ren’t worth enough to persuade the volunteers to give up the opportunity for methamphetamine at either dose.Another result that was reflected in the data was that the caloric intake of participants on methamphetamine was reduced by an average of 1415 kcal daily, compared to those with the placebo. Also, it is interesting to note that methamphetamine barely affected psychomotor performance. This might have been because this testing took place two hours after the drug administration. It is possible that the psychomotor effect of methamphetamine is begun after a longer period of time.In contrast with that evidence, other studies have data that indicated improved performance following methamphetamine. This article clearly indicates that methamphetamine has significant reinforcing effects well characterized in laboratory animals, and that the reinforcing effects of d-amphetamine (Foltin and Evans 1993) has been well documented and established in human volunteers. The recent research discussed goes on to indicate that subjective effects produced by methamphetamine may not sufficiently predict actual methamphetamine-taking behavior. It therefore serves to remind researchers that it is very important to directly appraise drug-taking behavior when determining a drug’s abuse potential. It cannot be determined by a simple formulaic prediction because the data does not show a direct correlation between subjective results and drug-taking behavior.In conclusion, this data indicates that while MA is an effective positive reinforcer for human subjects, there is no direct correlation between the subjects’ subjective result from the drug and drug-taking behavior....
