Stoners, Drugs and High School

Pre-College Issues High School Life
81

<p>
[quote]
Why would the government ban it if it wasn't bad for you! They research these things!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet the government legalizes substances that are far more harmful than a number of controlled substances. Evidence? Go read the Lancet article 1of42 showed you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You'll waste your money on dope, do bad academically because you're high, and people won't want to hang out with you because you're a loser stoner.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Overgeneralization</p>

<p>==
Please - before you make generalizations like that - ask yourself - have you actually read any of the research behind drug use? Don't just propagate out memes that DARE teaches you. People are surprisingly quick to make overgeneralizations about drug use when they haven't read ANY of the literature regarding it. </p>

<h1>===========</h1>

<p>As for the Lancet article - I'm surprised at some of the rankings. Is it really easier to get dependent on tobacco than it is to get dependent under amphetamines? Amphetamines are a lot stronger substances than tobacco is. And amphetamines are stronger on the dopamine pathways than tobacco is. Drugs that acutely act upon the dopamine pathways can be very addictive.</p>

<p>I read about amphetamine withdrawal. Paul Erdos tried it. It wasn't pretty. It KILLED his mathematical progress for an entire month and he went back to amphetamines</p>

82

<p>theregoesmyhero ur a retard... ozzy ozborne first of all does not only get high he does other drugs thats y he's so messed up... there r alot of ppl i kno that smoke pot but r top 1% of class... there r goverment officials that smoke marjiwana.. also its not bad for you if u don't believe me go look it up.</p>

83

<p>InquilineKea: The study that stated that MDMA (Ecstasy) could damage the blood-brain barrier was later retracted by its authors.</p>

<p>As for why ecstasy is ranked so low, it's probably a combination of a few things. 1 is that ecstasy is not physically addictive, nor does it seem to induce psychological dependency in most users. 2 is that the short term effects of ecstasy have little to do with the drug itself - i.e. it's not causing heart attacks - but rather more to do with the general activities of those who take it and settings it's taken in (raves, where people get very dehydrated because the drug masks that sensation). 3 is that the delivery system (tablets) is quite safe, and the common danger with that delivery method (dangerous substances used to cut the drug) doesn't seem to actually happen; most ecstasy pills tested are very pure.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Yes, the vast majority of people on the planet (drinkers and/or smokers) are losers. Spectacular generalization there.</p>

<p>Why would the government ban it if it wasn't good for us? Why wouldn't the government ban tobacco, a substance that has documented health effects and extremely addictive properties? As InquilineKea said, read the Lancet article I posted - it shows you that drug classifications by the government make relatively little sense.</p>

<p>Anyways, your entire post is very misguided, mainly because you make a bunch of statements that apply equally to illegal and legal drugs, and even passing that contradiction by, make little sense on their own (not everyone who's ever smoked pot is bad academically, and most don't spend absurd amounts of money on pot, etc. etc.).</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>85% of people who smoke more than 2 full cigarettes become addicted to nicotine. I think that basically answers your question - nicotine is INCREDIBLY addictive.</p>

<p>As for comparison with amphetamines, yeah, withdrawal sucks for amphetamines and their stimulant effects are strong - but the physical dependence effects of nicotine have been shown to be stronger. The Erdos example is a bit of a red herring, because normally amphetamines actually kill creativity - Erdos was an exception to that rule, and when looking at the withdrawal he experienced, it has to be remembered that nicotine withdrawal isn't pretty either.</p>

84

<p>it takes awhile to truly begin to understand the effects of various drugs on your consciousness and its subtle nuances on thought processes. </p>

<p>many people who smoke pot simply do so to be 'cool' or to emulate the celebrities they see on TV. </p>

<p>however, used correctly, drugs can be an enlightening spiritual experience that can open doors to previously untapped pools of thought and knowledge. </p>

<p>many of the most brilliant minds ever to grace the earth have experimented with drugs.</p>

