from class to class, dispensing pills into
outstretched young palms." For this nurse, as for her counterparts in
middle- and upper-middle class schools across the country, the day’s
routine is now driven by what the Times dubs "a ticklish question," to
wit: "With the number of children across the country taking Ritalin
estimated at well over three million, more than double the 1990
figure, who should be giving out the pills?"

"With nurses often serving more than one school at a time," the story
goes on to explain, "the whole middle of the day can be taken up in a
school-to-school scurry to dole out drugs." Massachusetts, for its
part, has taken to having the nurse deputize "anyone from a principal
to a secretary" to share the burden. In Florida, where the ratio of
school nurses to students is particularly low, "many schools have
clerical workers hand out the pills."

[Markowitz Probertowitz]

"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:23:45 GMT, "Marko Proberto"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:50:52 -0400, Mark D Morin
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:30:34 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >> >>> >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look
at
> >> >>> >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> >> >>> >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
> >form
> >> >>> >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are
quite
> >> >>> >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in
pill
> >form
> >> >>> >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
> >> >>> Are you sure you read it?
> >> >>
> >> >>Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
> >> >
> >> >uhmmm. if you read the papers (versus the press release) you will find
> >> >that the conclussion was--taken as directed, there is no reason to
> >> >believe that ritalin is addictive.
> >>
> >> There is NO question whatsover that Ritalin is an addictive
> >> and potentially dangerous drug...
> >> The only thing under debate is whether Ritalin is addictive
> >> when taken as prescribed per subject line.
> >>
> >> http://www.policyreview.org/apr99/eberstadt.html
> >
> >This is a political statement by a right wing don't-think-tank.
>
> Whilst certainly opposed to the aims of the Heritage Foundation..
> even a stopped clock is right twice a day..

Not a digital military one.

> >> A third myth about methylphenidate is that it, alone among drugs of
> >> its kind, is immune to being abused.
> >
> >Who has ever said that? Can you document that anyone in any of the groups

> >this is cross posted to has ever said that?
>
> methinks you doth protest too much..
> I thought you were all in favour of myths being debunked..

This is one of those pure myths. IOW, never happened and is a red herring.

> do you actually find this normal and acceptable?

> "Ritalin, Ritalin, seizure drugs, Ritalin," in the words of its
> sing-song opening. "So goes the rhythm of noontime" for a typical
> school nurse in East Boston "as she trots her tray of brown plastic
> vials and paper water cups from class to class, dispensing pills into
> outstretched young palms." For this nurse, as for her counterparts in
> middle- and upper-middle class schools across the country, the day's
> routine is now driven by what the Times dubs "a ticklish question," to
> wit: "With the number of children across the country taking Ritalin
> estimated at well over three million, more than double the 1990
> figure, who should be giving out the pills?"

The nurse is a loon.

> "With nurses often serving more than one school at a time," the story
> goes on to explain, "the whole middle of the day can be taken up in a
> school-to-school scurry to dole out drugs." Massachusetts, for its
> part, has taken to having the nurse deputize "anyone from a principal
> to a secretary" to share the burden. In Florida, where the ratio of
> school nurses to students is particularly low, "many schools have
> clerical workers hand out the pills."

With the long acting meds, there is less of this.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Marko Proberto" > wrote in
> > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.

I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
That is, unless full definitions are provided.

She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
their own personal definitions of "addictive".

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
> > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>
> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
>
> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
> their own personal definitions of "addictive".

Addiction is defined as "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming
substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and
by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent
compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." (www.m-w.cm)

This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this does
describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.

Jeff

[Mark D Morin]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:10:33 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Marko Proberto" > wrote in
>> > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>> > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>> > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>> > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>> > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>> Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>
>I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
>used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
>That is, unless full definitions are provided.

"Addiction" is a medical term and the way she uses the term does not
vary from how it's used in the field of medicine.


================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[jake]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0400, "Jeff" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
>> > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>> > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>> > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>> > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>> > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>> > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>>
>> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
>> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
>> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
>>
>> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
>> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
>> their own personal definitions of "addictive".
>
>Addiction is defined as "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming
>substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and
>by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent
>compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." (www.m-w.cm)
>
> This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this does
>describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
>prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
>tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.

yeah sure..just a "discontinuation syndrome..right?

:>)




>
>Jeff
>

[Jeff]

"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0400, "Jeff" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> >> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
> >> > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look
at
> >> > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> >> > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
form
> >> > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> >> > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> >> > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
> >>
> >> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
> >> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
> >> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
> >>
> >> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
> >> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
> >> their own personal definitions of "addictive".
> >
> >Addiction is defined as "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming
> >substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance
and
> >by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly :
persistent
> >compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."
(www.m-w.cm)
> >
> > This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this
does
> >describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> >prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
> >tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
>
> yeah sure..just a "discontinuation syndrome..right?
>
> :>)
>

What are you talking about? Can you please provide some references that show
this problem for drugs prescribed for ADHD when taken as prescribed for
ADHD?

Jeff

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff" > wrote
> This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this
does
> describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
> tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.

Where is the scientific paper with these findings?

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this
> does
> > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it,
no
> > tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
>
> Where is the scientific paper with these findings?

Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows otherwise?

Jeff

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff" > wrote
> > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it,
> > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
> > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
> Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
otherwise?

You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.

[jake]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:18:52 -0400, "Jeff" >
wrote:

>
>"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0400, "Jeff" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
>> et...
>> >> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
>> >> > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look
>at
>> >> > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>> >> > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
>form
>> >> > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>> >> > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>> >> > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
>> >> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
>> >> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
>> >>
>> >> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
>> >> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
>> >> their own personal definitions of "addictive".
>> >
>> >Addiction is defined as "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming
>> >substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance
>and
>> >by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly :
>persistent
>> >compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."
>(www.m-w.cm)
>> >
>> > This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this
>does
>> >describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
>> >prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
>> >tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
>>
>> yeah sure..just a "discontinuation syndrome..right?
>>
>> :>)
>>
>
>What are you talking about?

this...

Abrupt discontinuation of long-term administration of methylphenidate
is not recommended. Discontinuation may unmask severe depression or
the effect of chronic overactivity (e.g., dysphoric mood, suicidal and
paranoid ideation). Supervision of withdrawal is recommended.


Abrupt discontinuation of methylphenidate can produce a withdrawal
syndrome manifested as severe mental depression, unusual behavior,
tiredness, and weakness.

The use of methylphenidate needs careful supervision. Visit your
doctor for regular checks on your progress. Tell your doctor if you
feel a need to take more tablets than prescribed, or to take them more
often; you can develop a dependence on this medicine. If you have been
taking methylphenidate regularly for some time, do not suddenly stop
taking it. You must gradually reduce the dose or you may feel
withdrawal effects. Ask your doctor for advice.


>Can you please provide some references that show
>this problem for drugs prescribed for ADHD when taken as prescribed for
>ADHD?

unlike proselytizers for ADHD and Ritalin others are far more
objective

http://www.parkinsons-information-exchange-network-online.com/drugdb/083.html


Ultimately Victorious in Obtaining Meds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's good to be back on line ... I've missed this forum tremendously.
I just wanted to share with whomever is interested the recent hurdles
I had to conquer in order to get my medication (Ritalin) early. Much
to my horror, my purse was stolen in an airport, and my precious
bottle of pink pills (that I guard with my life) went South with the
perpetrator.

After a barrage of phone calls to my neurologist, only some of which
were returned oh-to-eagerly by the snippy receptionist (who derives
pleasure in relaying the doctor's messages that include the word
"NO"), I discovered that sending faxes directly to the doctor does the
trick. If any of you ever have the misfortune of sharing a similar
predicament, perhaps the below information will be of some use. I
completely attribute the below faxes to the ultimate resolution in my
favor.

Remember one and all, we have a RIGHT to our medication; never, ever
let anyone treat you -- as they have often with me --like a drug
addict/medication abuser.

(I removed the doctors' names, for obvious reasons)

8/1/2001


Dr. XXX,

If you didn’t get my fax from yesterday, I’ve included it below. I
have resorted to faxing your office due to the difficulty I have had
with reaching an actual person when I call; more often than not,
messages I leave are either ignored or are returned hours--even days--
later.

