Lindsay Lohan Leaves Jail, Enters Rehab

At 1:35 am this morning, Lindsay Lohan was released from jail, ushered into a van, and en route to rehab. She served 13 days of her 90 day sentence, getting out early due to overcrowding.

TMZ reports Lindsay will be at the Morningside Recovery Center at UCLA, in a unit that has "an intense specialized program to deal with psychological, as well as addiction problems."

Reports she favors Meth and is bi-polar are fabrications. As TMZ says,she takes prescription Adderall.

Adderall, which is an amphetamine. Experts in the field of rehab and addiction tell TMZ there is a difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. We're told it would not be common for a rehab facility to consider Adderall and methamphetamine the same drug.

< Sunday Open Thread | Court Day For Charlie Sheen >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What is missing from the equation is, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    why is Lohan taking Adderall?  Does she have ADD or ADHD?  Has she been tested, and if so, how recently?  

    If she does have ADD or ADHD, amphetamines do not work on her brain the way they would on the rest of us, and the drug isn't one she would likely be abusing.  

    I would hate to think this is a case of her being prescribed the drug as a child, to help her "focus" and maintain stamina during movie productions, and now, as an adult, she is unable to function without it, but the thought has occurred to me.  The people I have known who have ADD or ADHD tend to go off medication whenever they can, because they feel like it cancels out much of their creativity - they can focus better, but they feel somewhat stifled.

    I have a feeling Lohan's brain and body chemistry are seriously out of whack, and she needs to get clean in order to (1) figure out if she has any medicatable conditions, and (2) face the reality of who she really is and then figure out how to deal with that.

    I hope she gets real help, and not just celebrity rehab, which doesn't seem to be particularly effective.

    True (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    Growing up I had a friend who would fall asleep whenever he took street speed but weed seemed to have no mellowing affect on.  I never knew how miserable he was overall in the world though until he was diagnosed ADD as an adult and began to be treated.

    Yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    Because ADD is a chemical problem in the brain, speed (and caffeine!) actually help those afflicted to calm down and focus.  And like schizophrenics who don't want to take their medicine because they feel better when they do (and then think they don't need their meds), many times will stop taking it and can mess themselves up even further.  People withh ADD tend to be bright and have addictive personalities (basically, many learn to self-medicate in other ways until they can get the treatment they need or get their ADD under control).

    My ADD sister is 35 years old and we have to have her husband watch her take medication to make sure she does it.


    The paradoxical effect (none / 0) (#28)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    of stimulants on ADHD is most likely due to underactive brains. That is, what keeps most of us under control is active inhibitory circuits in the frontal lobes. We are all naturally impulsive. It isn't that those with ADHD are more impulsive. It is just that their frontal lobes are not active and fast enough to block the impulses and keep them under control. Amphetamines energize and stimulate the frontal lobes making them work correctly, thus the person "calms down". The impulsivity in a person with ADHD is not the same as the impulsivity in a stimulated normal person. It is less focused and more random and out of control. A normal stimulated person is like an engine revved high, where an unstimulated ADHD person is like an engine with no muffler. They both make a lot of noise, but it is a different kind.

    I am curious as to (none / 0) (#1)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:01:26 AM EST
    what these experts have to say about the difference between methamphetamine and amphetamine. I would think the major difference is purely one of the usual context of marketing and use, not a difference in effects. One may be more or less potent per unit weight, but the effects are essentially the same. Not only are the effects of all the amphetamine analogs (plain amphetamine, meth, dextro, etc.) very similar, but very similar to some other drugs that are not amphetamines [e.g. phenmetrazine (Preludin) and methylphenidate (Ritalin)]. Of course all of these may have minor differences in the onset and duration of effects, and physiological side effects. I think the psychoactive properties of all are very, very similar, though.

    The most important difference is that Adderral is going to typically be prescribed and come in pharmaceutical form, whereas methamphetamine is typically going to be illicitly manufactured and marketed and come in unknown varied forms, usually a powder or crystals (it was once called crystal meth).

    Referring to her amphetamine use as methamphetamine use is not far off from a pharmaceutical viewpoint, but worlds apart from a legal or social perspective. It does seem to be an embellishment for purposes of how it would be viewed legally, socially, and by the drug warriors. It also would be important in rehab because it would tell something about the cultural context of the person's use, and their likely peer group and propensity for criminal activity. That is, methamphetamine users almost have to be involved in serious criminal activity by virtue of even using the stuff, and they may very likely inject the stuff IV. The usual culture surrounding meth use and distribution is very violent, crime laden, and just plain frightening. On the other hand, Adderall may be prescribed and used without any illegal activity. Ultimately, though, the user controls dose and thus both could have essentially the same pharmaceutical experience and dependence.

    Prescription Drug (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Methamphetamine is also a prescription drug, just like Ritalin, Dexedrine, Adderal, etc...

    Yes, that is (none / 0) (#25)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:50:05 PM EST
    true, such as Desoxyn. It is just not widely prescribed anymore because it was abused so much. Desoxyn was soaked in water and injected. They probably did something to prevent that eventually, but it is still seen as having high abuse potential.

