Does this constitute cheating?

[oaklandguy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There is no law against your body producing steroids naturally in sports.

Your analogies are soooo horrible. Sorry dude.

You asked if I thought taking steroids was cheating. I answered, and then showed that there is a double standard.

P.S. go look up the definition for analogy. I didn't give an analogy, I just stated facts and asked a question wondering if you would consider that as cheating. You do not. Someone could make the argument, because it literally falls under the definition of USING the steroids for your advantage. Depending on how you interpret the laws of steroids, a good lawyer probably could construe a spin on the meanings to make it seem as though the law is against your body producing steroids naturally unless they had specific clauses against it, I personally have not read through the paperwork and have no eager to.

 

[Beren]

If you don't believe me take them. Adderall is definitely a lot stronger, but you can feel the affects of both of them.

Should I really? I know a lot of people who have done remarkably in school, and they do not use adderall.

I am curious though. As such its staunchest defender, do you think it's actually worth your time? Have you had much success with it (i.e. boosting your GPA)?

 

[oaklandguy]

Sigh, are you really going to throw the kitchen sink at me? Trying to drag every major drug and making me justify each one's legal status into does not going to validate your point. That's just plain sophistry

Things aren't fair in the world of drugs. But if drugs like morphine, cocaine, marajuana are regulated, then adderall is certainly game. If I had it my way, yes, then cigarettes should be banned too.

Again, caffeine in drinks is "synthesized", but it is a still naturally occurring compound. It's like the iodized salt you eat. Just because we didn't extract it by boiling some plants shouldn't make it illegal, especially considering it is naturally occurring. Adderall, on the other hand, is completely synthetic from its origin.

Whether it's natural or not should have no justification for it's legality. Artificial sweeteners have been completely synthesized and are completely legal. But that is neither here nor there.

The argument isn't why it's illegal. It's all about your definition of cheating and whether using drugs that enhance your abilities is cheating and whether adderall enhances your ability. When I immediately think of cheating, I do not think of taking drugs to help you study as cheating. I think it is stretching the definition of cheating and definitely an unorthodox way of cheating if you do call it cheating.

 

[Beren]

Whether it's natural or not should have no justification for it's legality. Artificial sweeteners have been completely synthesized and are completely legal. But that is neither here nor there.

The argument isn't why it's illegal. It's all about your definition of cheating and whether using drugs that enhance your abilities is cheating and whether adderall enhances your ability. When I immediately think of cheating, I do not think of taking drugs to help you study as cheating. I think it is stretching the definition of cheating and definitely an unorthodox way of cheating if you do call it cheating.

The sweeteners that are legal and FDA approved for their uses because minimal health complications and aren't psychoactive. In fact, they aren't even metabolized. Sweeteners that have carcinogenic effects, are banned. Please, stop making off-topic references

 

[oaklandguy]

The sweeteners that are legal and FDA approved for their uses because minimal health complications and aren't psychoactive. In fact, they aren't even metabolized. Sweeteners that have carcinogenic effects, are banned. Please, stop making off-topic references

Is adderall not FDA approved? If you have a prescription you can take it. Sweeteners are not addicting. I am just saying that you said adderall is illegal because it is synthetic and I stated that as an example of something synthetic that is legal. Please stop accusing me of making off-topic references when I am just responding to your accusations.

And the whole natural vs synthetic argument has nothing to do with whether it's cheating or not.

If you experience adderall sometime you'll probably understand.

 

[Beren]

Is adderall not FDA approved? If you have a prescription you can take it. Sweeteners are not addicting. I am just saying that you said adderall is illegal because it is synthetic and I stated that as an example of something synthetic that is legal. Please stop accusing me of making off-topic references when I am just responding to your accusations.

And the whole natural vs synthetic argument has nothing to do with whether it's cheating or not.

If you experience adderall sometime you'll probably understand.

Adderall is approved for treating certain conditions. Not for general consumption.

And yes, natural vs. synthetic is relevant. Natural supplements are much more permissible, but completely non-naturally occurring supplements warrant tighter regulation.

Example: No one's gonna rag on you for taking too much vitamin supplements, but when you start taking synthetic anabolic steroids, then that will be a problem.

Try getting a good work ethic, and see that adderall won't give you a leg up unless if you suck at studying to begin with. Honestly, a good work ethic will take you further in life than adderall.

 

[greatnt249]

Breaking the rules to increase test scores is cheating.

The "rule" isn't in place to keep people from "concentrating more" on tests; it's there because Adderall has the potential for abuse. Quit hiding behind the law to support your argument; the legality of using Adderall outside its intended use should not be in question here.

Everyone in support of the "taking Adderall is cheating" argument acts as if its use guarantees that the user will do better on the test than if they hadn't taken the drug in the first place, which is a far stretch if you ask me.