Today I am suffering from quite a severe headache, which I attribute
to Ritalin withdrawal … I have now gone 6 days without my medication,
and as if the debilitating sleepiness and fogginess were not enough, I
now have an ice pick in my skull.

http://www.sleepnet.com/narco14/messages/550.html
>
>Jeff
>

[Mark D Morin]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:59:44 +0100, jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0400, "Jeff" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>>> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
>>> > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>>> > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>>> > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>>> > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>>> > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>>> > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>>>
>>> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
>>> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
>>> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
>>>
>>> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
>>> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
>>> their own personal definitions of "addictive".
>>
>>Addiction is defined as "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming
>>substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and
>>by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent
>>compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." (www.m-w.cm)
>>
>> This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this does
>>describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
>>prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
>>tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
>
>yeah sure..just a "discontinuation syndrome..right?

Nope.
Not for Ritalin

>
>:>)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Jeff
>>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:13:47 +0100, jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:
..
>
>Abrupt discontinuation of long-term administration of methylphenidate
>is not recommended. Discontinuation may unmask severe depression or
>the effect of chronic overactivity (e.g., dysphoric mood, suicidal and
>paranoid ideation). Supervision of withdrawal is recommended.
>
>
>Abrupt discontinuation of methylphenidate can produce a withdrawal
>syndrome manifested as severe mental depression, unusual behavior,
>tiredness, and weakness.

1 : a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize
a particular abnormality
2 : a set of concurrent things (as emotions or actions) that usually
form an identifiable pattern

Do the symptoms above occur with enough frequency so as to be
identified as a pattern?

Also note the disclaimer:
Disclaimer

The information found on this site was researched by unpaid
volunteers. None of us are in the medical profession. Needless to say
this was done as meticulously as possible. Mistakes if found were
unintentional. This site is provided by volunteers of the Parkinsn
List receiving no remuneration of any kind.

Also note what kind of website that is. This discussion is about the
use of Ritalin in the treatment of ADHD--not Parkinson's. Given the
neurology of parkinsons and the mechanism of action of ritalin, that
group of symptoms probably makes sense. How many people being treated
for ADHD with ritalin also have parkinson's?



================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:08:23 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Jeff" > wrote
>> > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
>> > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it,
>> > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
>> > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
>> Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
>otherwise?
>
>You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
>ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
>Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
>addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.

Have you bothered to look at any of the papers already discussed?
I bet not because that would mean getting off your duff and finding
the journals. Look particularly at the biederman article already
cited. Then look at his reference list. He cites several other papers
in which he was an author. The data you seek are there.

Are you 100% certain that the PDR does not say that it has the
potential to be addictive and that the DEA did not say that it has the
same potential. Dropping one word makes a world of difference.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[CBI]

"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
...
>
> Abrupt discontinuation of long-term administration of methylphenidate
> is not recommended. Discontinuation may unmask severe depression or
> the effect of chronic overactivity (e.g., dysphoric mood, suicidal and
> paranoid ideation). Supervision of withdrawal is recommended.

What you are describing is habituation, not addiction. The same can be said
for several medications that are clearly not abused, such as beta blockers
(a class of heart medicine) and antidepressants.

--
CBI,MD

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> >ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
> >Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> >addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
> Have you bothered to look at any of the papers already discussed?
>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.

Yes, I did. I even posted the URL. It does not even mention
the word "addiction".

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:19:44 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> >You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
>> >ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
>> >Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
>> >addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
>> Have you bothered to look at any of the papers already discussed?
>>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.
>
>Yes, I did.
> I even posted the URL.

No you didn't, what you posted was the abstract

> It does not even mention the word "addiction".

Did you READ the paper. That includes going through the citations.
That would necessitate having a hard copy.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Markowitz Probertowitz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
> > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>
> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
>
> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
> their own personal definitions of "addictive".

You just do not like her great grandfather.

My comment was figurative in nature, and it slid right by you.

As she is the head of NIDA, and one of the world's leading researching into
the physiology of addiction, I will accept her usage of the term way before
I will accept yours.

[Markowitz Probertowitz]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
> > > > The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> > > > whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> > > > quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill
form
> > > > Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> > > > of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> > > Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
> >
> > I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
> > used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
> > That is, unless full definitions are provided.
> >
> > She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
> > were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
> > their own personal definitions of "addictive".
>
> Addiction is defined as "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming
> substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and
> by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly :
persistent
> compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."
(www.m-w.cm)
>
> This clearly describes Ritalin when taken intranasally. However, this
does
> describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking it, no
> tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.

With its short serum half-life, every person using it as prescribed would go
through a daily withdrawla, if it were addictive when taken as prescribed.

That is a fact that escapes the anti-med know nothings.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Markowitz Probertowitz" > wrote
> As she is the head of NIDA, and one of the world's leading researching
into
> the physiology of addiction, I will accept her usage of the term way
before
> I will accept yours.

You can use any definition you want. But if you wanted to be
accurate, you would have started this thread by saying that
a leading researcher argues that Ritalin is NOT Addictive when
taken as prescribed, according to her peculiar definition of "addictive".

[JG]

"Mark D Morin" >, an almost-priest who studied
pedophilia, wrote in message
...

> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:19:44 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> > wrote:

> >"Mark D Morin" > wrote

[...]

> >>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.

> >Yes, I did.
> > I even posted the URL.

> No you didn't, what you posted was the abstract

Holy crap! Do you think you can go to the URL Roger posted and click on
"Full Text of this Article" (top of the box on the right side of the
page)? Need help?

> > It does not even mention the word "addiction".

No, it doesn't.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >> >You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> >> >ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
> >> >Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> >> >addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
> >>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.
> > I even posted the URL.
> No you didn't, what you posted was the abstract

I'll post it again.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20

Yes, it shows the abstract. It has links to the full text (with tables)
in HTML and PDF, and also to a letter pointing out an arithmetic
error.

> > It does not even mention the word "addiction".
> Did you READ the paper. That includes going through the citations.
> That would necessitate having a hard copy.

No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
an appropriate quote.

[toolz toolz]

"CBI" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
>
> "jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Abrupt discontinuation of long-term administration of methylphenidate
> > is not recommended. Discontinuation may unmask severe depression or
> > the effect of chronic overactivity (e.g., dysphoric mood, suicidal and
> > paranoid ideation). Supervision of withdrawal is recommended.
>
> What you are describing is habituation, not addiction. The same can be
said
> for several medications that are clearly not abused, such as beta blockers
> (a class of heart medicine) and antidepressants.
>
> --
> CBI,MD
>
> Hahahaha! what one reads in this answer is squirming, slimy, blood
thirsty, money grubbing, sorry attempt to lead folks astray, from a sorry
..excuse for humanity. Habitation or addiction? PLEASE!!!

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> > > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking
it,
> > > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
> > > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
> > Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
> otherwise?
>
> You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
> Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.

As far as I know, withdrawal has not been well studied much in kids after
chronic adminstration. What are the sources for PDR and DEA saying the
Ritalin is addictive? Is it based on clinical trials? Or the fact that if
taken other than prescribed, it can be abused?

Jeff

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Markowitz Probertowitz" > wrote
> > As she is the head of NIDA, and one of the world's leading researching
> into
> > the physiology of addiction, I will accept her usage of the term way
> before
> > I will accept yours.
>
> You can use any definition you want. But if you wanted to be
> accurate, you would have started this thread by saying that
> a leading researcher argues that Ritalin is NOT Addictive when
> taken as prescribed, according to her peculiar definition of "addictive".

What is her peculiar definition of "addictive?" How does it differ from
either the dictionary definition of "addictive" or the one used by the
medical community (which is essentially the same thing)? If you substitute
the medical definition of "addictive," are any of her conclusions different?

Jeff

[CBI]

"toolz toolz" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> >
> > What you are describing is habituation, not addiction. The same can be
> said
> > for several medications that are clearly not abused, such as beta
blockers
> > (a class of heart medicine) and antidepressants.
> >
> > --
> > CBI,MD
> >
> > Hahahaha! what one reads in this answer is squirming, slimy, blood
> thirsty, money grubbing, sorry attempt to lead folks astray, from a sorry
> .excuse for humanity. Habitation or addiction? PLEASE!!!

We would be much more impressed with your in depth understanding of the
issues if you at least learned the relevant terms. I suspect that you make a
"habitation" of proudly displaying your ignorance.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> If you want to make
> some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
> an appropriate quote.

How about this one?

"Consistent with findings in untreated ADHD in adults, untreated ADHD was a
significant risk factor for SUD in adolescence. In contrast, pharmacotherapy
was associated with an 85% reduction in risk for SUD in ADHD youth. "

The reason you won't find the word "addiction" is because they are using a
related clinical term, "substance abuse disorders (SUD)," instead. SUD is a
broader term that encompasses addictions as well as other inappropriate use
of substances that falls short of addiction.

