ADD treatment longer then 20 years | ADHD Information
I am seeking someone who had ADD treatment with meds for more then 20 years. Especially treatment with ritalin. I want to know your experiences of using these meds on the long run.
Thank you for your reply.
Steven
I've been on them for 9 years..................not 20 though. ummmmm long run ya might become addicted/dependent on them depending on if you have that addictive personality.[QUOTE=good1]I heard that some can cause your liver to fail and you can die from it. I don't know if this is true, but I did read it somewhere. [/QUOTE]
yes, some adhdmeds can cause serious liver damage. BUT you would have to take about 100 times the recommended dosage. But, alcohol can cause the same liver damage. Pancreatic problems can cause liver damage, too much of any thing is bad for you.
STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE WITH YOUR B.S., IT'S GETTING OLD.
I'm not trying to scare people. I'm really looking for people who have used their meds for 20+ years....[quote]You might try explaining your motives for asking the question.[/quote]
Because I have read about the evidence that it may be carcinogenic. The problem is that the effects are then noticed after 20 years. And the 20+ years users are the first ones likely to develop this illness.
But maybe I am just overly worried.
[quote]I heard that some can cause your liver to fail and you can die from it. I don't know if this is true, but I did read it somewhere. [/quote]
You mean, liver tumors???
Steven D38913.9959375He's back ................................. Trolls are for sale on the debate medication board!!! I hear they are only 3 dollars!!!
Maxdad - he won't explain his intentions!!! Oh yeah - I think he wants us all to be safe or clean our rooms or something like that, I can't remember, last night was so looooooong ago.
Toys in the Attic!!!
[quote]I am seeking someone who had ADD treatment with meds for more then 20 years. Especially treatment with ritalin. I want to know your experiences of using these meds on the long run.[/quote]
You might try explaining your motives for asking the question.
I heard that some can cause your liver to fail and you can die from it. I don't know if this is true, but I did read it somewhere. I read that if you drink soda and eat pop rocks you will explode.
Where are you, the 20+ years longer user?????
I have been on dexedrine for over 11 and it's like a double edged sword. It's made great changes in my life and created a monster at times. I have often wondered if it or any medication long term is really worth it?
Your attempt at logic is flawed.
Using my bottle of water example. I take 12 bottles of water out of a store in Texas even though there are millions all over the United States. I take 1 drop out of that bottle and test it. It shows I have .0001 % sodium. I take the remaining 11 bottles and test one drop. They show .0001 % sodium. Now I decide to test 1,000 more drops of water out of those same bottles and they all show .0001% sodium. Does that change the end result because I "tested" more drops of water from each bottle. Yes it was INTENSIVE but the answer is NO, it doesn't change the end result.
Does that mean that the remaining millions of bottles spread out across the United States has .0001 % sodium? No.
[quote] No, here I don't agree with you. While it is true that the study results should be reproduced and with a bigger population, it does not mean that this study with 12 children was completely "worthless". If you read the entire study you will find that the authors explain really good what the situation is. The situation is that, althought the sample size of 12 children was relatively small (it should be 100 subjects or so), the study results was typical showing that of a genotoxin.[/quote]When did I use the word "worthless"??? What I have said repeatedly (and the study authors have said the same thing), is that the value of the study is to justify a larger study.
There is nothing resulting from this study that can be used to make decisions about diagnosing or treating ADHD. That doesn't mean that in the future a larger study might result in actionable findings, but as of yet there is nothing.
[quote] Also, I hate it when you say a population of 12 is too small. These studies are pretty intensive. You have to take thousands of cells from each participant and you have to "read" their chromosomes. Even thought 12 is a small population, it is a pretty intensive study.
Saying that 12 is too small is over-simplified. You forgot that they took thousands of cells from each participant. Now, if another study takes 10.000 participants and they took only 2 cells of each participant. Do you have a larger study????[/quote]
The number of cells is irrelevant since the total population of children (which represents the segment being studied) have as many cells per child as those being studied. When you calculate the statistical confidence level of 12 subjects compared to the number of children estimated to taking meds for ADHD, the result is about 26%. That means that there is only a 26% chance that the findings are accurate for the population being studied.
