(B)Adderall?
By Owen Jennings, Contributing Columnist
Published on Thursday, May 6, 2010
Most students are at Dartmouth to learn. And most of us want this “learning” to be represented — at the end of 10 weeks — by the letter “A.” Whether it’s for personal satisfaction, parental appeasement, graduate school acceptance or a springboard into the glorified casino known as Wall Street, grades are important to most of us. “Success” is important to most of us. And as a result of this competitive spirit, for the past three years I have listened to Dartmouth students carp and cavil over their fellow students’ (ab)use of the prescription drug Adderall. They claim the ADHD medication is now perverting a once-healthy competitive atmosphere.
Taking a psychostimulant like Adderall — which students often do without a prescription (“Some students turn to medicine as study aid,” April 23) — translates into more time (and more productive time) spent studying. The obvious analogy often conjured up by Adderall naysayers is that of steroid use in baseball: individuals who gain an unfair advantage through the use of a specific substance should not be tolerated. And so the argument goes: if a student cannot adequately focus — if he or she does not have the attention span to be at a school like Dartmouth — then maybe he or she should be somewhere else. Maybe the arduousness of Ivy League academia is not the right place for these folks, in the same way that Yankee Stadium is not the right place for those with pencil-thin biceps.
Well, I disagree.
This popular disdain for Adderall hinges on a notion of academic parity, which is simply false. Hostility towards Adderall implicitly claims that any sort of personal advantage is inherently unfair and should not be allowed. But this doesn’t make any sense. Let’s think about how each of us got to a school like Dartmouth. Some of us went to private schools. Is this unfair? Should we all go to the exact same high school and study the exact same curricula? In addition, most of us have had a tutor at one point or another. Is seeing a tutor academically dishonest?
Granted, Adderall’s effect is much more direct than that of these previous examples. But what about caffeine? Should students not be allowed to drink six cups of coffee to stay awake and study? What about sleeping aids? Do I gain an unfair advantage in the classroom if I take Ambien to sleep better the night before an exam?
The fact of the matter is that there are countless inequities and inconsistencies in our lives: socially, athletically and yes, academically. No college will ever be entirely “fair.” In fact, I challenge those who oppose Adderall to define the word “fair,” for it is a matter of ontology that we are all different: all good and bad, fast and slow, at different things. There is nothing wrong with these differences. But there is also nothing wrong with minor enhancements, so long as the risks involved do not outweigh the advantages. So, if you’re short, stand on a stool (à la Mr. Sarkozy); if you want to run a marathon, drink some electrolytes; and, yes, if you need to focus, take some Adderall.
At this point, Adderall opponents tend to offer up some sort of slippery-slope argument: What if everyone started taking Adderall? As a society, do we really want to condone the constant manipulation and transformation of our biochemistry?
But we have already reached that point. How is taking Adderall any different from taking Advil? How is it any different from getting a boob job or LASIK eye surgery? If Adderall has to go, so too does almost everything in CVS — painkillers, makeup, weight-loss pills, antidepressants — both on the shelves and behind the counter. We already rework, revise and refine that which is “natural.” I would much prefer a slippery slope that encourages us to enhance our abilities to a backward-looking, stagnant plateau in which medical innovation and artificial augmentation are taboo because they are viewed as too “unfair.”
The only real concern left with Adderall is its potential health risks. And I can’t imagine Adderall being any worse for you than cigarettes or alcohol. Maybe, then, the outrage over Adderall doesn’t stem from its use, but from its limited availability. Maybe medical researchers need to get a firm enough grip on potential adverse reactions to Adderall so that when those who seek an increased attention span (i.e. pilots, soldiers and, yes, students) go buy some Adderall, it will be both regulated and legal.
A very important point that the author of this article lends a passing glance to is that Adderral is a PRESCRIPTION drug; meaning that one must be prescribed Adderral by a doctor in order to treat an illness or disorder, most commonly ADD/ADHD. Therefore, if one has not been prescribed Adderral by a doctor, the use of this drug becomes akin to the use of other performance enhancement drugs that provide unfair advantages ie cheating.
In response to the last two paragraphs of the article, Adderral is classed as a “Schedule II drug”, meaning it has a “high potential for abuse” and “may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence”. Other drugs in Schedule II include cocaine, morphine, opium and meth (another name for Adderral is “Mixed Amphetamine Salts”). Comparing Adderral to Advil, boob jobs and LASIK is a glaring fallacy in this argument because none of the above are either prescribed or controlled substances and are either over-the-counter, cosmetic or convenient, respectively. Even anabolic steroids are ranked in a less-controlled class than Adderral.
