UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 18.2 Free with a free account
Central Nervous System Depressants and Stimulants, Effects and Clinical Concerns
Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 18: Substance-Related Disorders: Understanding Addiction and TreatmentSection 18.2 · lesson 67 of 9717 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Abnormal Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Abnormal Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Hallucinogens and Marijuana Use, Effects, Myths, and Realities →← Defining the Continuum from Substance Use to DependenceNext lesson: Hallucinogens and Marijuana Use, Effects, Myths, and Realities →
In this lesson
Classes, clinical concerns, and the most consequential differential in the chapter.
- Explain why substances are grouped by class, not legal status
- Describe the clinical concerns of depressants and stimulants
- Distinguish substance-induced from independent conditions
- Describe comorbidity, assessment, and the wider burden
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (2,245 words). Read along, or search it.
Substance-Related Disorders: Understanding Addiction and Treatment
Depressants and Stimulants
This section covers two major classes of substance, central nervous system depressants and stimulants, and the clinical concerns each raises. It also covers what may be the most consequential differential in this chapter. Is a presentation substance-induced, or is it an independent condition? We finish with comorbidity, assessment, the wider burden of these conditions, and two composite cases.
Before You Begin
Classes and Concerns Only
As before, this material is educational, and not a basis for diagnosing yourself or anyone else. If you are concerned about your own or another person's use, please speak with a qualified professional. These conditions are treatable, and recovery is a common outcome. This section describes pharmacological classes and clinical concerns only. It contains no quantities, no routes, and no description of intoxication as an experience. Substances are grouped here by pharmacological class, meaning what they do to the central nervous system, rather than by legal category. Legal status varies between places and over time, and it tracks the clinical picture poorly. Substances with very similar actions sit on opposite sides of the law. Class predicts what a clinician actually needs to anticipate. The mechanism, the pattern of adaptation, the medical risks, and whether withdrawal is dangerous.
Central Nervous System Depressants
Suppression - and 3 Facts That Follow
A central nervous system depressant is a substance whose primary action, is to suppress activity in the central nervous system. For much of the class, the mechanism is enhancement of inhibitory signalling, which dampens activity across many circuits. Opioids are grouped here on their depressant effects, though they act through a different receptor system. Because the whole class works by suppression, three general clinical facts follow. First, cognitive and motor function are impaired. Second, respiratory drive can be suppressed. That is the basis of the class's overdose danger. And one general fact matters for risk assessment. Combining substances increases danger. Third, the body adapts to sustained suppression. Abrupt removal then leaves an unopposed excitatory state, which is why withdrawal in parts of this class is medically dangerous.
Alcohol
Wide Use, Wide Harm - Including to Others
Alcohol is the most widely used substance in this class, and among the most consequential at population level. Its picture is described in categories. Cognitive impairment affects attention, judgment, and memory formation. Motor impairment affects coordination, reaction time, and balance, which is the basis of its role in injury and road traffic harm. Behavioral disinhibition, meaning reduced ordinary restraint on behavior, matters clinically because it is implicated in much of the harm, including harm to other people. Physical health consequences span the hepatic, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, and oncological systems, as well as nutritional status. Effects on other people are a distinguishing feature, not an afterthought. Harm to family members, to children in the household, and to people injured by others' use is a substantial share of the total burden. Relatives often need support in their own right, whether or not the person using is in any treatment. And alcohol withdrawal is potentially medically dangerous, and requires supervised care. That is the whole of what this course says about it.
Sedative Classes and Opioids
Genuine Therapeutic Roles, Real Liabilities
Several medication classes act on the same inhibitory system, and have genuine therapeutic roles, in anxiety, sleep difficulty, and some neurological conditions. Three points define their current status. They carry a dependence liability with continued use. Discontinuation is difficult, and is a medically supervised matter. And prescribing has shifted substantially, from extended use toward short, defined courses with review, because the dependence liability was not appreciated when these classes were introduced. It bears repeating that physiological dependence arising in appropriate prescribed treatment is not a substance use disorder. This class is where that error is most often made. Opioids act at the endogenous opioid system, on which the body's own pain-modulating signalling operates. Their role in pain management is genuine, and for some conditions has no adequate substitute. Their depressant effects include the respiratory suppression behind the overdose danger. And their dependence liability is substantial.