[quote]When did I use the word "worthless"??? What I have said repeatedly (and the study authors have said the same thing), is that the value of the study is to justify a larger study. [/quote]
You are implying that the study is too small and therefore has no value, while in fact that is not what the authors assert. The value of the study is partly to justify a larger study, in order to reproduce the results. However, the results that are shown on this study do have value. That along with some of the positive carcinogenicity tests makes the situation very worrysome. Ofcourse, you can never be completely sure. Ofcourse, 1 unreproduced study is not enough to draw any definite conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of this med, but it creates a "safety gap" that needs to be filled.
[quote]Using my bottle of water example. I take 12 bottles of water out of a store in Texas even though there are millions all over the United States. I take 1 drop out of that bottle and test it. It shows I have .0001 % sodium. I take the remaining 11 bottles and test one drop. They show .0001 % sodium. Now I decide to test 1,000 more drops of water out of those same bottles and they all show .0001% sodium. Does that change the end result because I "tested" more drops of water from each bottle. Yes it was INTENSIVE but the answer is NO, it doesn't change the end result. [/quote]
No, what you are describing applies to statistical studies. You are describing the fact that if you have a too small sample size, it isn't representative for the entire population. But in these kind of toxicological studies there isn't that problem. If this med is genotoxic, it applies to the entire population.
You mean you can use an irrelevant example and I can't?
I thought that is what we were doing here. Ok, back to the topic. You want to find someone who has used ADD meds (Ritalin in particular) for longer then 20 years. As long as that person is not dead you have nothing to worry. If you can't find that person, you are in big trouble. Because you are the next.Because if you take 20 rats and you paint their skin with a carcinogen (3 times a day, 7 days a week), then nothing happens, but after 300 days (let's pretend that's 20 years for human) all those mice get cancer, while some get it sooner and some get it later.
So you want to find someone who has used meds for 20 years and who is not dead. And you know as long as he's not dead you have nothing to worry.
So where is that 20 years med user?
Steven D38915.4213888889
Steven D wrote:
"Because if you take 20 rats and you paint their skin with a carcinogen (3 times a day, 7 days a week), then nothing happens, but after 300 days (let's pretend that's 20 years for human) all those mice get cancer, while some get it sooner and some get it later."
1. When the rats turn into mice as in your example...I do not think the word for that is "carcinogen".
Whose crazy, him or us for responding???
It is hopeless to deal with doom and gloom and someone that is determined to be right without facts!!! I told him to go clean his room, but he doesn't listen too well!
I'll clean my room after I find that person that had 20 years of ADD treatment. No, I'll clean the entire house!!!
Even superman can't survive 20 years exposure to a carcinogen. 50 years of Ritalin usage you say. So where is he/ she. I'm only trying to find that person that's all.
Steven D38915.4420023148I am sure you Mom will appreciate the house cleaning, you might want to do it before you find the person though, no one is going to respond to you about 20 years because you are not a doctor, you are a fanatic!![quote]I will say this again, a 12 subject study cannot be construed as evidence. The authors have applied for a federal grant to replicate the study on a larger scale and I hope they are successful. The long-term affects of ADD meds do need to be understood, but until we do, be careful of using the word “evidence.”[/quote]
No, here I don't agree with you. While it is true that the study results should be reproduced and with a bigger population, it does not mean that this study with 12 children was completely "worthless". If you read the entire study you will find that the authors explain really good what the situation is. The situation is that, althought the sample size of 12 children was relatively small (it should be 100 subjects or so), the study results was typical showing that of a genotoxin.
Ofcourse further research is needed for a better understanding and to be more sure about the situation. The more research equates to more certainty, but saying that this study was a worthless, "not-relevant" study goes farther then the authors assert.
