Addicted to amphetamine
“Now, I’m probably not going to pronounce this right,” my professor warned, slouching in his chair. “Have you guys ever heard of Adderall?”
The class broke into a cacophony of affirmation. My teacher, surprised, asked how many people in the class use or have used the hyperactivity drug. Nearly a third of the class raised their hands. I stared, appalled. One girl, an LSA upperclassman, elaborated.
“I take Adderall before every paper I write,” she explained. “It keeps me focused.” She went on to explain its benefits during academic crunch periods. Another girl, the only one legally prescribed the drug, admitted that she had been approached in the past to sell her Adderall pills for as much as ten to fifteen dollars a piece. She hasn’t sold any to date, she said.
In a college culture historically known for its experimentation, synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine, MDMA, and opioid-based analgesics are still frowned upon as dangerous substitutes to “traditional” drugs such as marijuana and psilocybin. (Thankfully, heroin and cocaine are rarely touched.) At the same time, Adderall has somehow been elevated within the student population as not a “drug” for recreational use, but a legitimate study aid. The casual nature of the use of Adderall for acute concentration from those without Attention Deficit Disorders seems immature and hypocritical within a campus drug culture.
Behind the prescription labels, pharmacies, and pharmaceutical marketing names, Adderall is, quite simply, amphetamine produced by a company for medicinal use. Aside from differences in reliability, Adderall - which I’ll call amphetamine from here on - has had a “street name” for years: speed. If my professor had asked how many of the students used speed, very few of those using Adderall, if any at all, would have raised their hands due to both their own pharmacological ignorance as well as the social stigma surrounding speed. Somehow, a commercial name has made a drug widely available previously on city streets socially acceptable. When I told the students that Adderall was amphetamine, they paid little attention. I can stand ignorance, but I lose all respect for those seemingly addicted by choice. Even though the rest of the class didn’t admit to amphetamine use, I felt as if I was the only one in the room who had never even considered the illicit use of Adderall for studying.
Two girls, however, explained their reason for amphetamine abstinence: their athletic drug tests required them to. After all, amphetamine use could give an athlete an unfair advantage (although due to heart rate acceleration, it’s rarely seen use in athletics.) An athlete on amphetamine could exceed the competition’s natural abilities. Why, then, hasn’t this been extrapolated to academics? Amphetamine use before final exams or during projects improves focus and cognitive function. Technically, they’ve gained an unfair competitive advantage. If I cheat on exams in a traditional manner, I’m expelled; why should amphetamine use during examinations be any more acceptable?
Obviously, the administration will turn a blind eye to their students’ drug abuse. If amphetamine use at a university such as the University of Michigan is exposed as prevalent enough to take action, the anti-amphetamine majority would most definitely cut donations and other University funding. Parents would reduce Michigan’s reputability as an academic institution. Going public with any sort of drug abuse scandal could ruin the University in many ways, although none of the amphetamine problems are really the fault of the University.
Sooner or later, as ignorant abuse of amphetamines increases proportionally with its social acceptance, the stimulant’s side effects will begin to kill students. As parents attack the school for their lack of proper guidance, a tarnished University will be forced into drug-testing their students, much to the students’ own revolt. Those with the money (i.e., the parents) will win, and traditional experimentation will cease entirely. It’s a crisis that doesn’t seem to be able to be solved without catastrophe, and it will be ignored from both the administration and the students for as long as possible. Those, like me, who don’t use amphetamines, will face increasing academic competition as well as social pressure until something stops amphetamine’s increasing prevalence.
Although I may not be able to do anything about the crisis - my attempts at Adderall = amphetamine awareness have fallen upon deaf ears - I’ve lost a serious amount of respect for not only my classmates using the drug but for the student body in general. As for that girl in my class, the 90’s alt-rock band Everclear already has a song for her, aptly titled Amphetamine:
She’s perfect in that fucked up way / that all the magazines want to glorify these days…
Let the magazines do the glorification of our “perfect” amphetamine girls. As for now, one blogger isn’t buying into it.
Type a Comment
Incoming Links
There are currently no links incoming to this article.

Comments
Phil Dokas
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
And that other socially accepted stimulant - coffee - is ok? Why do we drink it while studying if not to “improve focus and cognitive function”? Sure it tastes good, but people drinking their fifth cup from a vending machine at 3AM aren’t drinking it for that smooth hazelnut flavor.
It seems as if you’re lashing out at this solely because it’s a governmentally-ascribed drug. But what’s the reasoning behind labeling some drug as “bad” or “evil”? Is it because people binge on it and hurt themselves with a blind eye? That’s not the drug itself, that’s the inability of a weak mind to exercise control. There’s a huge difference between someone taking it carefully with much thought and planning during finals week than someone who’s taking it 4 nights a week to get through 20 pages of psych reading. Drug abuse is undoubtedly a heart wrenching problem, but drug use can be entirely legitimate in intelligent, careful hands even if culturally stigmatized and governmentally illegalized.