<p>personally, i have had incredible revelations while under the influence, especially in regard to philosophical literature and creative works. i shed myself of the underlying preconditioned societal norms which guide my thoughts to an understanding of alternative perspectives and the fabric of reality and metaphysics itself.</p>

85

<p>"Don't you get "randomly" drug-tested like twice a week? I know our school does. Don't they take hair samples or urine samples so they can see if you have been in contact with drugs??? I know our school does coz drugs are so readily available in this country."</p>

<p>Technically, that's a violation of a student's rights unless the parent of the student consented to it. My debate case a few years ago involved drug testing in schools. Students do have rights, and is actually counterproductive for the school to drug test students/administer harsh punishments to those tested.</p>

86

<p>"It's very possible to drink in moderation...not so easy to smoke pot in moderation...I think that's where the problem lies"</p>

<p>It all depends on your definition of moderation. I have many friends who are fine with just smoking on the weekends, and I also have friends who were stoned 24/7 and still managed to pull 4.8 GPA's, high test scores, extracurricular involvement, etc....until the school found out and they were expelled.</p>

<p>That was a depressing time.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
Okay, what I am about to say is going to cause alot of problems, because I can tell that a lot of people in this forum have experimented with drugs. But honestly, I think drugs are for losers. It may make you feel better (and apparently it doesn't always), but if you need that to be happy about your life, then you need to stop messing around with crap like that and get your life together. And for those of you who say it's okay, and it doesn't hurt you at all, use your head for five seconds! Why would the government ban it if it wasn't bad for you! They research these things! And even if it dosn't kill you by itself, what is the cause of death when you drive while high and kill yourself and other innocent people? And other even if it doesn't kill you, it can ruin your life. You'll waste your money on dope, do bad academically because you're high, and people won't want to hang out with you because you're a loser stoner. Think about Ozzy Osbourne. Do you want to end up like that?!?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the government bans certain substances because they are "harmful", then why isn't alcohol illegal? Why isn't tobacco illegal? Both substances are extremely harmful, but substances that have not been shown to have drastic long-term effects such as marijuana, LSD, etc aren't legal?</p>

<p>Also, driving while under the influence of marijuana is not similar to driving drunk at all. Most people are completely capable of driving under the influence of marijuana, although it is not the wisest decision. (Not the most important argument, but it's a misconception that I felt had to be cleared up).</p>

<p>There have been several studies stating that the average teenage marijuana user's GPA is no different than non-users. In fact, one study that I read stated that LSD users had the highest GPA's compared to non-users, which is interesting yet slightly disturbing.</p>

<p>Many respected individuals have used drugs. In fact, our president has admitted to cocaine use (although, I'm not sure how respected he is anymore).</p>

<p>It's possible to have a normal, productive, and happy life while still using drugs. Don't become another drone to the D.A.R.E. program. The only difference between you and a drug user is your ability to choose, and that's it.</p>

88

<p>I think a great deal of this thread shows what researchers have found: misperceptions of kids regarding the activities of other kids. Subsequently, more kids get enabled because they think everyone is doing it. In reality, kids really think other kids are doing drugs and smoking more than they really are. It's the, "Hey, everyone is doing it. It's OK" mentality.</p>

<p>From Martens, Page, Mowry, Damann, et al. (2006). Differences between actual and perceived student norms: An examination of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Journal of American Collge Health, 54, 295-301.</p>

<p>"Researchers from a wide variety of college campuses have consistently found that college students generally overestimate the amount of alcohol consumed by a typical student. Researchers have also found that this tendency to overestimate peer norms exists regardless of gender, ethnic group, residential housing type, and fraternity or sorority affiliation. Researchers have emphasized the influence of misperceptions of social norms on actual behavior in 2 ways. First, studies have consistently documented a relationship between individual alcohol consumption and perceived social norms, with higher perceived norms associated with greater personal consumption"</p>

