antidepressants change one's personality?

[torn asunder]

i was reading an article on livescience, and a thought occurred to me...

antidepressants change people's brain chemistry, and possibly their personality over the long-term. everyone seems to be ok with this, even encouraging others to "sue" them. well, what about other drugs? i mean, ritalin is basically amphetamine salts; speed, if you will; what can ritalin do that, for example, cocaine can't? what do antidepressants do that pot/ecstacy can't? i mean, from what i understand, ecstacy was actually one of the first antidepressants created. (i may be wrong, i haven't researched this, was just told) these "illegal" drugs change one's personality, long-term, as well.

guess my point is, what would be the difference between a script for antidepressants/add-adhd medicines, and a script for pot/cocaine/ecstacy, medically speaking? even ethically speaking, now that i think about it, because they all have the possibility of being abused. what makes one ok, and not the other? and let's discount the "they're illegal" debate, for now.

thoughts?

[pomba gira]

Just because two substances have the same apparent/observable effect does not mean that they act in the same way. Stimulant meds for ADHD increase the available neurotransmitters that have to do with attention and focus. SSRI antidepressants increase the amount of mood-stabilizing serotonin available. So you are getting a targeted effect that goes to the root of the problem and actually balances out the neurochemicals in question, rather than just damping down symptoms, which is what "self-medicating" does.

Cocaine has a different effect from other stimulants; it acts directly on the brain's pleasure center (why it's so addictive in a more-more-more way).

Ecstasy hasn't been around that long. The SSRIs showed up in the early '90s, but there were other antidepressants like Elavil, Equanil, Tofranil, etc. way before that. Ecstasy was made illegal pretty much because it makes people feel good. Really. That's what "high abuse potential" means... doesn't necessarily mean the substance in question is dangerous (all things being equal) or physically addictive... just that people are gonna like it.

[Homicidalheathen]

I have heard of this. Especially with Xanax of all things. I took it once with a beer or two...wow I was damn happy. I don't understand how but...Have heard from a long time user that it makes you go berzerk.

I also saw this on a youtube video about addiction

guess with long term use it can make you do violent things and you dont remember...

I think it is mostly prescribed for anxiety tho.

all of the people I know who take antipsychotics just get sleepy and spaced out

[StormKnight (1)]

Saw the same article, summarizing the research. While I believe it is true there is permanent change in brain chemistry, I wouldn't be too quick to lean towards the SSRIs as being exclusive to doing it, and more research has to be done. GalxoSmithKline Wellcome, makers of Paxil, underwrote the research. Now while their underwriting is not necessarily bad, I would try to find the original research and start taking it apart to see how rigorous the design of the project was, and see if there was any data left out, which has (thankfully,) been a strong hammer point to reject research papers lately. I would like to see more research from a few more groups to confirm the results of this.

Fortunately, it is now required for more quality research to disclose funding sources (endowments, grants, or companies,) so more and more research is being debunked as fronts to push products.

As I was trained, addiction is based a lot on the speed of onset and offset of the endorphins the drugs initiate, causing the high. Something that is rapid on and rapid off leads to more craving of that rapid on, because the rapid off is excruciating. Hence heroin (which I understand is a hella fast onset and as fast offset,) which has that rush is Schedule I despite its potency as a pain medication. The addiction rate from that on/off high is more dangerous than the benefit it has as a painkiller, hence it therefore considered unsafe, has medical benefit that can't be accomplished by other drugs, which is the definition of Schedule I substances. Even the fast-on narcotics we use now (fentanyl, as an example,) that are Schedule II drugs, (which I think marijuana will go if it is legalized,) is strictly controlled, because the addiction potential is high. Because that is the nature of my work, I will be under constant scrutiny, drug testing, and review for the rest of my days as an anesthesiologist.

As for marijuana, it will probably be decades of research once it gets to Schedule II before it goes lower on the DEA drug schedule, if it does. Aspirin, if discovered now, would never be over the counter like it is today, and would be in the same situation.

[torn asunder]

Just because two substances have the same apparent/observable effect does not mean that they act in the same way. Stimulant meds for ADHD increase the available neurotransmitters that have to do with attention and focus. SSRI antidepressants increase the amount of mood-stabilizing serotonin available. So you are getting a targeted effect that goes to the root of the problem and actually balances out the neurochemicals in question, rather than just damping down symptoms, which is what "self-medicating" does.

Cocaine has a different effect from other stimulants; it acts directly on the brain's pleasure center (why it's so addictive in a more-more-more way).

