The Drug Experience and Beyond: Amphetamine

The experience of taking amphetamine, including the subjective pleasurable experiences of initial use, amphetamine-induced anxiety and psychosis, and withdrawal symptoms following long-term use. Also includes a brief consideration of the various factors that can influence the amphetamine experience. (964 words)


The ‘drug experience’ produced by a particular psychoactive substance depends on both drug and non-drug factors. Drug factors are the chemical properties or type of drug used, the dose, route of administration, and presence or absence of another drug. Non-drug factors include personal characteristics of the user (e.g. biological make-up, personality, previous experience), and the context or setting in which the drug is taken.

A person will first try a drug because of social or intrapersonal factors, such as curiosity about the effects of a drug, or the fact that their friends are taking it. They will probably have certain expectancies about the effects of the drug from conversations with experienced users and/or because of media exposure.

Once a person has taken a drug, the drug experience creates cognitive expectancies which become another factor that influences subsequent drug-taking. A person may continue to take the drug to increase his psychological comfort or change his level of consciousness.

Low doses of amphetamine produce a number of subjective effects: feelings of euphoria; heightened alertness; increased energy and excitement; increased feelings of well-being, confidence and power; increased ability to concentrate and stay awake; increased sociability and friendliness; a feeling of being less bored or tired; hyperactivity, talkativeness, and a rapid flow of ideas; a suppression of sexual inhibitions; lack of desire for food; nervousness and anxiety.

With higher drug doses, there are other effects. These are much more likely to occur when the drug has been taken repeatedly rather than on a single occasion. The user may experience repetitive (stereotyped) thought patterns and show repetitive behaviours, e.g. continually take apart and re-assemble some object, or pick continually at their skin. They may show restlessness, irritability, and various types of anxiety condition, including panic states.

The person may develop suspiciousness, paranoia (delusions of persecution), and experience visual and auditory hallucinations. This is known as amphetamine psychosis, which resembles paranoid schizophrenia.

Amphetamine psychosis is usually seen with chronic use of drug, but can be seen after an acute administration. The incidence of amphetamine psychosis increases greatly when the user switches to intravenous drug administration.The psychosis is transitory and usually terminates after drug use is terminated. Long-term amphetamine use can sometimes lead to sudden and intense acts of aggression and violence.

The subjective effects of amphetamine and similar-acting substances are not fixed. The amphetamine-like stimulant methylphenidate (Ritalin) is, paradoxically, used to treat hyperactivity in children. Some adults report the drug exerting a calming effect, allowing them to cope better.

In well-controlled laboratory conditions, under conditions where neither subject nor experimenter knew whether drug or placebo was administered, a fixed dose of amphetamine produced either euphoria or anxiety in different subjects.

Once a person has tried amphetamine, they may use the drug on a recreational basis, even over an extended period of time. They may keep a strict adherence to a particular pattern of drug use so that the drug is only used on certain occasions (e.g. weekends). The user retains control over drug use and there may be no medical or social complications—however, there is the possibility of legal sanction. Of course, a person may try amphetamine once and never do so again.

However, the pattern of drug-taking may intensify and a number of changes may occur. For example, a person may switch from oral or intranasal use to intravenous use. Drug effects will intensify when such a change occurs.

In another pattern of use, the person initiates repeated ‘runs’, taking amphetamine for hours and sometimes days. They may snort new lines of drug whenever they feel the drug effects wearing off. This pattern of drug-taking is more evident with cocaine, which is a much shorter–acting drug.

In yet another pattern of use, they may chronically abuse amphetamine in combination with depressant drugs. They may drink large amounts of alcohol whilst under the influence of amphetamine.

Users may use depressant drugs (benzodiazepines, alcohol, opiates) to take ‘the edge off’ the stimulant, and help them feel less anxious. Research suggests that users who abuse stimulants and depressants experience more psychological and physical problems than those who only abuse stimulants.