In the past Roger has claimed that the reason for the decreased SUD with
treatment with Ritalin is that the subjects are merely substituting the
Ritalin for the other drugs. The problem with this theory is that it would
make Ritalin unique as an abusable/addictive drug that when used daily does
not lead to increased use of itself and other drugs (which is part of the
clinical definition of "addictive").

The bottom line is that kids with ADD are more likely to abuse drugs than
other kids and if you treat them with Ritalin you greatly reduce this risk.
One cannot say the same for cocaine.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Markowitz Probertowitz" > wrote
> > As she is the head of NIDA, and one of the world's leading researching
> into
> > the physiology of addiction, I will accept her usage of the term way
> before
> > I will accept yours.
>
> You can use any definition you want. But if you wanted to be
> accurate, you would have started this thread by saying that
> a leading researcher argues that Ritalin is NOT Addictive when
> taken as prescribed, according to her peculiar definition of "addictive".

Other than according to the mistaken notion that a withdrawal syndrome
constitutes addiction; by what definition is Ritalin addictive when taken as
prescribed?

--
CBI, MD

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:26:21 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" >, an almost-priest who studied
>pedophilia, wrote in message
...
>
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:19:44 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
>> > wrote:
>
> > >"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>
>[...]
>
>> >>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.
>
>> >Yes, I did.
>> > I even posted the URL.
>
>> No you didn't, what you posted was the abstract
>
>Holy crap! Do you think you can go to the URL Roger posted and click on
>"Full Text of this Article" (top of the box on the right side of the
>page)? Need help?
>
>> > It does not even mention the word "addiction".
>
>No, it doesn't.

Take a look at the references. No article stands in isolation.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:32:02 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> >> >You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
>> >> >ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
>> >> >Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
>> >> >addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
>> >>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.
>> > I even posted the URL.
>> No you didn't, what you posted was the abstract
>
>I'll post it again.
>http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20
>
>Yes, it shows the abstract. It has links to the full text (with tables)
>in HTML and PDF, and also to a letter pointing out an arithmetic
>error.
>
>> > It does not even mention the word "addiction".
>> Did you READ the paper. That includes going through the citations.
>> That would necessitate having a hard copy.
>
>No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
>maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
>it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
>some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
>an appropriate quote.

not possible.
references are not linked.
Have you looked at them?
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> > > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking
it,
> > > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
> > > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
> > Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
> otherwise?
>
> You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
> Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.

The PDR says, "Ritalin should be given cautiously to emotionally unstable
patients, such as those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism,
because such patients may increase dosage on their own initiative.

Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and psychic dependence
with varying degrees of abnormal behavior. Frank psychotic episodes can
occur, especially with parenteral abuse. Careful supervision is required
during drug withdrawal, since severe depression as well as the effects of
chronic overactivity can be unmasked. Long-term follow-up may be required
because of the patient's basic personality disturbances. "
http://www.pdr.net/display.jsp?url=57301550.htm&productname=+Ritalin+Hydroch
loride+Tablets%28Novartis%29%0D%0A

I don't see where they say it is addictive.



Here the DEA says it "has a high potential for abuse".
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/methylphenidate.html

The DEA's "peculiar definition" of the word is, "The term "addict" means any
individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the
public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the
use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with
reference to his addiction. "

It does not include any mention of a withdrawal syndrome and use as
prescribed would, by their definition, not reflect addiction since it would
require self control and results in an improvement in the person's welfare.

Where, exactly, does the DEA say that methylphenidate when used as
prescribed is addictive?

--
CBI, MD

[toolz toolz]

"CBI" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
>
> "jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Abrupt discontinuation of long-term administration of methylphenidate
> > is not recommended. Discontinuation may unmask severe depression or
> > the effect of chronic overactivity (e.g., dysphoric mood, suicidal and
> > paranoid ideation). Supervision of withdrawal is recommended.
>
> What you are describing is habituation, not addiction. The same can be
said
> for several medications that are clearly not abused, such as beta blockers
> (a class of heart medicine) and antidepressants.
>
> --
> CBI,MD
>
> Hahahaha! what one reads in this answer is squirming, slimy, blood
thirsty, money grubbing, sorry attempt to lead folks astray, from a sorry
..excuse for humanity. Habitation or addiction? PLEASE!!!

[Joe Parsons]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:18:31 GMT, "CBI" > wrote:

>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> "Jeff" > wrote
>> > > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
>> > > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of taking
>it,
>> > > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
>> > > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
>> > Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
>> otherwise?
>>
>> You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
>> ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
>> Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
>> addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
>
>The PDR says, "Ritalin should be given cautiously to emotionally unstable
>patients, such as those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism,
>because such patients may increase dosage on their own initiative.
>
>Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and psychic dependence
>with varying degrees of abnormal behavior. Frank psychotic episodes can
>occur, especially with parenteral abuse. Careful supervision is required
>during drug withdrawal, since severe depression as well as the effects of
>chronic overactivity can be unmasked. Long-term follow-up may be required
>because of the patient's basic personality disturbances. "
>http://www.pdr.net/display.jsp?url=57301550.htm&productname=+Ritalin+Hydroch
>loride+Tablets%28Novartis%29%0D%0A
>
>I don't see where they say it is addictive.

Some people--you might call them the "Ritalin reactionaries"--provide these
out-of-context quotes purporting to prove that "Ritalin is addictive," or has
various dire side effects, or that DEA considers it dangerous. These same
people, in their zeal to prove that ADHD is just the normal behavior of a
spirited child, quote *part* of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.

What they "conveniently" neglect to mention is that package inserts, PDR and DEA
all refer to *abuse* of the drug as leading to addiction, withdrawal and other
problems.

By the same token, those who'd deny the existence of ADHD as a legitimately
treatable disorder conveniently neglect some important phrases in DSM-IV: that
the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they manifest in
two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and inconsistent
with developmental level."

I wonder why they don't mention that.

Joe Parsons

>
>
>
>Here the DEA says it "has a high potential for abuse".
>http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/methylphenidate.html
>
>The DEA's "peculiar definition" of the word is, "The term "addict" means any
>individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the
>public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the
>use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with
>reference to his addiction. "
>
>It does not include any mention of a withdrawal syndrome and use as
>prescribed would, by their definition, not reflect addiction since it would
>require self control and results in an improvement in the person's welfare.
>
>Where, exactly, does the DEA say that methylphenidate when used as
>prescribed is addictive?

[Roger Schlafly]

"Joe Parsons" > wrote
> the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
manifest in
> two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
inconsistent
> with developmental level."

Yeah, sure. Whatever that means. Tell Mark P., because he thinks that
he can diagnose ADHD in 30 seconds!

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >> > It does not even mention the word "addiction".
> >> Did you READ the paper. That includes going through the citations.
> >> That would necessitate having a hard copy.
> >No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
> >maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
> >it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
> >some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
> >an appropriate quote.
> not possible.

Ok, I concede the point. It is not possible for you to make your
point by quoting from the article.

> references are not linked.
> Have you looked at them?

If you recommend it, I'll go read reference #8, Breggin's book
titled, "Talking Back to Ritalin". Then maybe the other 26
references. And then you'll ask if I tracked down all the references
in those articles and books. And I still won't know what point
you are trying to make.

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
> manifest in
> > two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
> inconsistent
> > with developmental level."
>
> Yeah, sure. Whatever that means. Tell Mark P., because he thinks that
> he can diagnose ADHD in 30 seconds!

Reading minds again, Roger? I don't recall Mark P. ever making a statement
like that.

Jeff

[Jeff]

"Joe Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:18:31 GMT, "CBI" > wrote:
>
> >"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >> "Jeff" > wrote
> >> > > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> >> > > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of
taking
> >it,
> >> > > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
> >> > > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
> >> > Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
> >> otherwise?
> >>
> >> You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> >> ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
> >> Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> >> addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
> >
> >The PDR says, "Ritalin should be given cautiously to emotionally unstable
> >patients, such as those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism,
> >because such patients may increase dosage on their own initiative.
> >
> >Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and psychic
dependence
> >with varying degrees of abnormal behavior. Frank psychotic episodes can
> >occur, especially with parenteral abuse. Careful supervision is required
> >during drug withdrawal, since severe depression as well as the effects of
> >chronic overactivity can be unmasked. Long-term follow-up may be required
> >because of the patient's basic personality disturbances. "
>
>http://www.pdr.net/display.jsp?url=57301550.htm&productname=+Ritalin+Hydroc
h
> >loride+Tablets%28Novartis%29%0D%0A
> >
> >I don't see where they say it is addictive.
>
> Some people--you might call them the "Ritalin reactionaries"--provide
these
> out-of-context quotes purporting to prove that "Ritalin is addictive," or
has
> various dire side effects, or that DEA considers it dangerous. These same
> people, in their zeal to prove that ADHD is just the normal behavior of a
> spirited child, quote *part* of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.
>
> What they "conveniently" neglect to mention is that package inserts, PDR
and DEA
> all refer to *abuse* of the drug as leading to addiction, withdrawal and
other
> problems.
>
> By the same token, those who'd deny the existence of ADHD as a
legitimately
> treatable disorder conveniently neglect some important phrases in DSM-IV:
that
> the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
manifest in
> two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
inconsistent
> with developmental level."
>
> I wonder why they don't mention that.
>
> Joe Parsons
>

Interesting how Roger did not explain why he conistantly leaves out these
sorts of details on the about the DSM IV diagnostic requirements for ADHD.
It is not like the requirements are not available on the web.