Ecstasy hasn't been around that long. The SSRIs showed up in the early '90s, but there were other antidepressants like Elavil, Equanil, Tofranil, etc. way before that. Ecstasy was made illegal pretty much because it makes people feel good. Really. That's what "high abuse potential" means... doesn't necessarily mean the substance in question is dangerous (all things being equal) or physically addictive... just that people are gonna like it.

ecstasy's formula has been around since between 1912 & 1927 (debated) from what i could find, formulated by Merck. SSRIs were developed in the '80's it appears, but i'm not sure how that relates!? anyway, my point was that, if these other "illegal" drugs were legal and prescribed, with standard dosing schedules, like amphetamine (ritalin) is now, what would/could be the result? i mean, if we didn't have the preconcieved notion that cocaine/"X"/etc. was bad, (for example, if we gave these chemicals different names & did clinical trials), would the results be similar to those of the SSRIs & such? would/could long-term controlled medical use of these drugs affect the same types of change, personality-wise, that the antidepression meds do?

partly, i'm curious because i've been exposed to all of these, and 1) haven't found *any* of them addictive, and 2) found that i felt the most "myself" with ritalin and coke. i know several people, some on this board, that say that they feel like who they really should be, while taking antidepression meds. are we limiting our medical options by not looking at some drugs that we've now labeled bad/illegal?

i don't mean to limit the discussion only to those i've mentioned - i'm sure there are other drugs that may have medicinal uses as well.

did i explain myself a bit better this time? i feel like my first post was a little light on meaning, and i wanted to clarify!

[Rayne]

Just because two substances have the same apparent/observable effect does not mean that they act in the same way. Stimulant meds for ADHD increase the available neurotransmitters that have to do with attention and focus. SSRI antidepressants increase the amount of mood-stabilizing serotonin available. So you are getting a targeted effect that goes to the root of the problem and actually balances out the neurochemicals in question, rather than just damping down symptoms, which is what "self-medicating" does.

Cocaine has a different effect from other stimulants; it acts directly on the brain's pleasure center (why it's so addictive in a more-more-more way).

Ecstasy hasn't been around that long. The SSRIs showed up in the early '90s, but there were other antidepressants like Elavil, Equanil, Tofranil, etc. way before that. Ecstasy was made illegal pretty much because it makes people feel good. Really. That's what "high abuse potential" means... doesn't necessarily mean the substance in question is dangerous (all things being equal) or physically addictive... just that people are gonna like it.

And they are going to act differently in people who have the deficientcy that requires the meds than if someone takes them that does not have the deficientcy.

Personally,I have known people with depression who self medicate with illegal drugs, most ended up overdosing to realize they had an issue. While on the illegal drugs, their personality is completely different (usually not in a good way either). However, on regulated doses of medication, they are stabilized and yeah, their personality may change, but usually that is a good turn. If it's not, your not on the right medication or even the right combination.

Anything can be abused, but people tend to abuse the illegal things much easier than the prescribed and monitored stuff.

Although slight, there is a difference in my daughter's personality on her meds than off. She is on both depression and ADHD medication. She is not a case of overreaction or doctor over prescribing, she is an honest case of a child who's psychiatric conditions are hindering her life in such a way that she can not fully function without them. She's a pretty extreme case for a 10 year old.

[torn asunder]

And they are going to act differently in people who have the deficientcy that requires the meds than if someone takes them that does not have the deficientcy.

Personally,I have known people with depression who self medicate with illegal drugs, most ended up overdosing to realize they had an issue. While on the illegal drugs, their personality is completely different (usually not in a good way either). However, on regulated doses of medication, they are stabilized and yeah, their personality may change, but usually that is a good turn. If it's not, your not on the right medication or even the right combination.

Anything can be abused, but people tend to abuse the illegal things much easier than the prescribed and monitored stuff.

Although slight, there is a difference in my daughter's personality on her meds than off. She is on both depression and ADHD medication. She is not a case of overreaction or doctor over prescribing, she is an honest case of a child who's psychiatric conditions are hindering her life in such a way that she can not fully function without them. She's a pretty extreme case for a 10 year old.

understood, but i'm not talking about free choice illegal drugs vs. scheduled, prescription medicine, i'm talking about prescribing "illegal" drugs, if that makes any sense... for example, if none of the current antidepression meds are working for an individual, is it possible that something like coke, ecstasy, speed, etc. might have the same/similar effects that, say, celexa has on others?

am i making any sense? sorry if not, i can try to be a bit clearer if it'll help!

[Rayne]

understood, but i'm not talking about free choice illegal drugs vs. scheduled, prescription medicine, i'm talking about prescribing "illegal" drugs, if that makes any sense... for example, if none of the current antidepression meds are working for an individual, is it possible that something like coke, ecstasy, speed, etc. might have the same/similar effects that, say, celexa has on others?

am i making any sense? sorry if not, i can try to be a bit clearer if it'll help!