<p>"researchers examined national data from 100 college campuses, the researchers found that peer norms were generally inflated for all of the substances, including tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, and designer drugs."</p>

<p>" When we compared perceptions of typical student behavior with actual reported behavior, we found that students overestimated consumption patterns for the typical student. For example, whereas 62% of the students reported not smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days, 64% believed that the typical student smoked cigarettes daily. Ninty-six percent and 69% of the students reported not using cocaine and marijuana, respectively, in the past 30 days, but 60% and 94% indicated that the typical student used cocaine and marijuana, respectively, at least once in the past 30 days. For all substances except alcohol and rohypnol/GHB/liquid X the category with the highest percentage in terms of perceived typical student use did not match the category with the highest percentage in terms of actual use, and even within these 2 substances there was strong discordance. For example, whereas 3% of the students reported using alcohol daily in the past 30 days, 43% indicated that the typical student consumed alcohol daily."</p>

<p>"Similar to the alcohol consumption items, results indicated that students overestimated the sexual activity of the typical student. For example, the mean number of sexual partners in the past year was 2.55, but students perceived that the typical student had 4.79 partners. Whereas the average student reported vaginal intercourse around 3 to 4 times in the past 30 days, students perceived that the typical student engaged in intercourse 5 to 6 times."</p>

<p>"Results from the study indicated that students had considerable misperceptions of the social norms for all behaviors, and the majority of students overestimated normative behaviors for alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Results also indicated a significant relationship between students' own behaviors and the perceptions of the behavior norms (eg, those who frequently engaged in a behavior were more likely to see the behavior as normative), although the effect sizes for most of the behaviors were fairly small. These findings are consistent with prior research that has found that, in general, college students overestimate peer norms for alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior, and that a relationship exists between personal behaviors and perceived normative behaviors"</p>

89

<p>Louder than bombs - Alcohol is illegal for use by those under 21 in California, and laws do regulate its use because of the effects it has on people. Regulations impact physicians, dentists, pharmacists, people driving cars, people driving buses, pilots, . . . Its sale is regulated, and there are consequences for misuse. Public policy makers are concerned about alcohol at all levels of government.</p>

90

<p>Louder than bombs - marijuana DOES impact driving ability.
"Even after controlling for age, sex, and prior driving record, the presence of cannabis remained associated with a higher risk of a potentially unsafe driving action (1.29, 99% CI = 1.11-1.50). Cannabis had a negative effect on driving, as would be predicted from human performance studies. This finding supports the need for interventions to decrease the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis, and indicates that further studies should be conducted to investigate the dose-response relationship between cannabis and safe driving."
Bedard, DuBois, & Weaver. (2007). The impact of cannabis on driving. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98, 5-12.</p>

91

<p>Louder than Bombs - Last summer, I was able to go with a relative to several SARB hearings. Basically, I watched kids and families try to get out of DA referrals for truancy. In almost every case, these loser kids were using drugs or marijuana. Their lives were screwed up from their bad choices.</p>

<p>Research confirms this: "Findings suggest that marijuana use and cocaine use in high school are associated with reductions in the number of years of schooling completed." Chatterji (2006). Illict drug use and educational attainment. Health Economics, 15, 489. </p>

<p>Please don't cite "research" without providing documentation of your sources.</p>

92

<p>kollegkid: Good stuff on the various studies. I do have a couple of bones to pick, however:</p>

<p>Firstly, regarding alcohol. Yes, its use is restricted. However, it is not controlled anywhere near as much as other drugs which have repeatedly been shown to be less addictive and/or harmful than alcohol. Yes, there are restrictions on its use and sale, but only insofar as these things egregiously impact the public good. So, for example, its perfectly legal for someone to get drunk in the privacy of their own home (assuming they're of age and not being loud or otherwise disturbing the neighbors). However, it's not legal for someone to get high in their own home. Why not? The same comparison and resulting question goes for tobacco.</p>

