The purpose of this study is to look at the reality of nonmedical use of prescription stimulants. One of the main reasons why youth use nonmedical prescription stimulants is because of the thought of improved academic achievement commonly cited as a benefit. This literature focuses on the effects of stimulants on cognitive enhancements rather than academic performance. There is little evidence that any cognitive gains in nonmedical prescription stimulant users translate into improved grades or degree attainment. However, adolescent nonmedical prescription stimulant use has been associated with poor outcomes such as substance use, risky behaviors, and mental illness in late adolescence and young adulthood. Fewer studies have examined long-term outcomes going into adulthood. The study didn’t go in detail about the search parameters when gathering articles. However, the article is from the Journal, which is an educational magazine. This investigation found that nearly all adolescents who engaged in nonmedical use used at least 1 other substance from 17 to 18 years old. The sample of the studies included 8500 individuals. 65% of adolescent nonmedical prescription stimulant users have concurrently used other substances at the same time of stimulant use. 50% of the 60% reported using alcohol or marijuana. Co-use can result in addictive use, including consequences related to risky behavior, it may reinforce substance use behavior, and increased addictive potential. Furthermore, 40% of those engage in nonmedical prescription use as adolescents shoed at least two symptoms of substance use disorder (SUD) as adults and were 4 times more likely to have SUD symptoms. This study can be applied to reassure parents whose children suffer from ADHD. Because the study only found harmful effects for adolescents with nonmedical prescription stimulants, this study allows prescribers to provide evidence to families of the long-term benefit of treating children with ADHD with stimulants. This study also highlights the importance of prevention and treatment efforts in adolescents who might transition into using nonmedical prescription stimulants. The authors message is to highlight the dangers of nonmedical prescription stimulant use in adolescents. Despite the fact that nonmedical prescription stimulants have been cited to help boost grades, more studies have concluded the harmful effects of these stimulants. The purpose of this study is to examine how early exposure and usage of cannabis in adolescents can potentially lead to adult sequelae. The study examined four neuropsychiatric outcomes that are likely to be affected during development by cannabinoid use. The four areas in which the study focused on are: cognition, emotional functioning, risk for psychosis, and addiction. The long-lasting effects of impairments is in dispute. Although one major longitudinal study found that cognitive function is never fully restored in early-onset users, the study has been criticized for failing to control for socioeconomic status and personality traits. Other studies do suggest that some or all deficits can remit after years of cessation, with a longer period of not using, predicting more improvement. When it comes to emotional functioning, studies have found that there is a link between cannabis use, age of onset, frequency of use, and an increased risk of negative emotional outcomes in adulthood. It is apparent that adolescent cannabis use is associated with an increased prevalence of psychosis in early exposed individuals and can lead to addiction. When conducting the search for articles, the authors used PubMed, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar with no publication date restrictions. The search terms used were “adolescent” and “adult,” and either “cannabis,” “marijuana,” or “cannabinoid.” These terms were further filtered and was then crossed with one or more of the following terms: “deficit,” “impairment,” “development,” “long-term” or “maturation.” Unlike individuals who first begin to consume cannabis in adulthood, adults who began as adolescents (<15-16) frequently present with impairments in attention, memory, and visual processing, as well as a decreased overall IQ. However, this can easily be reversed if the individual stops in adulthood. Both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have repeatedly found a significant link between early cannabis exposure and a greater likelihood of developing a substance use disorder. After studying all the articles, the author came to the conclusion that there is a strong association that is found between early, frequent, and heavy adolescent cannabis exposure and poor cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in adulthood, yet significant research cannot be found as to whether cannabis use alone has negative impact on the adolescent brain. This study investigates the predictors and outcomes associated with marijuana beginning from grade 7 to grade 10. This study aimed to examine differences between nonusers and marijuana users, as well as between earlier and later initiates, in terms of delinquent behavior, grades, academic behavior and hard drug usage at grade 10. The second aim was to identify risk factors for marijuana use beginning at grade 7. One of the main points in this study is to see how early usage of drugs and alcohol can influence a student in their academics and behavior. The authors focused on how usage in grade 7 can lead to usage of harder drugs. In accordance to this, the authors also followed how usage in later grades can lead to use of harder drugs and poor academics. The authors anticipated that adolescents who were already using cigarettes and alcohol, were around marijuana, and performing poorly in school would be more likely to begin marijuana use during the next years. The participants were gathered from Project ALERT, a drug prevention program for middle-school students. The 30 control and treatment schools were drawn from 8 California and Oregon school districts. 