    Having come of age in the Meth capital of (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rojas on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    North Texas, I wonder where you get this metric from.
    That is, methamphetamine users almost have to be involved in serious criminal activity by virtue of even using the stuff, and they may very likely inject the stuff IV. The usual culture surrounding meth use and distribution is very violent, crime laden, and just plain frightening.

    While I never had any experience with the upper (pun) echelon in the distribution network I knew plenty of lower level ones. Most simply did it to support their addiction. And some, if they did not distribute became petty thieves. Of the total group of users I'd guess about five percent fell in the previous two categories from my experience.

    Yes, Rojas (none / 0) (#3)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:49:21 AM EST
    I think we have talked about this before, and I should qualify my statements as opinion. I certainly respect yours. From what you have said about yourself, we have some things in common and we are from the same area. It is odd we see such different patterns. My opinions are based in some rather extensive observations in my younger years that were not limited to any particular group that would have been expected to be closed or uniquely different from the larger population. Then, what I observed is also usually echoed in law enforcement and other expert opinions about it.

    I am actually surprised that you report such widespread familiarity with this particularly easy-going and trouble-free bunch of meth users.  While I will not deny that there must be some like that, I still think there is something to the general claim that this stuff and the people who deal in it and use it regularly are usually quite troubled and can be dangerous.

    As I have said before, I believe the only "solution" to the "drug problem" is across the board legalization. I think it is not only the most practical thing to do, but it is also the only moral thing to do. From a practical point of view, legalization will immediately disempower the criminal organizations which profit from inflated prices due to contraband laws. It will make drugs into something like alcohol, which, while still a public health problem, does not create the social problems and crime problems that drugs do, namely because it isn't illegal. Those who are addicted to it can obtain it at a reasonable price, and they do not have steal, or visit violence upon others to avoid arrest or detection.

    Second, people have a moral right to access any substance they want, unless it can be directly used to bring violent harm to others (like explosives). Making some things illegal to consume is a real odd result in our society, and it is a real problem. There just isn't much logical or ethical support for that idea, although it has been present in American law and politics for a hundred years. Because of its longevity, it has simply been made "the norm" because nobody is old enough to remember that it wasn't always this way, and the world didn't end when there were no such laws.

    These laws and the sentiments behind them are a product of the temperance mentality and the symbiotic relationship between that movement and racism and class politics at a particularly unique juncture in history. It got helped along by the medical profession, who had a direct interest in controlling what people could obtain to make themselves feel better, and creating the current situation where the only option for those who do not feel good is to purchase the highly overpriced (and largely unaffordable) services of physicians. In most cases, they don't feel any better afterwards. The physicians may have some scientific rationalization about their biochemistry, but that doesn't help them with their lives. Who it does help is the profession of medicine in general, who have a large population of people with nowhere else to go for help on whom to test their theories and learn what can be sold to the ruling class in the future. People have a right to choose whatever they want for health or medical purposes to make them feel better. If it kills them a little quicker, that is their choice. If the physicians don't like their biochemistry, then too bad. The physicians can throw away their records and worry about the biochemistry of those who want their services. The iatrogenic poverty associated with scientific medicine causes more deaths from stress now than they prevent with their partially effective interventions. The government has no business in that decision.

    Amphetamine-like drugs are the only reservation I have about my belief, because of the peculiar effects and the potential for creating violence as a result of paranoia. I think it is important to also take into account that it is not a natural product, but I still don't know if natural products should be the only things legalized. But my reservations about it are not strong enough to change my mind about legalization. I just think there needs to be a bright red warning label on that stuff that tells people that it might make them think that a stranger walking down the road is trying to kill them, and they may react in ways that they will regret.


    As to why all drugs aren't legal... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Yes2Truth on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 09:25:02 AM EST

    have you given any thought to the reasons?

    IMO, as long as intelligence services derive benefits from illegal drugs -- benefits that they
    "need"/want, legalization will be impossible to achieve.

    Intelligence services aside, there are simply too  many special interests whose very livelihood would be threatened.

    Sadly, we're just "too far gone" to ever turn back.

    P.S.  Can you name some of the special interests that profit from our wars on srug users?


    Several. (none / 0) (#8)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    The pharmaceutical industry relies on it. The most effective drugs are illegal (and also too old to be patented).

    The law enforcement machine that enforces drug laws. They depend heavily on the bizarre amount of funding they get.

    The medical profession. Their livelihood depends on people paying huge amounts of money to feel better -- a problem people used to handle in a different way.

    All the contractors, subcontractors, and vendors who supply these interests.

    And, most importantly, organized crime. They are kept alive, powerful and dangerous by the inflated prices people pay for illegal substances that are actually very inexpensive to produce and not worth more than most produce found in stores.


    Agreed - but you've left out some big ones (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yes2Truth on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:18:43 AM EST

    Intelligence services
    Prison industrial complex
    others, some of which are best left unmentioned                      

    I would have left (none / 0) (#26)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    intelligence services unmentioned as I want to delay my disappearance, conviction, or destruction by other means as long as possible. It probably won't help. But yes, they are notorious for using it as currency in their world affairs. Prisons industry falls under law enforcement. I would be interested in hearing about others. No real need to hide. They know who we are and have cookies on our computers.