<p>Secondly, regarding your point about the relationship between truancy and drug use: I would suggest that's a "correlation vs. causation" thing. Just because more drug users are truants than non-users doesn't mean drugs contribute to truancy. I bet you would find that a proportionally larger amount of teenagers with multiple piercings (lip, nose, etc.) are truants - but does this mean that piercings cause truancy? I don't think so. In the case of marijuana, I think that it reflects the reality of kids who are already more likely to be truants getting into drugs as a result of a priori personality aspects, rather than a spiraling-out of control as a result of drugs.</p>

93

<p>I agree that public policy lacks consistency and is imperfect. Powerful and monied lobbies wield incredible influence.</p>

<p>When you decide to break the laws and possess and use illicit substances, you risk your future. Many, many employers check for criminal backgrounds.
Professional licensing agencies check for criminal backgrounds. </p>

<p>Here's an interesting testimonial from Evan Sherman (2005). One man's redemption: From $60,000-a-year drug habit to 4.0 GPA. Tribal College, 16.</p>

<p>"What's a white, Jewish man from a middle class, metro Detroit area family doing in a Michigan prison, taking correspondence classes from a tribal college?</p>

<p>I ask myself this every day while staring out my window at razor wire fences. The answer comes more easily as time ticks by. I chose to come here, believe it or not. That's right; no one to blame but me.</p>

<p>When I was 14 years old, I started experimenting with drugs and alcohol. Things quickly went awry. I don't know why I first tried drugs. I had everything a 14-year-old kid could want: loving parents, a pesky little sister, a dog. We were financially comfortable. I was never abused.</p>

<p>One day I decided to try smoking marijuana. Well I tried it almost every day for the next 20 odd years. I plucked 20s from my mother's purse; my grades began to suffer. By 16, I went on to bigger things like cocaine and acid. I tried treatment numerous times but to no avail. I couldn't/wouldn't stay clean or sober.</p>

<p>After 10 years of mentally and financially abusing my family and friends, my parents finally had enough, and with a swift kick in the pants I was out in the street.</p>

<p>By then I knew I had a problem and gave treatment an honest attempt. Things were going good. I got married, had a kid, turned 30. I had a family to support, but more importantly I had a $60,000-a-year drug habit to support.</p>

<p>I had always been a criminal, ever since raiding Mom's purse, so I figured I would go all out. I counterfeited checks and driver's licenses. I could duplicate anything on my computer. I went through hundreds of thousands of dollars like it was water. My drug use went through the roof, and I added heroin to my resume. I just didn't care. I prayed for a quick death, but it never came.</p>

<p>I eventually got caught for bank fraud, fleeing and eluding police officers, and escape from a state work release facility. I was 34, a pitiful Jew, a horrible son, a neglectful husband, and an absent father. The guilt was too much to bear. But I was so sick from withdrawals that I didn't have the strength to tie a bed sheet around my neck and swan dive off the jail balcony. I thank my lucky stars I was so weak back then.</p>

<p>My family sent a rabbi to see me at the county jail. He told me that even if I had to go to prison for a few years, I could still make a life for myself. He knew many people who were once at the jumping off point as I was, but they made a decision to change. These men did their time, came out, and made lives for themselves with promising futures. That was all I needed to hear.</p>

<p>If you pinch your finger and thumb together as tight as you can, there is still a microscopic layer of air between them. That is the amount of hope I had back then, but it was enough to get me started. I made up my mind that no matter what my sentence would be, I would never touch drugs or alcohol again.</p>

<p>I was sentenced to a term of no less than 6 1/2 years and no more than 75 years. I decided I would make a great substance abuse therapist. My parents agreed and told me if I could find a school, they would once again foot the bill.</p>

<p>Michigan's prison system does not allow inmates to use any computers (especially me), televisions, or other state property for a private education. If you want to attend a school, you must do so through the mail and pay for all classes and materials yourself.</p>