9 out of the 30 schools had a minority population of 50% or more. The districts were a combination of urban, suburban, and rural communities. In total, there were 1,966 control participants at the baseline. Of the baseline sample, 33.7% is classified as a minority (African American: 11.2%; Hispanic: 11.6%; Asian: 6.7%; Other: 4.2%) and 48.2% is female. The participants were all in 7th grade when the study began and were tracked all the way to grade 10. Some of the key terms used in the methods section were Baseline, Cross-sectional, Adolescent, and marijuana. The baseline is the starting point of the study, which in this case is grade 7, and its used to make comparisons to other results. Cross-sectional is used to compare results from students who started marijuana in grade 7 to their academics and behavior. The study examined adolescents and marijuana use, which relates to my research question. Longitudinal data were used to examine predictors and outcomes associated with marijuana initiation from grade 7 to grade 10. Participants were given surveys at the baseline (grade 7) and 3, 12, 15, 24, and 36 months later. These surveys assessed problem behaviors, social influences, and marijuana-related attitudes and behavior. To encourage truthful responses, a saliva sample was collected from students immediately before the survey administration. The results do support the authors hypothesis. Earlier initiates were more likely than later initiates to exhibit problem-related marijuana use, hard drug use, polydrug use, poor grades, and low academic intentions at grade 10. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of both motives to use and abstain from marijuana use in adolescence. They also looked at marijuana-related problems across the periods of early adolescence through emerging adulthood. The study aimed to explore whether motives to use and abstain during adolescents will predict later marijuana use and related problems. As nonprescription drug use has grown in popularity for use in youth, investigating the motives to abstain and motives to use across adolescent development helps to point out decision making in youth. Results of this study could potentially be applied for designing motivational-based interventions for adolescents. There was no hypothesis. In the original study from 1979-1981, participants were identified through random dial telephone surveys based on population density in New Jersey. The study reached 95% of all households. A quota sampling procedure was used to identify youth based on sex and age for the cohort design. This study focuses on the 475 adolescents who were age 12 (wave 1) and followed at ages 15 (wave 2), 18 (wave 3) and 25 (wave 4). Of the 475 participants, 91% was re-interviewed at wave 4. To be eligible for the study, participants must be born between 1967 and 1969, be fluent in English, have no diagnosed mental impairment or serious physical impairments, and not living in a rehabilitative facility, including alcohol and drug treatment facilities. Some key terms used in the method section were adolescents, marijuana use and related problems. Adolescents were defined as participants ranging from 12 to 18. Marijuana use was defined as how frequent and the quantity of marijuana the participants used throughout their adolescence. As for related problems, this was defined as the outcomes from early marijuana use in adolescence. This was measured in the sense of academic achievement, drug problems in adulthood and IQ. This study used a prospective longitudinal design to examine the development, predictors, and consequences of substance abuse from adolescence into adulthood. At each assessment period, participants were given standardized self-report questionnaires on their substance use and other behaviors since the last assessment. Participants were asked to report on their marijuana frequency and the typical quantity of marijuana they used. Early marijuana use has been associated with low academic intentions, poor executive functioning, reduced verbal IQ, future abuse of Opioids, and difficulties transitioning into adult social roles. There were 18 items assessed during the questionnaires that were consequences due to marijuana use. Examples include feeling dependent on marijuana, increased tolerance, neglecting work or home duties, and increased tension in social relationships. With recent state laws making marijuana use legal in certain states in the U.S., data-driven prevention and intervention programming for adolescent marijuana use is important. Given the findings, having reasons to abstain or use marijuana is important to know in order to understand the decision making in adolescence. Many decision-making in adolescence can provide markers for prevention and intervention for future programs.