The word "evidence" is maybe used wrong by me, but I'm not convinced that the texan study is what you claim it to be - worthless. These studies are not the same as statistical studies, which have participants up to thousands.
Also, I heard someone about clinical studies. Those are not comparable studies, to my best knowledge. I think you have to be careful about comparing them with other kinds of studies.
Also, I hate it when you say a population of 12 is too small. These studies are pretty intensive. You have to take thousands of cells from each participant and you have to "read" their chromosomes. Even thought 12 is a small population, it is a pretty intensive study.
Saying that 12 is too small is over-simplified. You forgot that they took thousands of cells from each participant. Now, if another study takes 10.000 participants and they took only 2 cells of each participant. Do you have a larger study????
[QUOTE=Steven D]Also, I hate it when you say a population of 12 is too small. These studies are pretty intensive. You have to take thousands of cells from each participant and you have to "read" their chromosomes. Even thought 12 is a small population, it is a pretty intensive study.
Saying that 12 is too small is over-simplified. You forgot that they took thousands of cells from each participant. Now, if another study takes 10.000 participants and they took only 2 cells of each participant. Do you have a larger study????
[/QUOTE]
What difference does that make? It is still 12 people. ROTFLMAO!!!! I don't consider that an "intensive" study or did you mean "extensive". Doesn't matter. Steven, that is pretty typical of any study. And why ask such a irrelevant question as 10,000 participants and taking 2 cells. Who in their right mind would do that??? If I wanted to test a bottle of water for sodium content is it a better study if I test every drop in that bottle? If nothing else you have given me a good belly laugh. Please just give this subject up. You are out of ammo.
[quote]
What difference does that make? It is still 12 people. ROTFLMAO!!!! I don't consider that an "intensive" study or did you mean "extensive". Doesn't matter. Steven, that is pretty typical of any study. And why ask such a irrelevant question as 10,000 participants and taking 2 cells. Who in their right mind would do that??? If I wanted to test a bottle of water for sodium content is it a better study if I test every drop in that bottle? If nothing else you have given me a good belly laugh. Please just give this subject up. You are out of ammo.[/quote]
No, it is not that silly. The population size (amount of participants) is not relevant. Look, if I did a study with 2.000 africans, in a very remote location, then that study wouldn't be very representative for you americans. But, if I did a study with 2.000 subjects ALL over the WORLD, then the study is better then doing one with 2.000 africans in a very remote location. So it's not only about population size. The texan study had a small population size, but the results are very significant. And again, these studies are very INTENSIVE. You take 1.000 cells from each subject.
Now, you don't have to believe me (and I have no intention to argue about this silly matter), but you should think about this.
[quote]I've been on them for 9 years..................not 20 though. ummmmm long run ya might become addicted/dependent on them depending on if you have that addictive personality.[/quote]
I don't care about that. Even if you become addicted, that can't affect your health so much as this:
http://www.lifeahead.net/cancer2.htm
So, I'm looking for people who used meds for longer then 20 years.
Do you really think anyone is going to answer the 20 year question on this forum - from your previous messages and not being clear on why you want to know this, I don't think you will be having much luck.
Do some research in places that other researchers do it - libraries, medical journals, etc.......... I am sure a research college could give you some ideas on how to proceed!!!!!
[quote]I don't care about that. Even if you become addicted, that can't affect your health so much as this:
http://www.lifeahead.net/cancer2.htm[/quote]So you're just here trying to promote the program listed on the above web site?
[quote]Even if you become addicted, that can't affect your health so much as this:[/quote]
I'm a believer in "wellness" programs, but dismissing the seriousness of addiction indicates that you are grossly misinformed or incredibly insensitive.
[quote]Because I have read about the evidence that it may be carcinogenic.[/quote]
What evidence that ADD meds may be carcinogenic? Please indicate your source.
MaxDad
Maxdad - I think we should go to their website and force our ideas on them. There is a contact email address in the upper right corner of the main menu of the sight.