<p>I wrote a standard letter and mailed it to approximately 37 2-year and 4-year colleges. I wanted to take substance abuse counseling courses. Only Northwest Indian College (NWIC), a tribal college in Washington, replied. They come up with a curriculum and tailor-made a certificate program just for me.</p>

<p>One assignment for my Native American history course was to spend some time in a Native American community and write a paper on it. When the Native Americans in the prison compound got wind of my assignment, they offered to let me attend their weekly sweat lodge ceremony so I could do my paper.</p>

<p>Now I'm cruising along with a perfect 4.0 GPA. I even learned math after repeatedly failing high school math 20 years ago. The staff is incredible, including my advisor, Lucy Wood Trost, and I feel like I'm actually part of something.</p>

<p>These days I have a rejuvenated spirit, thanks to 12-step programs and religious observance. I have a rejuvenated body due to exercise and diet. But most importantly I have a new, improved mind thanks to NWIC.</p>

<p>When I get my weekly allotment of clean sheets, I don't think twice about it. They go where they belong, on the bed!"</p>

94

<p>Ok, I think I should apoligize. I think I was a bit over reactive, and over generalizied way to much. Late night, and I wasn't thinking clearly. I have to agree also that the way the government makes pot illegal and yet tobacco and alcohol legal makes little sense.</p>

<p>Yes. Studies show that Alchohol and Tobacoo are more addictive, and do serious harm to your body. But pot still hurts you, so doing any of them isn't a good idea. So here's what I do: nothing. I don't smoke, drink, do any drugs and I try to avoid caffeine. </p>

<p>Another point: It may be shown in research that it's okay to use, but until the government legalises it, it's still illegal. </p>

<p>Thanks to those who responded calmly to my, and I will be the first to admit, badly thoutght out, misguided post and didn't go around calling people retards.</p>

95

<p>Wesley Austin (2006) wrote his dissertation on Adolescent Alcohol Use and Educational Outcomes at the University of South Florida, Department of Economics. His specific interest was the question, "Does drinking reduce academic performance and school enrollment rates and increase truancy, or does the observed negatice correlation between drinking and educational outcomes merely reflect common unobservable factors?"</p>

<p>Austin, in his review of the literature, cites a study by Chatterji and DeSimone (2005) that "yielded conservative estimates of the causal impact of heavy drinking on dropping out, such that binge or frequent drinking among 15-16 year old students lowered the probability of having graduated or being enrolled in high school four years later by at least 11 percent."</p>

<p>Austin's own research found that, "Results show a strong negative effect of drinking on the probability of earning an "A" and fairly strong positive effects on the likelihood of obtaining a "C" or below."</p>

<p>"This is consistent with results found by Wolaver (2002), Williams, et al. (2003), and DeSimone and Wolaver (2004) in that youth drinking has negative effects on grades. The negative effects on school enrollment outlined in ths study confirm, at least in general terms, the Cook and Moore (1993) result that heavy drinking reduced subsequent schooling. . . This study does corroborate Roebuck (2004) as one of his results show that alcohol consumed in a previous year reduces the probability of subsequent school enrollment."</p>

96

<p>
[quote]

Secondly, regarding your point about the relationship between truancy and drug use: I would suggest that's a "correlation vs. causation" thing. Just because more drug users are truants than non-users doesn't mean drugs contribute to truancy. I bet you would find that a proportionally larger amount of teenagers with multiple piercings (lip, nose, etc.) are truants - but does this mean that piercings cause truancy? I don't think so. In the case of marijuana, I think that it reflects the reality of kids who are already more likely to be truants getting into drugs as a result of a priori personality aspects, rather than a spiraling-out of control as a result of drugs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with this. Furthermore - a lot of people try drugs because frankly, they have nothing else better to do. It's not that drugs are hurting them specifically - but it's that they're using drugs as a way to find excitement in a life that they otherwise find dull and uninteresting. And I think we can't disagree that those who aren't doing well in school are also the ones who are most likely to seek excitement through easy ways - i.e. doing drugs. I don't doubt that those who do drugs are less academically accomplished than those who don't do drugs - it's just that the same people would just be doing something else if not for drugs.</p>