Put in the proper context, defending the use of a Schedule II drug with potentially severe side-effects as a study-enhancer becomes more difficult…
By Pericles on May 6 | 12:27 pm
You want me to “think about how each of us got to a school like Dartmouth”? Well it wasn’t just the private schools and tutors that you describe! It was by affirmative action! Our culture seeks to level the playing field because we value equal opportunities! Adderall is a prescription drug because it is only for those with attention disorders, who need it in order to do the same work others do without it. “No college will ever be entirely ‘fair.’” True, but does that mean we should completely abandon the pursuit of fairness?? “Minor enhancements”? Do you consider the ability to read 300 page book and write a 5 page summary of it in 2 hours only slightly unnatural? Refer to my roommate. “Transformation of our biochemistry.” That sounds impressive, except that your examples are “a boob job or LASIK eye surgery,” neither of which alter one’s biochemistry. You also go on to imply that “painkillers, makeup, [and] weight-loss pills,” are somehow beneficial or even essential to our society. “We’ve already reached that point”?! Look who’s using a slippery slope argument now! Overall, a very disappointing and misleading piece of rhetoric.
By Dr. Seuss on May 8 | 1:48 am
What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what he can or cannot put in his body? While Adderall may be Schedule II drug, the associated restrictions are for the DEA to enforce, and not someone who has a personal issue with people using them. What’s more, we can certainly agree that there’s a degree of political bias in the designation of drug enforcement categories that reduces their rhetorical value; cocaine may be Schedule II, but for some reason cannabis is Schedule III. Ask any doctor which is more addictive and destructive.
If you see a problem in widespread use of Adderall, then invent a way for students to get the same enhancement more safely. Dartmouth is filled with ambitious students, and I think we can agree that we wouldn’t want it any other way. However, those with ambition are willing to pay more to achieve. If you don’t want your kids taking Adderall, send them to a school that won’t challenge them. If you want your kids to attend an institution like Dartmouth, be prepared to watch them do everything humanly possible to achieve their goals.
By Doc on May 9 | 11:07 pm
Pericles' “response to the last two paragraphs” is not actually a response to the last two paragraphs. Congratulations on knowing what drug class Adderall is in, but his point was not that its fair to take Adderall because it is safe. It is ‘fair’ (although crazy and risky) for a person to take any of those drugs mentioned for study purposes if they wish too. They are only illegal or prescription because they are dangerous, not because the DEA or FDA is worried about people getting an advantage in school. If Adderall is in fact as dangerous as the other drugs it is grouped with, then people willing to take that risk to get better grades reap the benefit, (along with the health downsides) and just because that annoys more cautious people does not mean anyone has a right to restrict it on those grounds. I admit I am one of those cautious people and accept that I am less extreme than people who take adderall for grades, however that is because I am also less extreme than people who drink energy drinks to pull multiple all nighters, and I accept that in this competitive atmosphere, my grades take the hit for my less extreme approach to grades. If it later comes to light that it is nowhere near as dangerous drug as it is now classified, then I will be the first in line to try out over the counter Adderall.
By blackmamba on May 10 | 12:49 pm
To clarify (for Doc), the “Schedule” drugs are ranked from I-V in order of severity with 1 being the most severe. Cocaine (II) is ranked in a more dangerous class than marijuana(III) in terms of potential for abuse and physiological damage; and therefore, by association, so is Adderral.
And, to remind everyone of the honor principle: “The Faculty of Dartmouth College, in recognizing the responsibility of students for their own education, assumes intellectual honesty and integrity in the PERFORMANCE of academic assignments, both in the classroom and outside.” The definition of “integrity” is “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.”
Acquiring and using Adderral without a prescription is illegal and can be prosecuted in a federal court of law. Breaking the law is not indicative of “ an adherence to moral and ethical principles”. Therefore, illegally using anything (ie Adderral) to increase ones PERFORMANCE during academic assignments is a violation of the honor code. This connection is not that difficult to construct…
For Doc’s statement that I should invent ways for “ambitious” people to get Adderral-like enhancement in a challenging environment such as Dartmouth, my response is three-fold. Many ambitious people at Dartmouth get A’s and do not use illegal drugs to do so. Instead, they utilize good time-management skills and don’t need to crank up on Adderral to “read 500 pgs and write a 5-page summary in 2 hrs”(thanks Dr. Seuss). Therefore, if someone needs illegal drugs to get A’s at Dartmouth; then maybe they are the ones who are not prepared and should be “sent to a school that won’t challenge them”. In addition, if someone has A’s on their transcript that wouldn’t be there otherwise… then they should probably have a talk with the Dean- see how that affects their ambition.
Finally, illegally using Adderral to increase ones performance does more than “just annoy” (blackmamba) those who abstain; it makes an already steep hill even steeper as those with moral scruples struggle to keep up with their chemically-enhanced superhuman peers, perhaps even eventually pressuring them to try to find shortcuts themselves- adding to this potentially physically destructive and definitely morally dismissive bandwagon.
By Pericles on May 11 | 2:10 am
Addendum: Doc, Cannabis is currently in schedule I and cocaine is in schedule II. This does appear to be a discrepancy and there are and have been many efforts to remove cannabis from schedule I since many people disagree about its placement. However, Adderral, as an amphetamine, has little of the controversy present in cannabis' placement; suggesting that Adderral’s current placement is appropriate.
By Pericles on May 11 | 4:54 am