It starts with el-zein's study (2005, cancer letters):
http://psychrights.org/Drugs/cytogenetic-ritalin.pdf
Back to the question:
Someone here used ADD treatment (especially methylphenidate treatment) for longer then 20 years???? Or do you know someone who has???
Steven D38914.423912037[quote]Do you have any research data that is based on studies of more than 3 months???? The article you posted had a very small sample and they even said that further study is warranted!!! Based on the number of kids recieving ritalin, a study of 13 seems really insignificant at this point. [/quote]
No, bigger is not always better. Sometimes a very big study can even be worse. I'm not drawing any conclusions ofcourse. That is exactly why I am researching this. And it's not a statistical study. That's why it's fairly small.
Now suppose you put 1000 children in this kind of study. You would need to culture something like 6000 blood samples. This means you need to buy 20 refrigurators. Impossible.
BTW. The children in that study had gene damage that is like smoking 370 cigarettes a day I calculated after 3 months of med usage.
http://www.adhdnews.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18773& KW=foods+and+concerta&PN=0&TPN=1
Steven D38914.5393518519Look, I'm not saying that ADD meds and methylphenidate in particular is in any way carcinogenic. I don't want to scare the hell out of you.
That is why I am researching this.
And that's why I try to find people who used their med for longer then 20 years.
If this med is carcinogenic, the people who used the med for longer then 20 years would know.
You want to stay healthy ofcourse... And I too.. So where is that 20+ years longer user?
Steven D38914.4813773148Do you have any research data that is based on studies of more than 3 months???? The article you posted had a very small sample and they even said that further study is warranted!!! Based on the number of kids recieving ritalin, a study of 13 seems really insignificant at this point.
A good place for you to go that would further your quest would be some medical forums. I am sure they could give you an opinion!!!
You are barking up the wrong tree my friend?? Woof!
Did you clean your room yet??? Does your Mom know you are playing on the computer??
Here is a good article for you to look at, might help you with that room problem and redirect your focus to things you can do in the here and now.
http://www.sesameworkshop.org/parents/advice/article.php?con tentId=16240&
Best of luck!!!
[QUOTE=Steven D]
Look, I'm not saying that ADD meds and methylphenidate in particular is in any way carcinogenic. I don't want to scare the hell out of you.
That is why I am researching this.
And that's why I try to find people who used their med for longer then 20 years.
If this med is carcinogenic, the people who used the med for longer then 20 years would know.
You want to stay healthy ofcourse... And I too.. So where is that 20+ years longer user?
[/QUOTE]
Steven,
You are in the wrong place like was said before. Most of the people on here recently got the official DX and started on Meds. The others are here for their children. Those who were DX'd at a young age and may have been on meds for those 20 years you are searching for probably don't need this web site.
I would suggest you learn how to do research and then you'll realize this isn't the place to be.
And I think most of us poo poo anything you say anyway. We believe in REAL scientific studies. And you are dead wrong. The bigger the study always is better. Just look at all the small studies that later on were proven wrong. And besides, if some fool happens to give you the time of day what are you going to have that 20 year med user do? Go get tested on your dime? Get real.
First of all you don't scare the "hell" out of anyone on this board. You've been vague, rude and obnoxious so it's apparent why a long-term user (if there's one on this board) has not responded to your demand. Also, your claims seem to change as you are challenged.One of your early posts clearly claimed that "evidence that it may be carcinogenic" -- there is no such evidence. The research study you refer to found that the ADD meds may increase the risk factors for cancer. That dramatically changes the perspective since there are literally 1,000's of factors that increase a risk of developing cancer.
Regarding a research study involving only 12 subjects. You claim that a 1,000 person study is unrealistic ... well ... you're wrong. Initial clinical drug studies are often that large or larger.
There is nothing that a 12 subject study can determine (with any level of confidence) that can be acted on ... other than to find direction or develop hypothesis for future research of a larger subject base.