That makes sense, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the risks at this time. Meaning, I'm not exactly sure that problem (of absolutely nothing working) has been documented enough yet to break into that. (Also not saying the day won't come where they will, because honestly, I think they might at some point if the need is high enough -- i guess we have slowly STARTED with the medicinal marijuana issue).

Keep in mind too that the "street drugs" only have a fraction of the half-life of most of the common psychotrophic medications, so the risks of the "street drugs" is much higher for complications and overdoses, just right off the bat.

Then you have to factor in the addiction factor. There are people who would do just about anything for cocaine. You don't hear people doing just about anything for Adderall. Paying a few dollars is about as far as I've ever heard of (not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't heard about it in all my research). It seems to be a much more addictive quality in the "street drugs".

Edited December 9, 2009 by Rayne

[torn asunder]

That makes sense, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the risks at this time. Meaning, I'm not exactly sure that problem (of absolutely nothing working) has been documented enough yet to break into that. (Also not saying the day won't come where they will, because honestly, I think they might at some point if the need is high enough -- i guess we have slowly STARTED with the medicinal marijuana issue).

true, about the "absolutely nothing working" part. my thought is that the med companies are going to just continue to manufacture new chemicals, rather than look at the "old" ones.

Keep in mind too that the "street drugs" only have a fraction of the half-life of most of the common psychotrophic medications, so the risks of the "street drugs" is much higher for complications and overdoses, just right off the bat.

that problem could/would be solved by legalizing and and taking control of the manufacturing process. it's likely the half-life" problem is due to piss-poor care in production.

Then you have to factor in the addiction factor. There are people who would do just about anything for cocaine. You don't hear people doing just about anything for Adderall. Paying a few dollars is about as far as I've ever heard of (not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't heard about it in all my research). It seems to be a much more addictive quality in the "street drugs".

anything can be addictive. i know guys selling 1 pill of adderol for $5, and they're selling out! oxy, vicoden, etc, are all script drugs, and can have just as high an addiction rate as many street drugs - it all depends on the person, which is why i think having it under a doctor's control would be so important.

[Rayne]

true, about the "absolutely nothing working" part. my thought is that the med companies are going to just continue to manufacture new chemicals, rather than look at the "old" ones.

True about the med companies, but a lot of them are still manufacturing the older drugs, but they are being used in off label treatment. For example, I have really bad insomnia. It's been a huge issue in most of my adult life. First the doctor prescribed Ambien because it worked for me in the past, but I kept waking up. She then went to Trazodone (an old school depression medication, used sometimes to stabilize moods and as a sedative in higher doses). I absolutely HATED the "Trazodone hangover" so she switched me to Lunesta and finally to Ambien CR. Now I take Ativan (which is scripted to me for panic attacks as well), but it's been months since I have used it.

that problem could/would be solved by legalizing and and taking control of the manufacturing process. it's likely the half-life" problem is due to piss-poor care in production.

That is possible. More research would have to be done to see for sure, but it is possible.

anything can be addictive. i know guys selling 1 pill of adderol for $5, and they're selling out! oxy, vicoden, etc, are all script drugs, and can have just as high an addiction rate as many street drugs - it all depends on the person, which is why i think having it under a doctor's control would be so important.

This is very true, and I stated that as well. LoL, in my previous post, however, I stayed away from the Narcotic painkillers on purpose, because they have such a high addiction rate that is pretty uncommon compared to other lines of prescripted medications.

[Nate Kriepp]

Keep in mind too that the "street drugs" only have a fraction of the half-life of most of the common psychotrophic medications, so the risks of the "street drugs" is much higher for complications and overdoses, just right off the bat[/quote

I'm in Parkinson's research. Sometimes, we get to play with a compound called MPTP, which was 'discovered' by a bunch of young heroin addicts the hard way, namely by injecting what they thought was heroin (it was actually some kind of poorly made synthetic heroin). I've never read the book, but Frozen Addicts is a good read from what I've been told.

[pomba gira]

Yeah, I remember that. If I recall correctly, it was an unfortunate variant of "designer" Fentanyl, back when you could avoid legalities by making a tiny change in the formula. Fortunately the one time I tried that stuff it disagreed with me rather violently, so I stayed away from it after that.

And, for the original question, most recreational drugs WERE originally phamaceuticals. For example, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines... they fell out of general use because of their high addiction potential, and because there's other stuff that will do the job more efficiently and/or provide better quality of life. In a way you could say they were starting points and we've moved on to better things. For example, I spent 15 years doing heroin, then 5 years on methadone maintenance, then about 2 years on buprenorphine... and each is a distinct improvement over the previous one as far as allowing one to function productively on a day-to-day level. As far as anyone revisiting recreationals to find new uses for them... well, no reason not to, but I don't see it happening mainly because of the stigma attached to these substances.