Tolerance develops to many of the psychological and physical effects of amphetamine, e.g. euphoria, anorexia, hyperthermia and hypertension. This tolerance may develop within hours to days. However, there appears to be little tolerance to the anxiogenic effects of the drug. In fact, repeated use of amphetamine may sensitise individuals to amphetamine psychosis.

The effects of a single dose of amphetamine lasts 2 – 4 hours and generally leaves the user feeling tired after the drug’s primary effects are over. It may take as long as a couple of days to feel normal again. With chronic drug use, feelings of tiredness, lethargy and irritability become stronger and may have a more dramatic onset following the wearing off of drug effects.

The user may want to keep taking drug to avoid these feelings. Tolerance develops with regular use and higher doses will be required. Eventually, ‘what goes up must come down’. The ‘withdrawal’ effects are even stronger when a user has completed repeated ‘runs’ over a period of days. Amphetamine produces a withdrawal syndrome, which not only includes tiredness, but also anhedonia (an inability to feel pleasure), depression, anxiety, dysphoria, sleep disturbances, and a strong craving for drug.

The person may experience terrible mood swings as he oscillates between periods of drug-taking and withdrawal. He may experience periods of paranoia and anxiety when taking the drug, and periods of deep depression when not taking the drug. The impact of this on psychological well-being can be considerable.

> pdf document

Classic blog: ‘Talking About Psychosis, Part 1: Why Do It?’ by Marc Ragins MD

mraginsThe stuff on Mad in America just keeps getting better and better. Here’s a thought-provoking blog from another of my favourite bloggers.

‘I was taught in medical school and psychiatric residency not to talk to people about their voices and their delusions:  “It will only feed into them and make them worse.”  Nor was I supposed to argue with people with paranoia because they’ll just get agitated and won’t change their mind anyway.

We were taught that the psychoanalysts had wasted a lot of time trying to connect people with psychosis by trying to find meaning in their psychosis.  I was taught that there is no meaning.  All we needed to know about their psychosis was enough to prescribe medications and assess if the meds worked.

The venerable Chestnut Lodge where Frieda Fromm-Reichmann had treated the woman in “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden” with psychoanalysis was successfully sued for not providing research-proven meds instead of talking with patients with psychosis.

Beyond that, I was told not to try to relate to the patients in the State hospital because they couldn’t handle relationships and when I left they’d feel abandoned and decompensate.  Most of my medical school class mates were more than happy to follow that advice and left the ward as fast as possible. They already knew that “people with psychosis are creepy and frightening and frustrating anyhow” without having met any of them.

Read More ➔

Understanding Psychosis and Schizophrenia

understanding“An individual having unusual difficulties in coping with his environment struggles and kicks up the dust, as it were. I have used the figure of a fish caught on a hook: his gyrations must look peculiar to other fish that don’t understand the circumstances; but his splashes are not his affliction, they are his effort to get rid of his affliction and as every fisherman knows these efforts may succeed.” Karl Menninger

What would happen if a team of highly qualified psychologists joined up with a team of people who knew psychosis from the inside, from their own journey into madness and then recovery – and if they collaborated in writing a guide to understanding the difficult states that get names like “psychosis” and schizophrenia”?

Well, you don’t have to wonder anymore, because the result was published a couple of days ago in the form of a report (180 pages) that is free to download. This report is well worth reading. Here’s a summary:

‘Executive Summary
This report describes a psychological approach to experiences that are commonly thought of as psychosis, or sometimes schizophrenia. It complements parallel reports on the experiences commonly thought of as bipolar disorder and depression.

Read More ➔

‘CRAZYWISE – Extended Trailer’ from Phil Borges

A 20-year fascination with shamanism leads filmmaker Phil Borges to question Western culture’s definition and treatment of severe mental disorders.

CRAZYWISE, a feature length documentary, centers around a young man struggling with his sanity, world renowned mental health professionals and a survivor-led movement… all challenging a mental health system in crisis.