I am a director of research for the firm I work with so I know what I'm talking about. If you're serious about researching the subject then access any of the medical research library sites.
MaxDad
Steven D, you do have a valid question and concern. If you are worried about the side-effects, bottom line is, you don't have to take it.
I wanted to try my son on the Concerta, and I searched for weeks, and could not find any study that convinced me it would be hamful. Still, I decided to go with other therapies. You have to do what you feel is right for you to do.
[quote]There is nothing that a 12 subject study can determine (with any level of confidence) that can be acted on ... other than to find direction or develop hypothesis for future research of a larger subject base. [/quote]
Have you read that study I pointed too very well???
Because it said that the study results should be reproduced 1+ more time (with more people), but the fact that there have been positive carcinogen mice studies and positive in vitro studies along with the results (P=0.000) makes it very worrysome. The lack of long term human studies is very bad.
[quote]One of your early posts clearly claimed that "evidence that it may be carcinogenic" -- there is no such evidence. The research study you refer to found that the ADD meds may increase the risk factors for cancer. That dramatically changes the perspective since there are literally 1,000's of factors that increase a risk of developing cancer.[/quote]
ono, all carcinogens increase cancer risk. After exposure to a carcinogen there is only an increase of this cancer risk. This applies to carcinogens such as benzene, but also formaldehyde and so on.
[quote]Steven D, you do have a valid question and concern. If you are worried about the side-effects, bottom line is, you don't have to take it. [/quote]Quitting med doesn't change a thing. The longer the duration of exposure to a carcinogen, the higher the risk that someone develops cancer 20 years later.
Ofcourse, I'm not a doctor. You should ask your doctor.
Again, you are kind of reacting a bit agressive I think. And you (not anyone in particular) is calling me a troll alot. So, I think I'll go somewhere else, where I am not called a troll or anything. Ofcourse you can PM me for more info or something.
Steven D38914.5889583333How do you bump things down the boards or maybe off???StevenD, I think I wrongly assumed you were considering a medication. Have you been on a simulant for a long time, and are concerned you may have been affected? I wouldn't call you a troll just for being curious, maybe you just came off wrong to some, but Auntie is right, maybe you are needing to look in a different direction from here, as we are relatively new to diagnosis and treatments, and you likely won't find many here would be truly able to answer your question from their own personal experience.
[quote]I am a director of research for the firm I work with so I know what I'm talking about. If you're serious about researching the subject then access any of the medical research library sites. [/quote]
No, I'm not really doing any research. The FDA is already doing that. I'm just collecting info. I'm waiting for the FDA for new information.
[quote]StevenD, I think I wrongly assumed you were considering a medication. Have you been on a simulant for a long time, and are concerned you may have been affected? I wouldn't call you a troll just for being curious, maybe you just came off wrong to some, but Auntie is right, maybe you are needing to look in a different direction from here, as we are relatively new to diagnosis and treatments, and you likely won't find many here would be truly able to answer your question from their own personal experience. [/quote]
Well, yeah, I used concerta 3 years myself. Now I am researching this and I post this on the boards and I get thrown at my head that I'm some kind of troll. I mean, am I a troll because I am telling bad things about medication?
[quote]Have you read that study I pointed too very well???Because it said that the study results should be reproduced 1+ more time (with more people), but the fact that there have been positive carcinogen mice studies and positive in vitro studies along with the results (P=0.000) makes it very worrisome. The lack of long term human studies is very bad.[/quote]
Actually I read the study immediately after it was published and again today. My point is not that the study claims anything but the need for further study. My point is that you are using this study as “evidence” and it clearly cannot be used as such.
I will say this again, a 12 subject study cannot be construed as evidence. The authors have applied for a federal grant to replicate the study on a larger scale and I hope they are successful. The long-term affects of ADD meds do need to be understood, but until we do, be careful of using the word “evidence.”