Sure the exact details of which synapses are firing and what neurotransmitters are floating around differs between a brain addled on caffeine and one addled on Adderall, but it’s not as if those details are what the student studying is thinking about. All they’re in it for is the end result: heightened mental alertness. What’s the real, effectual difference between some student hopped up on Adderall in the UGLi before finals and me drinking coffee when I sit down to program? There isn’t any. Same reasoning, same effect.
Now, with all that out there, let me just say that I’ve never tried Adderall despite the number of chances I’ve had. I don’t feel any need for it and I’m happy to rely on coffee when I need to work harder. Furthermore and much more importantly, I’m not advocating Adderall (or any other drug for that matter) to anyone for any reason. What I am saying is that its use should not be so completely, unconditionally and impersonally attacked.
Tim
posted 2 years, 9 months ago
Death from amphetamines isn’t the only concern remember. Amphetamine psychosis is a much larger issue I think, and there are other issues that can arise from abuse.
Also, to the above commenter, caffeine is definitely also a stimulant but it’s not in the same class as adderall/amphetamines, its effects are very different. Amphetamine, used correctly, is much more useful than caffeine for work. It’s also relatively safe if you don’t use it too frequently or in high doses.
I’m prescribed adderall for ADD and it’s a tremendous help. My mind is finally clear and organized, when I want it to be. I’m careful not to exceed normal, small doses, though many students are not as careful as me. There’s a lot of ignorance on proper use and effects of drugs especially within the student population. This is a danger and I think we need to address it by educating people.
Also, be aware that street speed is often methamphetamine, a very different beast from adderall (which is a mix of three amphetamine derivative salts). Meth is cooked in unclean labs and is a terrible drug, the added methyl chemical group can be really unhealthy.
“In a college culture historically known for its experimentation, synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine, MDMA, and opioid-based analgesics are still frowned upon as dangerous substitutes to “traditional†drugs such as marijuana and psilocybin. (Thankfully, heroin and cocaine are rarely touched.)”
It’s silly to place drugs into different classes based on natural/synthetic. They’re still both chemicals, and ‘natural’ chemicals are if anything less predictable than clean synthetic drugs (though the issue with pills/powder is that it’s easier to cut with other ingredients).
Also, I don’t know about your college, but at mine MDMA (in ecstacy) is pretty common. Meth is unfortunately in a lot of ecstacy pills. Also, cocain isn’t common but it’s not that rare - are you really that in touch with the drug use at your school, seeing as you don’t use any yourself? Another note, heroin is an opiate just as other opioid-based substances like oxycontin, which is really common in some areas, nto to mention morphine, oxycodone, etc. Fentanyl is even more powerful than heroin too.
Adderall can be an incredibly useful tool if used right - at low doses and not too frequently. Used this way it’s no more dangerous than coffee. I think you’re the one letting legality and social stigma (of “speed”) get in the way. I do agree though that most people are much too ignorant about drugs, especially many of the users.
Tim
posted 2 years, 9 months ago
Oops, forgot one thing. You say that meth/mdma/opioid-based anagelsics are frowned upon as “substitutes” of more traditional drugs like psylocibin/marijuana. Substitutes?! Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. Each drug listed has wildly different effects. I’m not even sure what you mean by that sentence. Psylocibin mushrooms are an intense hallucinogenic experience (a “trip”). Marijuana is just pot, you get stoned, not much to be said. MDMA is a rush of seratonin, intense happiness and energy. Opiates are sedative, a very different ‘high’ from marijuana too. Meth is speed, you can stay up for days and get lots of things done and talk a lot and have limitless energy and focus. How are any of these ever seen as substitutes of another? Please elaborate.
Also, don’t forget that psylocibin mushrooms can also be very dangerous to your mental health. People don’t die from it but death isn’t the only concern in drug use.
eston
posted 2 years, 9 months ago
By “substitutes”, I didn’t truly mean substitutes, but rather substitutes in the economic sense: true alternatives, that have the same general utility (that is, the consumer is indifferent) in using one or the other.
As for me being in touch with the drug culture at this school, absolutely. I have friends who use marijuana, shrooms, MDMA, and cocaine regularly (all separate friends.) I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but that’s not my life to live. On any given day I could have pretty much any drug I wanted if I wanted any.
As for fentanyl and morphine, etc., I’ve only seen that stuff in hospitals. Had both, too. The latter made me black out for nearly 14 hours. The former 2 hours.
Tim
posted 2 years, 9 months ago
Why did you have fentanyl? That’s intended for people with high opiate tolerances.
Your article skips over barbituates, like klonopin/xanax, which are very dangerous when mixed with alcohol. People often die from that combination, and the pills aren’t uncommon.
“Same general utility”? I still don’t understand you. Each drug has its different use/purpose and its own time and place.
Also, why are you prejudiced against the substances you list, but not alcohol or caffeine? Aside from their legality.