‘It Gets Better!’ by Bertel Rüdinger

brudinger‘A little more than 10 years ago, when I was 29 and 2 weeks away from turning 30, I was a patient in the psychiatric system here in Copenhagen. I am a pharmacist and I specialized in neurochemistry and psychotropics throughout my studies.

While I was working in the labs at The Royal Danish School of Pharmacy I was intent on getting a job as a medicinal chemist at Lundbeck – the Danish pharmaceutical company behind Celexa and Lexapro and in their own words the only company specializing solely in developing drugs for the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders.

At the university we were taught that psychiatric disorders were diseases just like diabetes and hypotension. We were told all the ‘truths’ that the psychiatrists now admit were myths about the so-called chemical imbalances in the brain and the clear genetic component of schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders.

Read More ➔

‘Talking About Psychosis, Part 1: Why Do It?’ by Marc Ragins MD

mraginsHere’s a thought-provoking blog one of my favourite bloggers on Mad in America which I first posted on Recovery Stories in July 2014.

‘I was taught in medical school and psychiatric residency not to talk to people about their voices and their delusions:  “It will only feed into them and make them worse.”  Nor was I supposed to argue with people with paranoia because they’ll just get agitated and won’t change their mind anyway.

We were taught that the psychoanalysts had wasted a lot of time trying to connect people with psychosis by trying to find meaning in their psychosis.  I was taught that there is no meaning.  All we needed to know about their psychosis was enough to prescribe medications and assess if the meds worked. The venerable Chestnut Lodge where Frieda Fromm-Reichmann had treated the woman in “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden” with psychoanalysis was successfully sued for not providing research-proven meds instead of talking with patients with psychosis.

Read More ➔

CRAZYWISE: Rethinking Madness – A Documentary Film

There’s a great film coming to our screens next year. CRAZYWISE, directed by Phil Borges and Kevin Tomlinson, is a feature documentary exploring alternative treatments for mental illness.

You can learn more about the film and support its production – PLEASE do – by going to the film’s Kickstarter page. I’m really excited by the film. Here’s what is written by Phil and Kevin:

‘About the Film:
CRAZYWISE centers around Adam, 29, a former wakeboard champion who struggles with his sanity following a psychotic break. Desperate and feeling shame from being labeled with a potential lifelong disease, Adam embraces meditation.

Read More ➔

‘Jaakko Seikkula Speaks on Finnish Open Dialogue, Social Networks, and Recovery from Psychosis’ by Daniel Mackler

Daniel Mackler interviews Jaakko Seikkula, PhD, a professor of psychotherapy at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland who is best known for his work with Finnish Open Dialogue.

He speaks about the value of engaging social networks in crisis situations, the development of the Finnish Open Dialogue approach, the idea that there is meaning behind psychosis, and some unexpected benefits in Western Lapland of including family members in therapy with people experiencing psychosis.

You  an read more abut this approach here.

‘Traditional Healing and Psychosis vs. the Promises of Modern Science’ by Jonathan Keyes

PdxJonMad in America just keeps getting better and better. I strongly recommend keeping an eye on this excellent website. Here’s a fascinating and important blog from Jonathan Keys.

‘As noted by Robert Whitaker in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic, the World Health Organization reported that the prognosis for someone experiencing psychosis is far better in developing countries than in industrialized countries

Mr. Whitaker and others posit that this is  due to the treatment models used in the developing world, as well as to debility and chronicity caused by psychiatric drugs themselves.  I think this is undoubtedly true.

A number of other reasons for the disparity in outcome have been suggested.  Some have put forward the idea that there has been a rush by consumers to apply for this disability money, leading to an increase in apparent chronicity.  While this is quite possible, I doubt that this alone explains the large gap in outcomes.

Other researchers have suggested that family and community support networks are often stronger in developing countries and that there is perhaps more tolerance and acceptance of people with psychotic tendencies.

Read More ➔