I guess leaving out the requirements during a discussion is intellectual
dishonesty. I guess the truth is less important than winning an arguement to
some people.

Jeff

(...)

[toolz toolz]

Bull****
"Joe Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:18:31 GMT, "CBI" > wrote:
>
> >"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >> "Jeff" > wrote
> >> > > > describe Ritalin when taken as prescribed for ADHD. When taken as
> >> > > > prescribed, there is no compulsive need for it, no habit of
taking
> >it,
> >> > > > no tolerance and no physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.
> >> > > Where is the scientific paper with these findings?
> >> > Clinical experience. Can you please show me the paper that shows
> >> otherwise?
> >>
> >> You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> >> ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience" is.
> >> Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> >> addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
> >
> >The PDR says, "Ritalin should be given cautiously to emotionally unstable
> >patients, such as those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism,
> >because such patients may increase dosage on their own initiative.
> >
> >Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and psychic
dependence
> >with varying degrees of abnormal behavior. Frank psychotic episodes can
> >occur, especially with parenteral abuse. Careful supervision is required
> >during drug withdrawal, since severe depression as well as the effects of
> >chronic overactivity can be unmasked. Long-term follow-up may be required
> >because of the patient's basic personality disturbances. "
>
>http://www.pdr.net/display.jsp?url=57301550.htm&productname=+Ritalin+Hydroc
h
> >loride+Tablets%28Novartis%29%0D%0A
> >
> >I don't see where they say it is addictive.
>
> Some people--you might call them the "Ritalin reactionaries"--provide
these
> out-of-context quotes purporting to prove that "Ritalin is addictive," or
has
> various dire side effects, or that DEA considers it dangerous. These same
> people, in their zeal to prove that ADHD is just the normal behavior of a
> spirited child, quote *part* of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.
>
> What they "conveniently" neglect to mention is that package inserts, PDR
and DEA
> all refer to *abuse* of the drug as leading to addiction, withdrawal and
other
> problems.
>
> By the same token, those who'd deny the existence of ADHD as a
legitimately
> treatable disorder conveniently neglect some important phrases in DSM-IV:
that
> the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
manifest in
> two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
inconsistent
> with developmental level."
>
> I wonder why they don't mention that.
>
> Joe Parsons
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Here the DEA says it "has a high potential for abuse".
> >http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/methylphenidate.html
> >
> >The DEA's "peculiar definition" of the word is, "The term "addict" means
any
> >individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the
> >public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to
the
> >use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with
> >reference to his addiction. "
> >
> >It does not include any mention of a withdrawal syndrome and use as
> >prescribed would, by their definition, not reflect addiction since it
would
> >require self control and results in an improvement in the person's
welfare.
> >
> >Where, exactly, does the DEA say that methylphenidate when used as
> >prescribed is addictive?
>

[Markowicz Probertowicz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Mark D Morin" > wrote
> > >> >You sound like the tobacco executives. The PDR and DEA say that
> > >> >ritalin is addictive. I don't know what your "clinical experience"
is.
> > >> >Have you prescribed ritalin, and then tested your patients for
> > >> >addiction? I doubt it. Show me the scientific paper.
> > >>.... Look particularly at the biederman article already cited.
> > > I even posted the URL.
> > No you didn't, what you posted was the abstract
>
> I'll post it again.
> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20
>
> Yes, it shows the abstract. It has links to the full text (with tables)
> in HTML and PDF, and also to a letter pointing out an arithmetic
> error.
>
> > > It does not even mention the word "addiction".
> > Did you READ the paper. That includes going through the citations.
> > That would necessitate having a hard copy.
>
> No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
> maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
> it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
> some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
> an appropriate quote.

The article specifically refers to *substance abuse disorders.*

A search on "substance abuse disorders" provides numerous URLs.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/p20-grp.html

Substance-Related Disorders
Alcohol Dependence
Amphetamine Dependence
Cannabis Dependence
Cocaine Dependence
Hallucinogen Dependence
Inhalant Dependence
Nicotine Dependence
Opioid Dependence
Phencyclidine Dependence
Sedative Dependence
----------------------------

http://www.addict-help.com/

which is the addiction resource center

-------------------

http://www.sccgov.org/channel/0,4770,chid%253D48448%2526sid%253D10710,00.html

http://www.psych.org/public_info/substance.cfm

----------------------

Roger, you are making a distinction with no difference. IOW, baloney.

[Markowicz Probertowicz]

"CBI" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > If you want to make
> > some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
> > an appropriate quote.
>
> How about this one?
>
> "Consistent with findings in untreated ADHD in adults, untreated ADHD was
a
> significant risk factor for SUD in adolescence. In contrast,
pharmacotherapy
> was associated with an 85% reduction in risk for SUD in ADHD youth. "
>
> The reason you won't find the word "addiction" is because they are using a
> related clinical term, "substance abuse disorders (SUD)," instead. SUD is
a
> broader term that encompasses addictions as well as other inappropriate
use
> of substances that falls short of addiction.
>
> In the past Roger has claimed that the reason for the decreased SUD with
> treatment with Ritalin is that the subjects are merely substituting the
> Ritalin for the other drugs. The problem with this theory is that it would
> make Ritalin unique as an abusable/addictive drug that when used daily
does
> not lead to increased use of itself and other drugs (which is part of the
> clinical definition of "addictive").
>
> The bottom line is that kids with ADD are more likely to abuse drugs than
> other kids and if you treat them with Ritalin you greatly reduce this
risk.
> One cannot say the same for cocaine.

And, as usual, Roger engages in his sophistry.

[Markowicz Probertowicz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Mark D Morin" > wrote
> > >> > It does not even mention the word "addiction".
> > >> Did you READ the paper. That includes going through the citations.
> > >> That would necessitate having a hard copy.
> > >No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
> > >maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
> > >it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
> > >some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
> > >an appropriate quote.
> > not possible.
>
> Ok, I concede the point. It is not possible for you to make your
> point by quoting from the article.
>
> > references are not linked.
> > Have you looked at them?
>
> If you recommend it, I'll go read reference #8, Breggin's book
> titled, "Talking Back to Ritalin".

Why not read Barkley's review of Breggin's book for full understanding of
Breggin's intellectual dishonesty?

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html

Then maybe the other 26
> references.

Read breggin last, so you can see what a bull****ter he is.

And then you'll ask if I tracked down all the references
> in those articles and books. And I still won't know what point
> you are trying to make.

[Markowicz Probertowicz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
> manifest in
> > two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
> inconsistent
> > with developmental level."
>
> Yeah, sure. Whatever that means. Tell Mark P., because he thinks that
> he can diagnose ADHD in 30 seconds!

As expected, you take my comments out of context.

So typical of your intellectual dishonesty.

[Markowicz Probertowicz]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > > the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
> > manifest in
> > > two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
> > inconsistent
> > > with developmental level."
> >
> > Yeah, sure. Whatever that means. Tell Mark P., because he thinks that
> > he can diagnose ADHD in 30 seconds!
>
> Reading minds again, Roger? I don't recall Mark P. ever making a
statement
> like that.

In the context of a clinician who has the benefit of psychological studies
and the reports of parents and teachers, can often confirm the observations
of others within 30 seconds in many cases. The hyperactive behavior is not
just limited to inability to sit sitll, but to constant touching of the
environment, people, rapid and frequent arm movement, etc.

As usual, Roger takes it out of context.

[Markowicz Probertowicz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Markowitz Probertowitz" > wrote
> > As she is the head of NIDA, and one of the world's leading researching
> into
> > the physiology of addiction, I will accept her usage of the term way
> before
> > I will accept yours.
>
> You can use any definition you want. But if you wanted to be
> accurate, you would have started this thread by saying that
> a leading researcher argues that Ritalin is NOT Addictive when
> taken as prescribed, according to her peculiar definition of "addictive".