I don't support the use of amphetamines to pull all-nighters, but to say such use constitutes cheating requires far better arguments in support of such conclusions than what I've seen so far.

 

[randombetch]

The "rule" isn't in place to keep people from "concentrating more" on tests; it's there because Adderall has the potential for abuse. Quit hiding behind the law to support your argument; the legality of using Adderall outside its intended use should not be in question here.

Everyone in support of the "taking Adderall is cheating" argument acts as if its use guarantees that the user will do better on the test than if they hadn't taken the drug in the first place, which is a far stretch if you ask me.

I don't support the use of amphetamines to pull all-nighters, but to say such use constitutes cheating requires far better arguments in support of such conclusions than what I've seen so far.

Makes no difference to me why the rule is in place, although using it to "concentrate more" for tests TOTALLY counts as abusing it (double moot point). Here is my source:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=1082852&md5=8df1f1e1d4931128688400a4c2569fbb

"Abuse/dependence liability for ADHD drugs falls into two distinct categories, i.e. abuse by the patient for non-medical purposes and diversion/abuse by third parties."

"The diversion and abuse of psychostimulant ADHD drugs, on the other hand, is a significant problem whether it is for their stimulant/euphoriant properties, or increasingly misuse by students keen to exploit the ability of the psychostimulants to increase attention and cognitive function to improve their academic grades."


The important thing is that the rule IS in place, and others are following the rules and getting lower scores (on average, people would score higher with the use of adderall - you can't argue against that or else you're saying adderall doesn't help test scores whatsoever). And whether or not it guarantees better scores is irrelevant as well - if it has the potential to give the user better scores than they would have otherwise gotten, then it's still an advantage using it. Saying the legality of adderall doesn't matter is like saying it doesn't matter if a test is open book or not. Why the hell would it not matter? Because the rule wasn't specifically aimed at college kids using it to study for tests? How is that logical?

You've given no logical reason why it's not cheating.

And no, it does not require far better arguments to include illegal use of drugs for academic test preparations in the cheating category. It's pretty damn self-evident.

 

[Tin Man]

Guys, you are making a HUGE, HUGE mistake.

Ritalin, or methylphenidate in general, is not illegal because you get an advantage when using it. It is illegal because YOU CAN GET HIGH OFF OF IT.

You know what else you can get high off of? Prescription cough medicine. Which is why it's ILLEGAL.

It is completely idiotic to say that breaking the law has ANYTHING to do with cheating. It does not. Psychostimulants being illegal has NOTHING to do with academics in any way, shape, or form.

If you need proof, you can think of it this way. If you copy the answers to a test and pass an exam with that, it's just cheating. You will not get arrested, but you may get kicked out of school. Why? Because you had the answers there, and did no work to get them. The test was a false representation of your actual knowledge.

If you take Ritalin, you may get arrested, but it does NOT mean that you will get kicked out of school. If you do get kicked out of school, it will be because you got arrested for taking an illegal drug, NOT BECAUSE YOU WERE CHEATING. Why? Because you WEREN'T cheating. The drugs do not falsify the test scores. Whatever you learned on Ritalin, you still know, and you will be able to reproduce as long as you remember that information.

Get this straight:
Ritalin is illegal to take because you can get high off of it. Not because it gives anyone an "unfair advantage." EVERYBODY, whether with ADD or without, will have the SAME EFFECT from Ritalin. The diagnosis does NOT CHANGE THE EFFECT. So to say that Ritalin being illegal is somehow related to it's ability to allow people to cheat is IDIOTIC.

Now that I've capitalized half my post, can we please stop arguing over this stupid premise? It's just wrong. Totally, 100% wrong. Which means that in a world where methylphenidate couldn't produce a euphoric effect on overdose, it would most likely be sold like Tylenol.

 

[rocketbooster]

The "rule" isn't in place to keep people from "concentrating more" on tests; it's there because Adderall has the potential for abuse. Quit hiding behind the law to support your argument; the legality of using Adderall outside its intended use should not be in question here.

Everyone in support of the "taking Adderall is cheating" argument acts as if its use guarantees that the user will do better on the test than if they hadn't taken the drug in the first place, which is a far stretch if you ask me.

I don't support the use of amphetamines to pull all-nighters, but to say such use constitutes cheating requires far better arguments in support of such conclusions than what I've seen so far.

yep. not to mention that if you've never tried it yourself, then you can't have a real opinion on the matter. it helps you a lot the first day. the second day and onward just drains you. it never works as good after the first time. does it help, though? definitely.

considering I see nearly every med and law student use adderall to study, I personally have nothing against it. it's your choice to use it or not. many ppl won't use it claiming it's "cheating." but then, they hit the full force of med school, they're tired, they're drained, they NEED to study for this neuro test, and then the adderall comes out.