[Rev.Reverence]

Just because two substances have the same apparent/observable effect does not mean that they act in the same way. Stimulant meds for ADHD increase the available neurotransmitters that have to do with attention and focus. SSRI antidepressants increase the amount of mood-stabilizing serotonin available. So you are getting a targeted effect that goes to the root of the problem and actually balances out the neurochemicals in question, rather than just damping down symptoms, which is what "self-medicating" does.

Cocaine has a different effect from other stimulants; it acts directly on the brain's pleasure center (why it's so addictive in a more-more-more way).

Ecstasy hasn't been around that long. The SSRIs showed up in the early '90s, but there were other antidepressants like Elavil, Equanil, Tofranil, etc. way before that. Ecstasy was made illegal pretty much because it makes people feel good. Really. That's what "high abuse potential" means... doesn't necessarily mean the substance in question is dangerous (all things being equal) or physically addictive... just that people are gonna like it.

oK, I was on the ritalin, for quite some time in the 80s...& still, to this day, I have uncontrollable ticks (many fewer over the years, but now, I have different ones too)...that's a side effect of long term cocain use.

..I have actually been wondering lately; can I sues?

[Rayne]

oK, I was on the ritalin, for quite some time in the 80s...& still, to this day, I have uncontrollable ticks (many fewer over the years, but now, I have different ones too)...that's a side effect of long term cocain use.

..I have actually been wondering lately; can I sues?

No, because it is listed as a side effect of the medication and always has been. I think every stimulant medication has that listed side effect. My ex has effects he says are from Ritalin too. He went as far as to not sign the consent to have my daughter placed on it because of his own experiences.

Personally, I think his issues are from his lack of medicating for his issues, but I am not a doctor.

My daughter was later placed on Ritalin, with absolutely no side effects. She does have a small problem with ticks (nothing she ever would need medication for at this point), but she has a touch of Tourette's along with the ADHD, her's is not caused by the medication.

[pomba gira]

oK, I was on the ritalin, for quite some time in the 80s...& still, to this day, I have uncontrollable ticks (many fewer over the years, but now, I have different ones too)...that's a side effect of long term cocain use.

..I have actually been wondering lately; can I sues?

No, because it is listed as a side effect of the medication and always has been. I think every stimulant medication has that listed side effect.

You would have to be able to show that the pharma knew this was a potential side effect but neglected to give sufficient warning about it, or substantially understated the risk.

[Rev.Reverence]

...that ritilan IS indeed some evil shit...those pharmacologists, are certainly into killing us with things they say will aide us.

[Tacohitts]

Wonder what ever happened to the antidepressant "Meratran" its no longer around

Edited December 10, 2009 by Tacohitts

[pomba gira]

Just read a Scientist article on pharmacogenomics... where they can look at a person's genetics and predict whether certain meds will work and/or have serious side effects. That will mean a lot less of the trial & error method of figuring out what meds will work best for an individual... also that targeted clinical trials can be done... lot of potential there.

[Rayne]

Just read a Scientist article on pharmacogenomics... where they can look at a person's genetics and predict whether certain meds will work and/or have serious side effects. That will mean a lot less of the trial & error method of figuring out what meds will work best for an individual... also that targeted clinical trials can be done... lot of potential there.

My daughter's psych's (and mine from what limited treatment I have had for postpartum depression and panic disorder) have used my mother as a basis of the first line of treatment. It seems like a pretty reliable method, as my mother was on Paxil for panic and anxiety, and they placed me on Paxil and it worked without fail.

Everyone is different, so it may not work everytime of course, and people will have to cycle through the meds to find the right med or medication combo, but it's a good thing to try first, imo.

[freydis]

I think perhaps using "street drugs" as prescription drugs would be like using explosives to open something when a pry bar was available.

As was stated earlier, a lot of the old classic street drugs were prescription or research meds at one time, then the process was refined.

Usually for a good reason.

There ARE too many prescription meds that are... dangerous and addictive too, though.

[phee]

I think perhaps using "street drugs" as prescription drugs would be like using explosives to open something when a pry bar was available.

As was stated earlier, a lot of the old classic street drugs were prescription or research meds at one time, then the process was refined.

Usually for a good reason.

There ARE too many prescription meds that are... dangerous and addictive too, though.

I try to use Cocaine to treat my Heroin addiction....

[Rev.Reverence]

I try to use Cocaine to treat my Heroin addiction....

I hear that mixing them is the way to go...

...if you want to kill yourself..

[StormKnight (1)]

I try to use Cocaine to treat my Heroin addiction....

I believe that is called "Speed Balling..."

[pomba gira]

I believe that is called "Speed Balling..."

Not quite. A speedball is heroin and cocaine in one shot. The idea is that you get the intense rush from the cocaine, then the heroin kicks in and does away with the unpleasant stimulant effect. Fun stuff.