The Opioid Crisis
A Public Health Failure
The opioid crisis is described here as a public health failure. It is a history of policy and systems, not a fact about any one substance. Three components are usually identified. First, prescribing practice. For a period, the risk of dependence from prescribed treatment was understated. That was encouraged by promotional claims the evidence did not support, and by a well-intentioned effort to correct the genuine historical under-treatment of pain. Second, supply. Prescribing was later restricted without matching provision of treatment, while an unregulated supply circulated, and became progressively less predictable. Third, treatment access. Effective, well-evidenced treatment for opioid use disorder exists, and reached only a fraction of those who needed it. That component is the most directly attributable to policy choice. The clinical dilemma inside this is genuine. Pain is real, and under-treated pain causes serious harm, including its own mortality. Restricting treatment to reduce dependence risk shifts harm onto people in pain, many of whom are not at risk. Failing to restrict shifts harm the other way. No position avoids both. Treating the crisis as a failure of individuals rather than systems reproduces the moral model, and predicts the responses that made it worse.
Central Nervous System Stimulants
Arousal, Cardiovascular Risk, and the Crash
A central nervous system stimulant is a substance whose primary action, is to increase activity in the central nervous system. Across the class, the mechanism involves the dopamine and norepinephrine systems, raising the availability or action of these transmitters at the synapse. Because dopamine is central to reward circuitry, this class relates directly to the reinforcement that maintains use. For cocaine and amphetamine-type stimulants, cardiovascular risk is the principal acute medical concern, including in people with no known heart condition. Neurological risk, including cerebrovascular events, sits alongside it. The use-and-crash cycle is a clinical pattern. A period of use is followed by markedly low mood, fatigue, and increased sleep, which itself drives further use. The low phase is often when a person presents, and it can closely resemble a depressive episode. And stimulant-induced psychosis is a psychotic presentation arising in the context of stimulant use. It can closely resemble a primary psychotic condition, and telling them apart changes both management and prognosis.
Prescribed, Legal, and Everyday
Clinical Significance Doesn't Track Legality
Three further classes make an important point. Prescription stimulant classes have a substantial evidence base in attention-related conditions. Their use without a prescription, to improve performance or extend working hours, is a recognized phenomenon. But the belief that it improves performance is not well supported. In people without the relevant condition, there is little reliable improvement in the abilities complex work needs. And subjective confidence rises more than performance does. Nicotine has a high dependence liability, with respiratory, cardiovascular, and oncological harm. It accounts for the largest total mortality of any substance class, and is often left out of discussions like this one because it is legal. And caffeine is included for a conceptual reason. Both caffeine intoxication and caffeine withdrawal are recognized clinical categories. So a legal, widely used, socially unremarkable substance can produce presentations that meet clinical criteria. Clinical significance does not track legal status, or social disapproval.
Table 18.2.1
Organized by Mechanism, Not Legality
Here are the classes side by side, organized by mechanism, not legality. Depressants in general carry overdose danger through respiratory suppression, and withdrawal that is medically dangerous in parts of the class. Alcohol adds broad organ-system harm, and substantial harm to other people. The sedative and anxiolytic classes carry dependence liability and difficult discontinuation. Opioids carry substantial dependence liability, overdose danger, and the pain-treatment dilemma. Stimulants carry cardiovascular and neurological risk, induced psychosis, and the use-and-crash cycle. And notice the two classes at the bottom. Both are legally available, and one of them carries the largest population-level burden of all.
The Key Differential
Substance-Induced or Independent?
Now the most consequential differential in the chapter. A presentation that arises only during intoxication or withdrawal, and resolves with sustained abstinence, is substance-induced. A presentation that predates use, or persists through a period of abstinence, is independent. The distinction changes treatment entirely, and both errors are common. Treat a substance-induced depressive or psychotic presentation as independent, and you add medication for something that would resolve on its own, while the real driver goes untouched. Treat an independent condition as substance-induced, and it is left untreated, in the expectation that abstinence will resolve it. It will not.
Figure 18.2.2
The Determination Pathway
Here is the determination pathway. Start with onset timing. Did the presentation begin before substance use? If yes, it is an independent condition. If not, ask the second question. Does it persist through a period of observed abstinence? If it persists, it is independent. If it resolves, it is substance-induced. Notice that both decisive pieces of information are historical and observational. When did it begin, and does it survive abstinence? No test can supply either one.