[quote]Because I have read about the evidence that it may be carcinogenic.[/quote]
[quote]I'm not saying that ADD meds and methylphenidate in particular is in any way carcinogenic.[/quote]
[quote]Again, you are kind of reacting a bit aggressive I think. And you (not anyone in particular) is calling me a troll alot. [/quote]
You are getting this reaction from me since your statements have contradicted yourself. First you state that “that it may be carcinogenic.” Then a few posts later you say, “I'm not saying that ADD meds and methylphenidate in particular is in any way carcinogenic.” Combine that with using the referenced study as “evidence” and perhaps you will understand an aggressive reaction.
I have no need to convince you. However, I want to make sure anyone new to this board has access to actual facts and not opinions. You have presented your opinions as facts and new board members need to understand the difference.
Something I did not notice before was your country of origin. It may be that English is not your first language and that may explain the contradictions. The exact intent of some of your posts may not be coming through as you intend – although if I am correct and English is not your first language, then I’m impressed because early on it did not occur to me that you were anything but a native speaker.
MaxDad
it seems Steven D dropped off the face of the earth. Hmm
Huh, I'm back. No, I am researching this very seriously. Yes, I think your buddy should check himself regularily. Not saying that he is in great danger, but just for the safety. Just a medical check to look for signs of a developing tumor.
Being able to find people who have used this med for longer then 20 years has great value, because they are likely to develop cancer if their med was carcinogenic. Especially if your buddy doesn't eat much vegetables or fruits.
So as long as your buddy is healthy you have not much to worry about...
Steven D38919.070462963[QUOTE=Steven D]I'll clean my room after I find that person that had 20 years of ADD treatment. No, I'll clean the entire house!!!
[/QUOTE]
I thought you said ADD'ers can't clean.
[QUOTE= Steven D]
Even superman can't survive 20 years exposure to a carcinogen. 50 years of Ritalin usage you say. So where is he/ she. I'm only trying to find that person that's all.
[/QUOTE]
LISTEN FOR ONCE!!! EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD ARE FAIRLY NEW TO ADHD MEDS. SO STOP ASKING THE SAME DUMB QUESTION.
AND IF IT WILL MAKE YOU GO AWAY, THEN YES - EVERYONE USING ADHD MEDS FOR OVER 20 YRS. ARE ALL DEAD. THE GOVERNMENT PAID OFF ALL FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT - ALL 5 MILLION OF THEM AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS SLIPPED UP AND BLABBED.
NICE KNOWING YOU AND BYE, BYE.
IMac38942.9766782407OK Auntie and IMac,
I have learned not to drink my tea while reading your posts. I love the laughing smilie.
StevenD, if your question is you legitimatley wanting to know whether you would be safe taking ADHD meds for more than 20 years, you propbably won't ever get a reply from someone who has taken it that long on here. We are people seeking help for ourselves and our children. Anyone who has taken them that long has done so because they obviously are working for them and they aren't going to be here asking for advice.
I have known several people with ADHD who were treated as children. They would have started 30+ years ago. I don't know whether they are still taking the meds or not. I do know that not one of them, to my knowledge, has battled cancer or liver disease. I have lived in the same rural county all my life except for a few months at a time, so I know which of my childhood friends have had serious illnesses and what they are. I have had friends die of course, and some from cancer, but none of them had been diagnosed as ADHD as children.
I don't know if this helps or not. Personally, I am not nearly as concerned about the long term effects as I am about initially beginning treatment when there is such a high rate of misdiagnosis. Once you are sure of the diagnosis and find that certain meds work, I am very comfortable with someone staying on them as long as they continue being monitored by their physicians.
These are my views as an adult ADHDer and the parent of a child with ADHD. I don't have any medical background, so I am not giving a medical opinion, just the voice of experience.
IMac38942.9770023148IMac38942.9761689815A good buddy of mine is 52 years old and has been taking ritalin over 20 years. I believe he has been taking it for over 30 years. He is now taking 40mg of ritalin la, not the kind he use to take when he was younger.
I actually introduced him to ritalin la. He was taking a different form of ritalin. He is a co worker of mine...we had ADHD "I take ritalin" coming out stories to each other that where quite comical.
Oh, he doesn't have cancer. Hmm, and to think of it he is also a long time smoker.
[quote]Oh, he doesn't have cancer. Hmm, and to think of it he is also a long time smoker.[/quote]Does he cross the street without looking??? I need to find someone who crosses the street without looking because I just won't cross the street without looking unless I hear that it's safe!
Where are you safe street crossers???????
I actually spoke to him about this after reading this thread. His doc gives him an RX (didn't know such a thing existed) for a checkup. He does this once a year. He only started last year but so far he's in good health.I've been on meds for ADHD for 16 years and they have helped me a lot! The
only bad side effects I have had are when the meds wear off, it's not pretty
and the mornings are bad too.
there is a newbie somewhere who has been on medication on and off for 25 years and he seemed really happy and healthy.(don't ask me who and which post can't remember,i think it is in the adhd adult board)anyway cancer is a very prolific illness,you don't need to be on meds for years to be more prone to get it.
smoking,genetics,pollution are all big factors of getting cancer
In my 10 years of experience with all sorts of meds, I have concluded that at some point, most people who take them for prolonged periods will eventually become dependent and addicted to the drug.You might wake up one day and not realize that you forgot to take it, and go throughout the whole day feeling depressed, very sleepy, and empty inside, sort of like you just wanna go back to bed and forget that you ever felt that horrible miserable feeling of dread. (well thats just me now).
Then, you realize that there is a major difference in you when you don't take it. You don't know what it is, but some part of you is missing. You don't want to do anything, and you know that something is definetely not right.
You will then be confused for awhile, wondering why you suddenly feel so extremely down, and sad. (the best thing I can compare it to is the feeling you get when you've lost a loved one). You then become more cautious to be SURE that you take your meds in the morning, because you know what type of horrible day you will have without it. It becomes your first priority when you start the day.
Months, maybe years go by and each day you were sure to have taken it. You forget about it. When your on your meds, that is normal for you. Maybe even above normal. Maybe your in a great mood when you take it but in a horrible mood when you don't. You just keep on going and dismiss your strange feelings as side effects of the medication.
Then 9 or 10 years have passed since you have been perscribed your medicine. You forgot to take it maybe a few times now and then but you learn from your mistake and just remember to take it tomorrow.
Well something gets into you one day. Or maybe your doctor orders that you stop taking the medicine. The first day without it is the worst. First of all, you feel horrible and depressed and guess what? Remember when you could tell yourself its ok just remember to take it tomorrow? Well you can't do that tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the next day. You wonder how long these feelings are going to last.
Well 2 weeks have passed. And guess how you feel? Just as miserable as you did on day 2 of the discontinuation of the medication. What have you done during your 2 weeks? You've been useless, unable to gain discipline or the will power to do anything. You feel extremely tired, a symptom of severe depression. You sometimes sleep for 3-4 days at a time. Everything is beginning to fall apart. You realize now that you are psychologically and chemically dependent on the drug. But you don't care. All you want to do is get more to stop the feelings of depression and sadness and fatigue. You can't deal with it another day. You're going to get some somehow. Not even within the guidlines of the law you might not be sure. You'd rather feel normal and go about your life with no trouble and sometimes being a great mood than feeling the way you did those 2 weeks. You don't care if your dependent. It's not hurting you, and your determined your not going to sit there and rot on the couch or in bed feeling like you wanna die every waking second. You don't care about that anymore. You just want to stop the feeling.
You get some. It's the happiest day of your life. You feel fulfilled and back to normal! You aren't tired, you're able to do stuff that needs to be done, you're able to wake up and be ready to start the day and live your life. And you are determined you are never going to feel the way you did for those 2 weeks ever again. Ever. You will stop at nothing to make sure that you will never have to experience anything as horrible as that again.