<p>Also - certain types of people are more likely to take up drug use - such as people who naturally have little patience with authority. Those types of people are also the types who are likely to get into trouble with the law. The stigma against those individuals often transforms into a general societal stigma against drugs. </p>

<p>It is true that some people see drugs as an "easy way out." That does not make the drug dangerous for RESPONSIBLE individuals. Prescription medications also have a potential for abuse - but that potential for abuse should not prevent people who need the drugs from acquiring them. </p>

<p>===
I think one question we have to ask is this: are those who have chronically low intercellular dopamine levels less predisposed to amphetamine damage than those who don't have such issues with dopamine? Too much intercellular dopamine damages the brain - as we see in the case of methamphetamine addicts. On the other hand - those with chronically low intercellular dopamine levels may not suffer from the sort of brain damage from amphetamine use that those with normal dopamine levels may suffer (this is also why Adderall and Ritalin are prescribed in heavy quantities).</p>

<p>It could also be the same case for addiction. Anyhow, one cause of low dopamine levels is a mutation in the DRD4 receptor gene. This naturally results in lower intercellular dopamine levels. However, it does not mean that an elevation of dopamine levels (up to normal dopamine levels) in such individuals will necessarily lead to tolerance. The elevation of dopamine levels to above-normal levels could conceivably lead to tolerance. </p>

<p>There's also the question of lethal vs. non-lethal damage. The brain responds to high intercellular dopamine levels by pulling back dopamine receptors - which in turn could result in anhedonia once the user stops taking cocaine or amphetamine.</p>

<p>I do have to say that the research cannot be fully comprehensive though. Many of the drugs have not gone through large-scale epidemiological studies in the way that marijuana and tobacco have gone through. Before we can view those studies, we have to take ratings of "long-term effects" with a grain of salt. We don't know if methylphenidate could cause cancer or not - for example - there was a study that showed increased sister chromatid exchanges in children taking Ritalin - but that study was very small. There is going to be a repeat study on methylphenidate soon.</p>

97

<p>wow - I just picked up "The Tipping Point".</p>

<p>There's actually an "addiction threshold". Most people who touch cocaine or other drugs don't get addicted - as long as they take doses that are below that threshold.</p>

<p>That being said, yes, I think cigarettes are probably more addictive than amphetamines. Considering that the main side effect of quitting amphetamines is the major crash - the person's probably going to be sleeping through most of the withdrawal phase anyways. It seems that people are more able to quit those than they are with cigarettes - ADD or non-ADD.</p>

98

<p>Responsible people do not use illicit drugs. However, some people who should be treated for other problems, like depression, sometimes resort to self-medicating themselves (Volkow & Li, 2005).</p>

<p>It is important to differentiate between amphetamines and methylphenidate (Ritalin). They have different mechanisms of actions. “Thus, unlike amphetamine – the other drug commonly used to treat ADHD – methylphenidate does not cause an indiscriminate burst of dopamine release from vesicular stores, but affects only the synaptically released transmitter. This might be an important factor underlying the apparently low risk of developing dependence on methylphenidate with repeated use (Iversen, as cited in Iversen & Iversen, 2007). </p>

<p>There is a big difference between being under a physician’s care and self-medicating with illicit drugs. In fact, some research suggests that the medicated ADHD patient is at decreased risk for substance abuse than the non-medicated ADHD patient:</p>

<p>From Volkow & Li, 2005: “The first line of treatment for non-comorbid Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), for example, consists of psychomotor stimulants, such as methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin™) and dextroamphetamine (Adderall™), which are drugs that have reinforcing potential and can lead to addiction and abuse. These psychostimulants are prescribed with increasing frequency and for longer periods of time, so that understanding their long-term effects, both adverse and beneficial, has become an urgent priority. Specifically, do ADHD medications pose increased risks of substance abuse later in life? Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis concluded that adolescents treated for ADHD with methylphenidate appear to be 50% less likely to later develop drug abuse problems, compared with untreated individuals (Wilens et al., 2003). This is likely to reflect, in part, the protection afforded by associated changes in school performance, criminality levels, and self-worth (Fone & Nutt, 2005).”</p>