In Practice
Hard to Settle - Especially in Emergencies
The practical difficulty is real. Histories are often unclear, especially where use began in adolescence and the condition emerged in the same period. Recall is affected by current state. And a person may be reluctant to disclose use accurately. The practical resolution is a period of observed abstinence, meaning a defined interval without use, during which the presentation is monitored. It is imperfect. It takes time, it needs engagement, and abstinence is not always achievable. Emergency settings are where this is hardest. The determination usually cannot be made at first contact. What you can do is recognize that it is open, and record what will settle it later. Immediate management follows the presentation and the medical risk, not the eventual label. Medical assessment comes first, because several presentations that look psychiatric in this context are medical. Collateral information about the timeline, with consent where possible, is often the only route to the onset question. And follow-up should be arranged to allow observed abstinence. Record the question explicitly as unresolved. A provisional diagnosis recorded as definite tends to survive unexamined.
Table 18.2.3
Co-Occurrence Shows Association, Not Direction
Substance use disorders often co-occur with other conditions, and every pairing has several competing explanations. Co-occurrence shows association, not direction. With anxiety conditions, the association runs both ways. Use may manage anxiety, and use and withdrawal may worsen it. Treating either alone often fails, because each maintains the other. With depressive conditions, the substance-induced question has to be settled before concluding an independent condition. Where both are present, both are treated. With psychotic conditions, the causal question is genuinely unresolved, and observed abstinence is central to the determination. With trauma-related conditions, trauma-focused work needs stability, and sequencing is a genuine clinical judgment made with the person. The self-medication hypothesis proposes that people use substances to relieve the symptoms of an underlying condition. It is partly supported. Many people report using to manage distress. But it does not explain the many people with the same conditions who do not use. Matching specific substances to specific symptoms is weakly supported. And in many cases, use clearly came first. It is best treated as one pathway among several, not a general account.
Assessment and Burden
Most of the Burden Is Beyond the Individual
A few points on assessment. Stigma affects disclosure directly. People under-report to clinicians they expect to judge them, especially where employment, parenting, immigration, or legal consequences might follow. Clarity about confidentiality improves accuracy. Collateral information, with consent, is often the only route to an accurate timeline. And medical assessment is required in its own right. Finally, look at where the burden of these conditions actually falls. The individual health burden falls on the person. But harm to others falls on families, households, and third parties. Population mortality, and the treatment gap between those who need care and those who get it, operate at the level of whole populations and systems. And the effects of criminalization fall on people and communities, a live policy debate. Only the first of these concerns the individual. So individual treatment alone cannot address the burden. Most of it operates at levels only policy reaches.
Case Vignette 1 (Composite)
Rafael: A Presentation That Resolves
Now two composite cases, constructed for instruction. Rafael is twenty-six. He presents with low mood, marked fatigue, loss of interest, and disturbed sleep, for around four months. He has missed work repeatedly, and withdrawn from friends. The picture fits a depressive episode. But he also reports stimulant use over the same period, and the crash phase of that pattern closely resembles depression. The timeline question came first. On careful history, and with his sister's account, given with his consent, the low mood was not present before use began. An observed abstinence period was arranged, with support. Over that interval, his mood, sleep, energy, and interest returned to baseline, without any specific treatment for mood. So this presentation is substance-induced. Treatment is directed at the substance use disorder. Otherwise, an antidepressant class would have been prescribed for a condition that was going to remit anyway. The real driver would go unaddressed, and the recovery would be credited to the medication.
Case Vignette 2 (Composite)
Joanne: A Presentation That Persists
Joanne is thirty-four. She presents with persistent anxiety, with prominent physical symptoms. She describes anxiety since her mid-teens, well before any substance use, and her mother had an anxiety condition. Her use began in her twenties, and she says it reduces the anxiety in the short term. The timeline settles the onset question directly. The anxiety predates use by years, which puts this on the independent branch. Observed abstinence confirmed it. The anxiety persisted, and by her account worsened, consistent with the substance having suppressed it. Both conditions need treatment. The anxiety will not resolve with abstinence, and treating only the substance use removes what she has used to manage it. And the substance use disorder will not resolve by treating the anxiety alone, because it now has its own maintaining processes. Her history fits the self-medication account. But that account describes one pathway, not everyone. Where a condition predates use and persists through abstinence, both are treated together, not in sequence.
About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Central Nervous System Depressants and Stimulants, Effects and Clinical Concerns
What is the difference between CNS depressants and stimulants?
Why can withdrawal from alcohol or sedatives be dangerous?
How do clinicians tell substance-induced depression from independent depression?
What is the self-medication hypothesis?
About the Abnormal Psychology course
How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.
97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →