Speaking with a biological psychologist, i was informed that no studys exist on the effects of Adderall on non-ADHD adults because such studys would be unethical. Because of this, my research has been limited to that of results pertaining to individuals with ADHD and their interactions with the drug.

While the media and government both assert that use of this drug without ADHD (or any other disorder it is used to treat) is dangerous, i have yet to find any information suggesting that the side effects and risks would be any different for a prescribed user vs. a non-prescribed user.

Basically, i am trying to find out what, if any, negetive effects there are to this particular drug aside from inconvenient side effects that are short term and very mild. Why would a study like this be unethical?

The answers to some of this i found while discussing my thoughts with a clinical psychologist. By the end of the discussion, it was my understanding that the drug itself does not biologically harm or permanently alter the mind but rather the real danger was only the risk of addiction or dependance.

I do know the way this drug works is by blocking the re-uptake of dopamine and norepinephrine and increasing their release from the presynaptic neuron. Now, what i dont know is what negetive effects this process has be it neurologically or otherwise. Therefore, if such a drug could have such a positive influence in ones life (socially, intellectually, financially, etc.) yet is still so tightly regulated and unaccepted for those without ADHD, there has to be some kind of long term damage or downside that im not seeing or simply dont understand.

isn't adderall an amphetamine, which means it would likely have similar side effects to other amphetamines.

Yes but to a lesser extent than something such as methamphetamine. The side effects are found to be mild for most in all the studies. But thats besides the point, i dont see how this drug does any damage, short term or long term, and why it would be unethical to use it without having ADHD seeing all the positive effects it provides.

For example, if you were to rate people on an effeciency level from 1-10. A person with ADHD without this RX would rate at lets say a 5 and this drug would increase their effeciency to around a 7-8 level. A person without ADHD who has an effeciency level naturally of a 7 could take this medication in the same dosing schedule as the prescribed user and increase themselves to a level 9-10.

What is the downside to all of this?

I don't know much about adderall, but with the various amphetamines, if a person takes them for more than three days in a row, he becomes paranoid and starts acting weird. Users also tend to increase dosage in a kind of runaway obsession.

This effect of becoming paranoid and "weird" would completely rely onw hat drug was taken, dosages, dosing schedules, other substances in the amphetamine since what i believe your reffering to is "street amphetamine", and also the personal neurobiology of the individual.

Regardless i dont believe these are risks with adderall usage, even thought it is an amphetamine. And even if they could be risks, i dont believe they have shown to be in all the studies done and like i said, i dont see how side effects/risks would be different for individuals with ADHD and those without.

Maybe if i dont get many replies i will post some more of my thoughts in hopes to get critics and shown errors in some of my logic.

A study like that would not be unethical, it would just be tricky getting it past ethics committees, and these kinds of studies have been done and will continue to be done for more dangerous drugs. So its not that difficult getting it past. In fact, in order to market the drug as effective for any kind of problem, it has to be first conducted on healthy people in phase II clinical trials to establish that the therapeutic dose is safe and the benefits outweigh the side effects. If this study hasn't been done, then that is unethical.

Any drug that releases dopamine and noradrenaline would have a similar pharmacodynamic profile to dex-amphetamine, while anything that blocks these would be more similar to cocaine (whether there are discriminatory stimulus studies done on the difference between cocaine and amphetamines, I'm not sure). Looking at the literature on dex-amphetamine should tell you about what Adderal might do. Amphetamines (both dex-amphetamine and methamphetamine) are/were commonly used for performance enhancement in a number of environments from flying fighter jets to driving big trucks, from losing weight to helping uni students study for exams.

What are the benefits from taking an addictive substance continually just for mild performance enhancement?
Not only that but how many therapeutic agents are claimed as being dangerous for those without the intended disease?

I think the issue with addiction has more to do with the subject than the substance and an answer to the question regarding the benefits would be different for each individual as would the degree to which their performance was enhanced.

Obviously if someone was prone to addiction and adderall contributed little, if any positive enhancements in their life then it would be a poor choice to use this medication.

On the other hand, if adderall had significant positive effects on an individual's social interactions, financial ventures, and overall intelect then why should it not be used? And this is the question that i continuously fail to find an answer for.

D-amphetamine (dexedrine) its self has been used for over 100 years now. Theres one study the DEA constantly quotes where methamphetamine users experianced brain cell death from meth use. The part they always forget to leave out was that the study was on IV methamphetamine users.

Adderall is simply D/L-amphetamine and some poorly engineered amphetamine salts in an attempt to make D-amp last longer than it should. The big problem with adderall is from a physical stand point as its a racemic mixture, meaning it uses Levo-amphetamine. Levo causes considerable peripheral stimulation (higher heart rate, High blood pressure) and just generally works your body harder. Shire knows this is dangerous and has sold most of their rights to adderall to Barr and are introducing a "new" drug thats simply d-amphetamine called Vyvance which is supposedly safer because it has some goop on it that only because active when it touchs certain stomach enzymes.

The issue with addiction is kind of like the issue with nurture vs nature. Some people can, some people can't, but by using it more often you become more and more at risk of developing a problem.


Absolutely, but I don't think anybody is going to start legalising amphetamines in the current social and political climate. Just look at MDMA, it has likely therapeutic value and possibley causes less harm than alcohol (definately violence related harms anyway), but due to it being used as a "recreational" drug, politicians get their heads ripped off for even mentioning the thing.

If you want to see drugs that give lasting positve benefit have a look at this study on psilocybin...
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006 Aug;187(3):268-83; discussion 284-92. Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.