It is only "peculiar" because you do not understand it.

[Eric Wilk]

I'm addicted to cartoons. My friend is addicted to video games....

This is a rather silly argument since the definition of an "addiction" can be
defined in so many ways, and can thus be obsfucated to fit any definition one
might use. I guess there's both a mental addiction and a physical addiction,
the latter including actual *physical withdrawal symptoms* once the patient
withdraws from the substance. There's still not a very clear line between
physical and psychological symptoms in all cases, but in order to say
something is addictive, IMO, people have to have withdrawal symptoms after
stopping usage for a prolonged period of time. Using the former definition,
one could argue that anything is addictive.

If there are studies that point to the specific withdrawal symptoms of
methylphenidate, I'd like to see them, but if there aren't any I don't see why
people are debating over its addiction potential. It is obviously an abused
drug, but this doesn't inherently mean it's addictive. Alcohol, heroine,
etc., are different because they are associated with specific withdrawal
symptoms.

However, if taken as prescribed, it's obviously not addictive.

I think the SUD's in untreated ADD cases are most likely a result of their
environment (i.e. stress, etc.) -- I don't think Ritalin, in any way, prevents
addiction. I think the people who have ADD and are treated are simply more
likely to succeed, so less people in this group would need to resort to drug
use as an "escape." This is only speculation, of course.

-- Eric

Marko Proberto wrote:

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > "Mark D Morin" > wrote
> > > >The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
> > > >whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
> > > >quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
> > > >was slow-acting compared to cocaine. (Ritalin and cocaine are quite
> > > >similar; most of the difference was because the ritalin was in pill
> form
> > > >and the cocaine was snorted or injected.)
> > > Are you sure you read it?
> >
> > Yes. It did not determine whether ritalin was addictive or not.
> >
> > > The link Mark posted was to a summary of a meeting of researchers who
> > > were explicitly discussing abuse. The "3" in his post referred to a
> > > publication by Biederman et.al, saying what was quoted.
> >
> > That paper nothing to do with whether ritalin was addictive. It
> > looked at alcohol and other drug abuse among ADHD teenagers.
> >
> > > >Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
> > > >of the word "addiction" is debatable.
> > > Maybe you should read the Biederman article and see how they used the
> > > term.
> >
> > The article does not even mention the term "addiction". Read it yourself:
> > http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/e20
> >
> > The PDR and the DEA say that ritalin is addictive. I have no reason
> > to doubt that. If you have some scientific study to the contrary, then
> > go ahead and post it.
>
> It is addictive when abused.
>
> From the Biederman article:
>
> Conclusions. Consistent with findings in untreated ADHD in adults,
> untreated ADHD was a significant risk factor for SUD in adolescence. In
> contrast, pharmacotherapy was associated with an 85% reduction in risk for
> SUD in ADHD youth. Key words: ADHD, pharmacotherapy substance use
> disorders.
>
> Now, lets use a spot of logic. If properly USING the medication prevents
> addiction, can USING the medication CAUSE addiction? Seems highly unlikely
> to me.

[JG]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...

> > "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > > the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
> > manifest in
> > > two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
> > inconsistent
> > > with developmental level."

> > Yeah, sure. Whatever that means. Tell Mark P., because he thinks
that
> > he can diagnose ADHD in 30 seconds!

> Reading minds again, Roger? I don't recall Mark P. ever making a
statement
> like that.

t

[Roger Schlafly]

"Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote
> > No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
> > maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
> > it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
> > some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
> > an appropriate quote.
> The article specifically refers to *substance abuse disorders.*

Yes, with the substance being alcohol or some illegal drug. It did
not measure ritalin addiction.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote in
> Why not read Barkley's review of Breggin's book for full understanding of
> Breggin's intellectual dishonesty?
> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html

The article complains:
"For more than 15 years, Breggin has written books that attack established
psychiatry ..."

Yes, and the chief quackpot at the QuackWatch site is a psychiatrist
who defends some of the goofiest and unscientist things that shrinks do.

we are told that "While estimates vary widely, the total number of
children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5 million or more
per year." ... In reality, out of over 40 million school children in the
U.S.,
only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment of ADHD.

I don't know about 1998 when the book was published, but the
reality is closer to Breggin's estimate today.

[Joe Parsons]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:00:32 GMT, "Roger Schlafly" >
wrote:

>"Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote in
>> Why not read Barkley's review of Breggin's book for full understanding of
>> Breggin's intellectual dishonesty?
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html
>
>The article complains:
>"For more than 15 years, Breggin has written books that attack established
>psychiatry ..."
>
>Yes, and the chief quackpot at the QuackWatch site is a psychiatrist
>who defends some of the goofiest and unscientist things that shrinks do.
>
> we are told that "While estimates vary widely, the total number of
> children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5 million or more
> per year." ... In reality, out of over 40 million school children in the
>U.S.,
> only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment of ADHD.
>
>I don't know about 1998 when the book was published, but the
>reality is closer to Breggin's estimate today.

But Roger--where is all that Ritalin coming from? Is someone making "bathtub
Ritalin?"

Is it time to repost "Fun with Numbers?" The APQ for methylphenidate is only
enough to provide prescriptions for a bit of one million patients--and it's not
only children who are prescribed it.

For that matter, methylphenidate has uses other than for treating ADHD.

So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?

Joe

[Roger Schlafly]

"Eric Wilk" > wrote
> I'm addicted to cartoons. My friend is addicted to video games....
> This is a rather silly argument since the definition of an "addiction" can
be
> defined in so many ways, and can thus be obsfucated to fit any definition
one
> might use.

Yes, so get the definition before you accept a claim about addiction.

> I guess there's both a mental addiction and a physical addiction,
> the latter including actual *physical withdrawal symptoms* once the
patient
> withdraws from the substance. There's still not a very clear line between
....

You are using common definitions, but there are some so-called
experts who want to change those definitions.

> If there are studies that point to the specific withdrawal symptoms of
> methylphenidate, I'd like to see them, ...

The PDR warns about withdrawal symptoms.

[Chris Leithiser]

Joe Parsons wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:00:32 GMT, "Roger Schlafly" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote in
> >> Why not read Barkley's review of Breggin's book for full understanding of
> >> Breggin's intellectual dishonesty?
> >> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html
> >
> >The article complains:
> >"For more than 15 years, Breggin has written books that attack established
> >psychiatry ..."
> >
> >Yes, and the chief quackpot at the QuackWatch site is a psychiatrist
> >who defends some of the goofiest and unscientist things that shrinks do.
> >
> > we are told that "While estimates vary widely, the total number of
> > children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5 million or more
> > per year." ... In reality, out of over 40 million school children in the
> >U.S.,
> > only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment of ADHD.
> >
> >I don't know about 1998 when the book was published, but the
> >reality is closer to Breggin's estimate today.
>
> But Roger--where is all that Ritalin coming from? Is someone making "bathtub
> Ritalin?"

Roger's switching units on you, Joe. Breggin claims 4-5 million on
Ritalin, Roger's counting all children under treatment for ADHD with
_any_ medication, including those taking aspirin or birth-control
pills.

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > the symptoms must have persisted for six months or more, that they
> manifest in
> > two or more settings AND that the symptoms are "maladaptive and
> inconsistent
> > with developmental level."
>
> Yeah, sure. Whatever that means. Tell Mark P., because he thinks that
> he can diagnose ADHD in 30 seconds!

Typical non-answer.

You never did answer my question about exactly where the PDR or DEA
says that Ritalin is addictive when used as prescribed. You also have
not answered the one about what definition of addiction fits your
comments.

Just thought I'd point it out. I'm not holding my breath.

--
CBI, MD

[mark]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Eric Wilk" > wrote
>
>>I'm addicted to cartoons. My friend is addicted to video games....
>>This is a rather silly argument since the definition of an "addiction" can
>
> be
>
>>defined in so many ways, and can thus be obsfucated to fit any definition
>
> one
>
>>might use.
>
>
> Yes, so get the definition before you accept a claim about addiction.
>
>
>> I guess there's both a mental addiction and a physical addiction,
>>the latter including actual *physical withdrawal symptoms* once the
>
> patient
>
>>withdraws from the substance. There's still not a very clear line between
>
> ...
>
> You are using common definitions, but there are some so-called
> experts who want to change those definitions.
>
>
>>If there are studies that point to the specific withdrawal symptoms of
>>methylphenidate, I'd like to see them, ...
>
>
> The PDR warns about withdrawal symptoms.