 

[Tin Man]

The important thing is that the rule IS in place, and others are following the rules and getting lower scores (on average, people would score higher with the use of adderall - you can't argue against that or else you're saying adderall doesn't help test scores whatsoever). And whether or not it guarantees better scores is irrelevant as well - if it has the potential to give the user better scores than they would have otherwise gotten, then it's still an advantage using it. Saying the legality of adderall doesn't matter is like saying it doesn't matter if a test is open book or not. Why the hell would it not matter? Because the rule wasn't specifically aimed at college kids using it to study for tests? How is that logical?

Pretty much because the pharmacology of methylphenidate works the EXACT same way on anybody who takes the drug. People with ADD/ADHD have difficulty with concentration. So Ritalin takes care of that problem. Someone without ADD/ADHD has problems with concentration. Ritalin takes care of that problem.

The mechanism is the EXACT SAME no matter who takes it. Which means, essentially, that people with ADD/ADHD have an actual advantage, if we're assuming that people who take the drug actually get better grades.

So no, the legality has nothing to do with cheating, because at the end of the day, the legality was not based on the fact that it can be used to get an unfair academic advantage, but rather because when snorted or taken in large doses, people get the same effect as cocaine.

 

[loveoforganic]

If you've actually met some of the people that truly deserve their diagnosis, you wouldn't say that the medicine gives them an unfair advantage.

 

[rocketbooster]

If you've actually met some of the people that truly deserve their diagnosis, you wouldn't say that the medicine gives them an unfair advantage.

if you've actually met many ppl who truly do not deserve their diagnosis like I have, then you would agree with the rest of us that anyone should have access to adderall. pretty much everyone does have access to adderall through a friend or whoever, so it isn't a huge problem obtaining it.

 

[Tin Man]

If you've actually met some of the people that truly deserve their diagnosis, you wouldn't say that the medicine gives them an unfair advantage.

Actually, I have. I lived with them.

And while I wouldn't say anything about an advantage, I would say that it affects people with and without the diagnosis the exact same way. I feel safe in believing I'm one of the few people on this board who has the credentials to say I know about these drugs forward and back. 🙂

This is not to say that people who "truly deserve their diagnosis" don't have a problem, and that the medicine is fake or doesn't help. It does help. But the help they receive from the drug is no more help than it gives to anybody else.

Think of it like Tylenol. Tylenol gives the same pain-reducing effects, regardless of whether or not you have a minor headache, or a migraine. But at the end of the day, it brings everyone who has a headache to the same no-pain level (theoretically).

Methylphenidate brings everyone to the same level of hyper-concentration, regardless of whether or not they have horrible concentration or not. But it is not a net-movement. Don't think in vectors. It brings everyone to approximately the same point (if we're assuming that body weight and so on is the same), and the variable of actually having ADD/ADHD makes absolutely no difference.

 

[loveoforganic]

if you've actually met many ppl who truly do not deserve their diagnosis like I have, then you would agree with the rest of us that anyone should have access to adderall. pretty much everyone does have access to adderall through a friend or whoever, so it isn't a huge problem obtaining it.

You missed a point - he mentioned people with the disorder, not necessarily people just diagnosed with the disorder.

Methylphenidate brings everyone to the same level of hyper-concentration, regardless of whether or not they have horrible concentration or not. But it is not a net-movement. Don't think in vectors. It brings everyone to approximately the same point (if we're assuming that body weight and so on is the same), and the variable of actually having ADD/ADHD makes absolutely no difference.[/QUOTE]

No, they don't bring everyone to the same level of concentration. Some of the kids I've seen on it I would still say are well below population mean.

 

[chman]

To me it comes down to this:

There are two college students of equal intelligence. They both have a physics test tomorrow. They both get off work at five-o'clock and start studying by six. One of the students is able to get some adderal, while the other student is not able, or does not want to obtain any. If the student that got the adderal in this situation has the advantage because he/she will be able to concentrate and retain information better, then that is cheating IMO. Pretty much everyone has agreed that adderal gives an advantage to the student who takes it as far as studying goes. Student one ends up taking no breaks and gets an A on the test. Student 2 has to take a break every two hours because he can no longer concentrate because he is tired and gets a B.

 

[Van Chowder]

You missed a point - he mentioned people with the disorder, not necessarily people just diagnosed with the disorder.

Methylphenidate brings everyone to the same level of hyper-concentration, regardless of whether or not they have horrible concentration or not. But it is not a net-movement. Don't think in vectors. It brings everyone to approximately the same point (if we're assuming that body weight and so on is the same), and the variable of actually having ADD/ADHD makes absolutely no difference.