<p>Another risk of using amphetamines, even when prescribed is: “amphetamine could induce a schizophrenia-like psychosis. . . and could exacerbate psychotic symptoms in individuals with schizophrenia (Angrist & Sudilovsky). Although amphetamine-induced psychosis does not completely model the symptoms of schizophrenia, it mirrors some of the so-called ‘first rank’ positive symptoms” (Iversen & Iversen, 2007).</p>

<p>“amphetamine. . . is well known to induce schizophrenia-like psychosis (Murray et al., 2004, Curran et al., 2004, and Curran et al., 2003). Such evidence has given rise to the notion that not only amphetamine-induced psychosis (Tsapakis et al, 2003) but also psychosis in general is the consequence of sensitisation in mesolimbic cortical striatal circuits mediated by dopamine (Lieberman et al., 2001 and Lewis and Lieberman, 2000). This is increasing evidence that heavy use of cannabis in adolescence can increase the risk of later schizophrenia (Arseneault et al., 2004) and that effects on dopamine also mediate this. A recent study (Caspi et al., in press) has shown that liability to psychosis induced by cannabis is strongly influenced by a polymorphism in the COMT gene that determines the rate of catabolism of frontal dopamine” (Broome et al., 2005).</p>

<p>Broome, M. R., Woolley, J. B., Tabraham, P., Johns, L. C., Bramon, E., Murray, G. K., et al. (2005). What causes the onset of psychosis? Schizophrenia Research, 79, 23-34. </p>

<p>Iversen, S. D., & Iversen, L. L. (2007). Dopamine: 50 years in perspective. Trends in Neurosciences, 30, 188-193.</p>

<p>Volkow & Li. (2005). Drugs and alcohol: Treating and preventing abuse, addiction, and their medical consequences. Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 108, 3-17.</p>

99

<p>It’s important to remember that addiction is not merely the result of reaching a threshold, though thresholds do matter. Other factors, such as the frequency of use, the onset of action, the ingestion of multiple agents, and the context of use impact addiction (Compton & Volkow, 2006). </p>

<p>“In general, doses utilized therapeutically are lower than doses that are abused. For example, the doses of methylphenidate used for attention deficit disorder are typically below the level expected to produce reinforcement (Volkow and Swanson, 2003).”</p>

<p>“Frequency of use is also likely to influence the risk for abuse and addiction. This is not just related to the total dose administered, but also to the intervals between doses that can either facilitate or minimize the chances for the neuroadaptations that result in addiction.”</p>

<p>“Specifically, drugs ingested through injection, smoking and inhalation have much more rapid onset than the oral route. Thus, reinforcement and addictive potential is lower for orally administered drugs. That said, the oral route of administration can lead to behavioral reinforcement and addiction, especially if dosages are high (e.g. Volkow and Swanson, 2003).”</p>

<p>“Co-ingestion of psychoactive substances with similar (e.g. sedatives and alcohol) or different pharmacological profiles (e.g. stimulants and nicotine) in some cases can result in additional reinforcement, thereby increasing the addictive potential.”</p>

<p>“Expectation of drug effects may be a key ingredient in the addictive potential of prescription drugs (e.g. Volkow and Swanson, 2003). A drug taken for a bona fide medical condition may be inherently less reinforcing than the same drug taken with the express purpose of intoxication or psychic enhancement.”</p>

<p>Compton & Volkow. (2006). Abuse of prescription drugs and the risk of addiction. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83, s4-s7.</p>

100

<p>Nice articles kollegkid. May I ask which database you're using - and which search terms?</p>