Whan abused.
The title of this thread is?

[mark]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote
>
>>>No hard copy is necessary. You just need a simple browser, and
>>>maybe a PDF viewer if you want to read the PDF version. I repeat,
>>>it does not even mention the word "addiction". If you want to make
>>>some point based on this article, I suggest that you cut-and-paste
>>>an appropriate quote.
>>
>>The article specifically refers to *substance abuse disorders.*
>
>
> Yes, with the substance being alcohol or some illegal drug. It did
> not measure ritalin addiction.
>
>

maybe because there wasn't any?

[Roger Schlafly]

"mark" > wrote
> > Yes, with the substance being alcohol or some illegal drug. It did
> > not measure ritalin addiction.
> maybe because there wasn't any?

Or maybe because everyone agrees that ritalin can be addictive.

[Markolio Probertio]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote in
> > Why not read Barkley's review of Breggin's book for full understanding
of
> > Breggin's intellectual dishonesty?
> > http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html
>
> The article complains:
> "For more than 15 years, Breggin has written books that attack established
> psychiatry ..."
>
> Yes, and the chief quackpot at the QuackWatch site is a psychiatrist
> who defends some of the goofiest and unscientist things that shrinks do.

Roger, you are contiuing your milenia long uninterrupted streak of being
disingenuous, or are confused.

The author of the article about Breggin's dishonesty is Russell Barkley,
Ph.D.

Granted, both Dr. Barkely and Dr. Barret are both 'Drs.', one is, however, a
psychologist, and the other is a medical doctor. And, of course, both of
their last names begin witht the letter 'B'.

Is it being dishonest or just confusion?

> we are told that "While estimates vary widely, the total number of
> children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5 million or more
> per year." ... In reality, out of over 40 million school children in
the
> U.S.,
> only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment of
ADHD.
>
> I don't know about 1998 when the book was published, but the
> reality is closer to Breggin's estimate today.


Hogwash, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. There is NO way that
the current production of methylphenidate can provide medication to that
many kids.

[Markolio Probertio]

"Joe Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:00:32 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
>
> wrote:
>
> >"Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote in
> >> Why not read Barkley's review of Breggin's book for full understanding
of
> >> Breggin's intellectual dishonesty?
> >> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html
> >
> >The article complains:
> >"For more than 15 years, Breggin has written books that attack
established
> >psychiatry ..."
> >
> >Yes, and the chief quackpot at the QuackWatch site is a psychiatrist
> >who defends some of the goofiest and unscientist things that shrinks do.
> >
> > we are told that "While estimates vary widely, the total number of
> > children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5 million or more
> > per year." ... In reality, out of over 40 million school children in
the
> >U.S.,
> > only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment of
ADHD.
> >
> >I don't know about 1998 when the book was published, but the
> >reality is closer to Breggin's estimate today.
>
> But Roger--where is all that Ritalin coming from? Is someone making
"bathtub
> Ritalin?"
>
> Is it time to repost "Fun with Numbers?" The APQ for methylphenidate is
only
> enough to provide prescriptions for a bit of one million patients--and
it's not
> only children who are prescribed it.
>
> For that matter, methylphenidate has uses other than for treating ADHD.
>
> So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?

Joe, repost it. Roger has a short attention span.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Joe Parsons" > wrote
> So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?

From an article last year:

About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm

Some of these are taking some other drug. OTOH, that is from
last year, and the numbers are higher now. If you have a more
current estimate, go ahead and post it. The one on the QuackWatch
site is way out of date.

[Chris Leithiser]

Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?
>
> From an article last year:
>
> About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm

From the article:

Ritalin — along with 15 other stimulants currently used to treat ADHD
— is among the safest drugs out there.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Chris Leithiser" > wrote
> > About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
> >
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm
> From the article:
> Ritalin - along with 15 other stimulants currently used to treat ADHD
> - is among the safest drugs out there.

Scary, isn't it?

[Jeff]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
> "mark" > wrote
> > > Yes, with the substance being alcohol or some illegal drug. It did
> > > not measure ritalin addiction.
> > maybe because there wasn't any?
>
> Or maybe because everyone agrees that ritalin can be addictive.

Practicing mind-reading again? Funny, with all that practice, you still
aren't any good.

Jeff

[Chris Leithiser]

Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> "Chris Leithiser" > wrote
> > > About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
> > >
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm
> > From the article:
> > Ritalin - along with 15 other stimulants currently used to treat ADHD
> > - is among the safest drugs out there.
>
> Scary, isn't it?

Nope. Ritalin's safer, in terms of problems observed, than aspirin or
tylenol.

[Mark D Morin]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:01:38 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"mark" > wrote
>> > Yes, with the substance being alcohol or some illegal drug. It did
>> > not measure ritalin addiction.
>> maybe because there wasn't any?
>
>Or maybe because everyone agrees that ritalin can be addictive.

Everyone? Got someone in your pocket Roger? You have yet to come up
with one piece of evidence that taken as directed, ritalin is
addicting.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?
>
> From an article last year:
>
> About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm

The newspaper story isn't clear where this number comes from. You
don't believe everything you read in the paper, do you?

It would help greatly in accepting this estimate if you could show
that it is plausible. As others have pointed out the total production
of Ritalin would not seem to be sufficient for this level, especially
when one considers that not all Ritalin is used in kids and not all to
treat ADD.

--
CBI, MD

[Markolio Probertio]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?
>
> From an article last year:
>
> About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm

Note the non-answer to the question about methylphenidate.

> Some of these are taking some other drug. OTOH, that is from
> last year, and the numbers are higher now.

Do you know what the DEA annual production quota is? Has it gone up? Down"
Remained the same? If not, then you do not have the facts to support your
idle speculation.

If you have a more
> current estimate, go ahead and post it. The one on the QuackWatch
> site is way out of date.

The article by Barkley is right on, and the lessons from the article are as
relevant today as they were when they were written.

You just do not want to deal with the facts.

[Markolio Probertio]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris Leithiser" > wrote
> > > About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
> > >
>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm
> > From the article:
> > Ritalin - along with 15 other stimulants currently used to treat ADHD
> > - is among the safest drugs out there.
>
> Scary, isn't it?

Scary that there are so many liars and selective snippers and quotas that
leave that out. Some even have Ph.D.s.

[Markolio Probertio]

"CBI" > wrote in message
om...
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Joe Parsons" > wrote
> > > So where are these "4-5 million children" getting all this Ritalin?
> >
> > From an article last year:
> >
> > About 4 million kids currently take stimulants for ADHD.
> >
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/behavior/2002-07-15-behavioral-drugs.htm
>
> The newspaper story isn't clear where this number comes from. You
> don't believe everything you read in the paper, do you?

When it supports his preconceived ideas, Roger would believe even Bill
Clinton.

> It would help greatly in accepting this estimate if you could show
> that it is plausible. As others have pointed out the total production
> of Ritalin would not seem to be sufficient for this level, especially
> when one considers that not all Ritalin is used in kids and not all to
> treat ADD.

Exactly, If one looks at the number of prescriptions or the number of kids,
mentioned by the anti-med know nothings, and takes a realistic view, they
would see that the numbers do not add up.


>
> --
> CBI, MD

[john]

"Marko Proberto"


LOL. Yeah, neither was valium, and the rest.

john

[Markolio Probertio]

"john" > wrote in message
m...
> "Marko Proberto"
>
>
> LOL. Yeah, neither was valium, and the rest.

John, did I ever thank you for mentioning me on your web pages?

If not, let me do so now. Your statements prove something which I have
always claimed, and Jan Drew denies.

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Eric Wilk" > wrote
> > I'm addicted to cartoons. My friend is addicted to video games....
> > This is a rather silly argument since the definition of an "addiction"
can
> be
> > defined in so many ways, and can thus be obsfucated to fit any
definition
> one
> > might use.
>
> Yes, so get the definition before you accept a claim about addiction.
>
> > I guess there's both a mental addiction and a physical addiction,
> > the latter including actual *physical withdrawal symptoms* once the
> patient
> > withdraws from the substance. There's still not a very clear line
between
> ...
>
> You are using common definitions, but there are some so-called
> experts who want to change those definitions.

No, lay people who do not understand what an addiction is misuse the terms.
I agree that when discussing an "addiction" with non-medical people ther
emay be some variation in what they mean so it might be wise to make sureof
what people mean. However, when discussing a clinical or legal document the
deifnitions are well accpeted and one should assume that the clinical
definition is what is being used.