    I think that Doctors consider (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:53:50 AM EST
    Meth and Amphetamine to be roughly equivalent at the same potency. The difference, IIRC, is that street meth is often much stronger in practice.

    If by (none / 0) (#6)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    "stronger in practice" you mean it is used in higher doses, then yes. But "strongness" is not a good metaphor for drugs. If by "strongness" you mean the physical weight of the substance required to produce a given psychoactive effect, there are several things that effect that that have nothing to do with the drug itself. One thing does. For substances that render their effect by attaching to neural receptor sites, it is the number of molecules which constitutes the dose. Some drugs have molecules that weigh more than others, so larger weights are required to have the equivalent effect of smaller amounts of another substance that attaches to the same receptor sites but weighs less. But that variation is small compared to packaging. As I said, dose is controlled by the user, and simply reflects how much they take. For most drugs, the effective dose is invisible, and so is ten times the effective dose. It is so small that the only way to handle it and measure it on a human scale is to dissolve it in something big enough to see. The concentration of the drug in whatever filler substance it is embedded in varies. So the actual amount of the preparation which is consumed varies widely and depends for the most part on how much of the drug is embedded in how much filler. It is hard to compare different preparations like powder sold on the street to pills from a pharmaceutical manufacturer. People can take as many pills as they want, and as much powder as they want. What is the "normal" amount is established by convention alone. For instance, if you take two Tylenol tablets, there is some amount of Tylenol liquid that would give you the equivalent dose. It hard to say which is "stronger", unless you decide in advance how many pills a given amount of liquid should be equal to. The point is that "strength" is not a property of drugs so much as a property of their packaging, and you have to have some arbitrary standard of what is the amount of the packaging material to be taken to determine "strongness". When I pour 1 ounce of liquor into 8 ounces of mixer, it is less "strong" but I am not changing the dose of the alcohol I consume. The point is that I don't know how to compare the "strongness" of Adderall and street meth. It is like comparing the strongness of a shot of Vodka and a martini. How many pills are supposed to equal how much powder? If it is weight alone, then you may be right. But our Tylenol example shows that it really isn't weight. It is conventional agreed upon volumes or pill counts that people base "strongness" on. And this has turned out to be a very serious problem in drug enforcement, because my understanding is that the law doesn't consider "strongness" of any substance for purposes of penalties. It is weight alone that is used. That means that if alcohol were an illegal drug, a quart of Jack Daniels and a quart of near-beer would draw the same sentence.

    I mean dosage in milligrams (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    Of course, it may well be true that meth is "stronger" per mg than Amph, but that is much harder to quantify.

    Then you are (none / 0) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    saying weight of the pure substance. I don't know, but meth may be slightly "stronger" in that sense, meaning less is required for a given effect. But nobody is ever aware of or actually sees or feels the weight of the pure substance. It is too small, regardless of whether it is amphetamine or methamphetamine. The packaging still overcomes those differences by a long shot. It depends on how much is in the powder or pill, which can easily vary across a range that is many times greater than the difference associated with equal weights of the pure substance.

    Meth's effects (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    are more potent because meth, unlike amphetamines, contains a methyl group.  This means meth can enter the brain quicker than amphetamines can.  I'm not sure what other chemical differences exist.

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:14:21 PM EST
    It is also a prescription drug used for ADD and weight loss, just like the other amphetamines.

    True (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    however it is not prescribed very frequently, unlike Adderall and Ritalin.

    So far as I can tell (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    that's mostly related to the fact that it' EVIL, and not because it's substantially different from the others.

    The warnings are the same.


    Yes, it is one of (none / 0) (#27)
    by JamesTX on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 05:02:56 PM EST
    most simple variants on amphetamine -- simply methylating the amino group. That makes it a little more lipophylic by reducing the polarity of the amino group, and thus better able to cross the blood brain barrier. But as I have said, the differences in effect due to the substance is small compared to the differences in effect due to dosage and concentration of preparations.

    To my knowledge (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    There is considerable difference between Meth & amphetamines. Simply put, amphetamines tend to be "pure" in that they are pharmaceutically produced, and the effect on the user are predictable. Meth, made in basement street labs, can have unpredictable & dangerous outcomes. Also, I don't know of anyone taking amphetamines having their teeth rot out.

    p.s. Not disputing any of the points stated above.

    Get well soon (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    Not Lohan (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    But April Benz...  IOW she is depicting a character in Rodriquez's Machete. Looks like a great film...  Opens Sept 3...

    I have (none / 0) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    been waiting for this since Grindhouse.

    Yes, Me Too (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    Tarantino's double billing of his own Death Proof and Rodriguez's Grindhouse was a tour de force, imo. I would even call it radical cinema.

    Reinventing the double feature as a complete work...


    Correction (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:37:36 PM EST
    Grindhouse was the title for both films, Rodriguez's portion was Planet Terror..

    The film's title derives from the U.S. film industry term "grindhouse", which refers to (now no longer existent) movie theaters specializing in B movies, often exploitation films, shown in a multiple-feature format.