Contrary to what Eric believes, a withdrawal syndrome is neither necessary
nor sufficient to identify an addiction. An alcoholic who is sober for a
long period and then succumbs to his cravings and binges is clearly still
under the grips of his addiction yet he will not withdraw from the brief
exposure. Likewise, a person who takes a clearly non-abused/non-addicting
medication, like metoprolol (a heart medicine), for a long time and then has
a withdrawal syndrome upon abrupt cessation is clearly not an addict.

I would remind you one more time that no one has claimed that addicts won't
abuse Ritalin. We are discussing whether regular use, as commonly
prescribed, is addicting.

I would also point out, yet again, that despite claiming that there are
various definitions Roger has yet to state which one he is using, which ones
fit his claims, and where exactly the DEA or the PDR state that use as
prescribed is addicting.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Markowicz Probertowicz" > wrote in message
t...
>
> And, as usual, Roger engages in his sophistry.
>

And as usual he ducks out of subthreads that put him in corners.

[Katz Heitmann]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in
>
>>>The reference is to a study by Nora Volkow. It didn't really look at
>>>whether people with ADHD get addicted at all. It looked at how
>>>quickly ritalin acts on the brain, and found that ritalin in pill form
>>>Whether this has anything to do with the ordinary layman usage
>>>of the word "addiction" is debatable.
>>
>>Not to Nora Volkow, and she defines addiction these days.
>
>
> I don't know what her agenda is, but is she is redefining commonly
> used terms, then her results are meaningless to the general public.
> That is, unless full definitions are provided.
>
> She is like the tobacco executives who testified that cigarettes
> were not addictive. It wasn't perjury, I guess, because they had
> their own personal definitions of "addictive".
>
>
Do any of us look like we work for a major drug conglomerate? I'm not
rolling in money but not starving either. We don't force ritalin on
each other. I don't find ritalin very useful myself and I typically use
nonmedical strategies to deal with ADD like organizers, making notes to
myself, putting my glasses, keys, wallet and etc in the same place all
the time. Are you still one of those people who doesn't believe ADD
doesn't exist? We use it cause it works for some of us. Duh some of us
take other treatments we don't all take ritalin. Some of us don't find
it useful some of us take strattera some of us don't take any
medications at all. Some of us cannot deal with the medication it makes
us sick or causes our muscles to hurt. Yet we don't give those other
people a hard time because the miracle drug we found causes our buddy to
empty the contents of his stomach. If we were really a bunch of ritalin
shills then wouldn't you think we would be pushing it on each other and
the people who cannot deal with it would be teased.

This doesn't happen in ASAD. Even though I do not take ritalin or
stimulant meds no one makes fun of me and there has been no move to
drive me away because of this fact. So if we were pushing it in this
group wouldn't you think they would try to pressure me or get rid of me.
They don't if you are contributing they don't hurt you. Even if you
don't have ADD they accept you. When something works better for most
folks they'll switch. If they found out drug x works better than
ritalin for more people and is not an amphetamine then we'll switch to
that. Sleeping pills can be abused, water can kill you if you get in
too much of it. Fat soluable vitamines can kill you if you take too
much. Chocolate is mostly harmless but it makes some folks sick.
Peanuts are the same way. Vicodin can be used to relieve horrible pain
or used to get a high. A knife can be used to prepare dinner or to kill
someone. It isn't a different knife when it goes from one hand to the
other the intent is different. A shoelace can be used to strangle
someone or do up your shoes. Everything can be used as a weapon, a
stick, a hoe, a kitchen knife, a brick, a glass bottle, dental floss or
a razor used for shaving hair off you can be used for harm. Enough
caffiene can be lethal. One of my math teachers got strangled with a
shopping bag. A hand can be used to hit as well as bind up injuries. A
bostaff can be used to play with or beat someone up. Not many things
are innocent.

Give me a list of things you think are harmless and I'll tell you how
they could be used to harm maim or kill. Pick five innocent things. I
bet I can tell you how they could be used to injure someone or how they
could hurt you if you are dumb about using them.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Katz Heitmann" > wrote
> the time. Are you still one of those people who doesn't believe ADD
> doesn't exist? We use it cause it works for some of us.

If it works for you, then good for you. I just ask that people back
up scientific claims that are being made for ritalin. If you claim
that ritalin is not addictive under some circumstances, then show me
the scientific paper that has that conclusion. The cited paper only
showed that ritalin pills were slow-acting in comparison to snorting
cocaine.

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 08:05:26 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Katz Heitmann" > wrote
>> the time. Are you still one of those people who doesn't believe ADD
>> doesn't exist? We use it cause it works for some of us.
>
>If it works for you, then good for you. I just ask that people back
>up scientific claims that are being made for ritalin. If you claim
>that ritalin is not addictive under some circumstances, then show me
>the scientific paper that has that conclusion. The cited paper only
>showed that ritalin pills were slow-acting in comparison to snorting
>cocaine.

Roger, where did you get your PhD?
You are NEVER going to find a scientific paper that proves "X isn't
Y." Scientific papers are always written in the affirmitive. Thus you
WILL find papers as to the condidtions under which ritalin can be
addictive.

If you understood the pharmacodynamics of addiction, you would
understand why it is believed that, taken as directed, ritalin is not
addictive. But no, you don't want to understand the science of
addiction; all you care about is the fact that ritalin and cocaine
have similar properties. SO WHAT?
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Markosito Probertosito]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
> "Katz Heitmann" > wrote
> > the time. Are you still one of those people who doesn't believe ADD
> > doesn't exist? We use it cause it works for some of us.
>
> If it works for you, then good for you. I just ask that people back
> up scientific claims that are being made for ritalin. If you claim
> that ritalin is not addictive under some circumstances, then show me
> the scientific paper that has that conclusion. The cited paper only
> showed that ritalin pills were slow-acting in comparison to snorting
> cocaine.

You would need an edcuation in the physiology of addiction to understand
what that is so important.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> You are NEVER going to find a scientific paper that proves "X isn't
> Y." Scientific papers are always written in the affirmitive. Thus you

If you were right, then we'd never know whether or not a drug
was safe enough to use.

> If you understood the pharmacodynamics of addiction, you would
> understand why it is believed that, taken as directed, ritalin is not
> addictive.

Yes, I understand the lingo enough to know that many medicos
define addiction in terms of abuse, so that no drug is addictive
(under their definition) if it is used as prescribed. So when they
say that ritalin is not addictive when taken as prescribed, they
are just playing games with definitions.

[SumBuny]

"Katz Heitmann" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> >
> >
> Do any of us look like we work for a major drug conglomerate? I'm not
> rolling in money but not starving either. We don't force ritalin on
> each other. I don't find ritalin very useful myself and I typically use
> nonmedical strategies to deal with ADD like organizers, making notes to
> myself, putting my glasses, keys, wallet and etc in the same place all
> the time.


<nodding> And *many* of us who use medications do the same nonmedical
strategies *in addition* to meds....


Buny

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:08:02 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> You are NEVER going to find a scientific paper that proves "X isn't
>> Y." Scientific papers are always written in the affirmitive. Thus you
>
>If you were right, then we'd never know whether or not a drug
>was safe enough to use.

Then I guess we don't know if ANY drug is safe enough to use.
Do you know what a "null hypothesis" is? Do you know it's use in the
scientific process? It doesn't appear that you do because the
scientific process does not involve demonstrating the absence of
something.

>
>> If you understood the pharmacodynamics of addiction, you would
>> understand why it is believed that, taken as directed, ritalin is not
>> addictive.
>
>Yes, I understand the lingo

I'm not talking "lingo." I'm talking biology.

>enough to know that many medicos
>define addiction in terms of abuse,

You have several "medicos" here telling you that is not the case.

>so that no drug is addictive
>(under their definition) if it is used as prescribed.

You are putting words in people's mouths.

>So when they
>say that ritalin is not addictive when taken as prescribed, they
>are just playing games with definitions.

No, YOU are playing games with definitions, attributing things to
people that haven't been said, and ignoring things that have been
said.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
> "Katz Heitmann" > wrote
> > the time. Are you still one of those people who doesn't believe ADD
> > doesn't exist? We use it cause it works for some of us.
>
> If it works for you, then good for you. I just ask that people back
> up scientific claims that are being made for ritalin. If you claim
> that ritalin is not addictive under some circumstances, then show me
> the scientific paper that has that conclusion. The cited paper only
> showed that ritalin pills were slow-acting in comparison to snorting
> cocaine.

Funny, we were doing the same thing and asking you to back up your claims.

Where does it say ritalin is addictive when used as prescribed?

Where does it say Ritalin is addictive in the PDR?

Where does the DEA say it is addictive?

You've been a sked to back up all of these claims several times and, yet,
you have not done so. Then you pop back up and ask others to prove the
opposite.

Typical.

--
CBI, MD

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> Then I guess we don't know if ANY drug is safe enough to use.

Ok, I'll make a note of the fact that you have this unusual opinion.

> Do you know what a "null hypothesis" is? Do you know it's use in the
> scientific process? ...

Yes, of course. If your position is that it is scientifically impossible
to say that "Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed",
then your beef is with Mark P. and the others who agree with the
statement in the subject line.

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:21:28 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> Then I guess we don't know if ANY drug is safe enough to use.
>
>Ok, I'll make a note of the fact that you have this unusual opinion.

It's your opinion Roger.
If one is to hold ALL medication up to the criteria you stated in the
previous post then the logical conclussion is that it is not possible
to know if ANY drug is safe to use.

>
>> Do you know what a "null hypothesis" is? Do you know it's use in the
>> scientific process? ...
>
>Yes, of course. If your position is that it is scientifically impossible
>to say that "Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed",

What is the testable hypothesis that would render the above
meaningless? Until you can present such evidence, there is no reason
to disbelieve the statement above.



================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark D Morin" > wrote
> >Yes, of course. If your position is that it is scientifically impossible
> >to say that "Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed",
> What is the testable hypothesis that would render the above
> meaningless?

If addiction is defined in terms of withdrawal symptoms, then a test
could get a bunch of ADD kids on ritalin, stop cold turkey, and
see if they have withdrawal symptoms (compared to a control
group).

If addiction is defined as drug abuse in which the subject takes
more of the drug than he is supposed to, then it is never addiction
to take a drug as prescribed.

[Mark D Morin]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 01:02:25 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" > wrote
>> >Yes, of course. If your position is that it is scientifically impossible
>> >to say that "Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed",
>> What is the testable hypothesis that would render the above
>> meaningless?
>
>If addiction is defined in terms of withdrawal symptoms,

That is neither the medical nor the common definition of addiction

> then a test
>could get a bunch of ADD kids on ritalin, stop cold turkey, and
>see if they have withdrawal symptoms (compared to a control
>group).

That would test that particular hypothesis but wouldn't address the
addiction question.

>
>If addiction is defined as drug abuse in which the subject takes
>more of the drug than he is supposed to, then it is never addiction
>to take a drug as prescribed.

Again, that is neither the medical nor the common definition of
addiction but you are beginning to get the point.

What do YOU mean when you say addiction?

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[SumBuny]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Mark D Morin" > wrote
> > >Yes, of course. If your position is that it is scientifically
impossible
> > >to say that "Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed",
> > What is the testable hypothesis that would render the above
> > meaningless?
>
> If addiction is defined in terms of withdrawal symptoms, then a test
> could get a bunch of ADD kids on ritalin, stop cold turkey, and
> see if they have withdrawal symptoms (compared to a control
> group).


You mean to do what happens at my house every weekend? Those in my family
who take concerta during the week do not take it on weekends (i.e., no
"weaning off", but stopping "cold turkey" each weekend) and do not suffer
withdrawal symptoms. The only thing that is different is that the symptoms
of ADHD are more obvious.


Or, what happens with some regularity when I forget to take my own meds?
I.e., I do not have the cravings of an addict to ensure I get another hit, I
*forget to take my meds*. I have no withdrawal symptoms, simply a return of
the ADHD symptoms.

How about this--when I quit caffeinated sodas cold turkey, I had headaches
for a week...so I *do* know what the signs of withdrawal from stimulants
are. They do *not* happen when stopping medication for ADHD cold turkey
when they are taken as prescribed. Since I have not *abused* this
medication, I would not know if there is a withdrawal when stopping cold
turkey after abuse, but that is not what this thread title is saying, is it?
It seems to be what you are implying, though.

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Mark D Morin" > wrote
> > >Yes, of course. If your position is that it is scientifically impossible
> > >to say that "Ritalin is NOT Addictive when taken as prescribed",
> > What is the testable hypothesis that would render the above
> > meaningless?
>
> If addiction is defined in terms of withdrawal symptoms, then a test
> could get a bunch of ADD kids on ritalin, stop cold turkey, and
> see if they have withdrawal symptoms (compared to a control
> group).

As Mark pointed out - you would be testing for habituation - not
addiction. Your definition does not stand up to simple scrutiny.


> If addiction is defined as drug abuse in which the subject takes
> more of the drug than he is supposed to, then it is never addiction
> to take a drug as prescribed.

Here is the falacy. Your are correct that while it is being taken as
prescribed there is, by definition, no addiction but that it not the
same as saying it is not addicting. One could look at prescribed
Ritalin use and see if there is a higher than expected later incidence
of addictive behaviors (do they go from taking it as prescribed to
taking it in excess of prescribed doses and engage in other
pathological behaviors - i.e. become addicts). Since drug addicts
rarely restrict their activities to just one drug one could also look
at the effects on the use and abuse of other substances. Keep in mind
that ADD is known to be associated with increased drug abuse so the
proper comparison would be between medicated and unmedicated ADD
patients.

If all of the above sounds familiar it is becuase it is. Those studies
have been done and they have shown that the risk of substance abuse
amongst ADD patients is REDUCED by the prescription of stimulants (and
this has been discussed here many times and Roger is certainly aware
of this work but he finds it more convenient to his prefered beliefs
to ignore it).

That is why those of us who do can state that it is not addictive when
used as prescribed.

[Eric Wilk]

You make a really good point. How do you quantify, then, if something is
addictive at really low levels?

-- Eric

CBI wrote:

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > "Eric Wilk" > wrote
> > > I'm addicted to cartoons. My friend is addicted to video games....
> > > This is a rather silly argument since the definition of an "addiction"
> can
> > be
> > > defined in so many ways, and can thus be obsfucated to fit any
> definition
> > one
> > > might use.
> >
> > Yes, so get the definition before you accept a claim about addiction.
> >
> > > I guess there's both a mental addiction and a physical addiction,
> > > the latter including actual *physical withdrawal symptoms* once the
> > patient
> > > withdraws from the substance. There's still not a very clear line
> between
> > ...
> >
> > You are using common definitions, but there are some so-called
> > experts who want to change those definitions.
>
> No, lay people who do not understand what an addiction is misuse the terms.
> I agree that when discussing an "addiction" with non-medical people ther
> emay be some variation in what they mean so it might be wise to make sureof
> what people mean. However, when discussing a clinical or legal document the
> deifnitions are well accpeted and one should assume that the clinical
> definition is what is being used.
>
> Contrary to what Eric believes, a withdrawal syndrome is neither necessary
> nor sufficient to identify an addiction. An alcoholic who is sober for a
> long period and then succumbs to his cravings and binges is clearly still
> under the grips of his addiction yet he will not withdraw from the brief
> exposure. Likewise, a person who takes a clearly non-abused/non-addicting
> medication, like metoprolol (a heart medicine), for a long time and then has
> a withdrawal syndrome upon abrupt cessation is clearly not an addict.
>
> I would remind you one more time that no one has claimed that addicts won't
> abuse Ritalin. We are discussing whether regular use, as commonly
> prescribed, is addicting.
>
> I would also point out, yet again, that despite claiming that there are
> various definitions Roger has yet to state which one he is using, which ones
> fit his claims, and where exactly the DEA or the PDR state that use as
> prescribed is addicting.
>
> --
> CBI, MD

[Mark D Morin]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:51:52 GMT, Eric Wilk >
wrote:

>You make a really good point. How do you quantify, then, if something is
>addictive at really low levels?

The same way it's done at higher levels.
There are animal models to look at drug use behavior that map very
well onto human behavior. Simply run the experiments using
therapeutic levels (which for a rat is going to be a much smaller dose
than a human) and see if they exhibit addictive behaviors.


================================================== ==
I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.

Lance Armstrong
Cyclist and cancer survivor

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[CBI]

"Eric Wilk" > wrote in message
...
> You make a really good point. How do you quantify, then, if something is
> addictive at really low levels?
>

Addiction is far better defined based on cravings that excede, or are
seperate from, the therapeutic effect of the drug. Identifyable behaviors
include rapidly increasing dosage requirements (whereas with therapeutic use
of most controlled substances the doses will rise slowly, if at all - in
Ritalin there is evidence that it does not rise except to account for
changes in body size) and self destructive behaviors - i.e continuing use it
despite demonstrable harm.

Dose really has little, if anything, to do with it.

--
CBI, MD