No, they don't bring everyone to the same level of concentration. Some of the kids I've seen on it I would still say are well below BASELINE.[/QUOTE]

Wow... Terrible argument, because you see people that are the exception, that is then the rule?
You may also say that "Drinking 16 shots of vodka isnt unsafe! I have a buddy that does it all the time!"

I think Tin dude is trying to say from a strictly scientific aspect there is no difference whether you have ADD/ADHD or not ( in regards to the peak of the adderal "high"). Which I would like to point out is beyond the scope of simply your, his or any other individuals perception. Science is science is science.

And this argument everyone is saying that "Oh because not everyone has access to it, it is then not fair or is considered cheating" isn't much of an argument. Just because something is illegal does NOT mean you do not have access to it. Pot is illegal, you would be hard-pressed to find a college campus where it is not accessible. Drinking before the age of 21 is illegal, does that mean people under the age of 21 do not have access to it because of the legality surrounding it?

If you don't want to take adderal then fine, I respect it. Everything has its side effects. But I would like to point out that the FDA is not the know all end all in the food and pharmaceutical industry. I beleive it would be safe to say that some of the choices they make as in what to support and what not to, is in some circumstances, nothing more than an arbitrary political game that they have to play to stay afloat.

Example: If anyone can present a logical argument as to why, people can legally purchase cigarettes and alcohol but not pot, or why do we have 18 year olds in Afghanistan and Iraq that are fighting with their lives, but those same kids cannot buy a beer, I will humbly admit my ignorance.

Before I get flamed for this post being slightly off topic in the sense that it brings up substances other than the one being discussed at hand, I am simply trying to point out that, although the FDA is the highest power with regards to drugs in the US, that their points of view are not always logical.

Don’t take adderall.. Fine..
Snooooz you lose!

 

[loveoforganic]

He made a rule, I rebutted it. Was that really hard to follow? 🙄 Oh, and yes, we know you love pot. Don't need another sermon on it in another thread.

 

[chman]

No, they don't bring everyone to the same level of concentration. Some of the kids I've seen on it I would still say are well below BASELINE.

Wow... Terrible argument, because you see people that are the exception, that is then the rule?
You may also say that "Drinking 16 shots of vodka isnt unsafe! I have a buddy that does it all the time!"

I think Tin dude is trying to say from a strictly scientific aspect there is no difference whether you have ADD/ADHD or not ( in regards to the peak of the adderal "high"). Which I would like to point out is beyond the scope of simply your, his or any other individuals perception. Science is science is science.

And this argument everyone is saying that "Oh because not everyone has access to it, it is then not fair or is considered cheating" isn't much of an argument. Just because something is illegal does NOT mean you do not have access to it. Pot is illegal, you would be hard-pressed to find a college campus where it is not accessible. Drinking before the age of 21 is illegal, does that mean people under the age of 21 do not have access to it because of the legality surrounding it?

If you don't want to take adderal then fine, I respect it. Everything has its side effects. But I would like to point out that the FDA is not the know all end all in the food and pharmaceutical industry. I beleive it would be safe to say that some of the choices they make as in what to support and what not to, is in some circumstances, nothing more than an arbitrary political game that they have to play to stay afloat.

Example: If anyone can present a logical argument as to why, people can legally purchase cigarettes and alcohol but not pot, or why do we have 18 year olds in Afghanistan and Iraq that are fighting with their lives, but those same kids cannot buy a beer, I will humbly admit my ignorance.

Before I get flamed for this post being slightly off topic in the sense that it brings up substances other than the one being discussed at hand, I am simply trying to point out that, although the FDA is the highest power with regards to drugs in the US, that their points of view are not always logical.

Don't take adderall.. Fine..
Snooooz you lose!

Then I would like to know what you think of my response above yours. It has nothing to do with the legality of it. It simply has to do with the fact that adderal gives people an advantage while studying. We could go into a huge philosophical debate about every drug and the political influence on the FDA (which is obviously huge) but that is not what we are talking about, or at least it should not be.

 

[AlanAlanine]

On a slightly different note; it is kind of troubling that some future doc's find it perfectly reasonable for people to take controlled substances at their leisure.

👍

doctors are the most likely population to get a addicted to controlled substances.

 

[Tin Man]

No, they don't bring everyone to the same level of concentration. Some of the kids I've seen on it I would still say are well below BASELINE.

This argument is completely useless because, without knowing everything about them, such as body weight, dosage, tolerance, and other sorts of things that could explain those types of results, there is no way to say that it is a result of the diagnosis or not.

Study the pharmacology of it. I can tell you that, in people with the same physical attributes but differing in diagnosis of ADD/ADHD, the result will be THE SAME. Sorry if you don't believe me. Feel free to research it as much as I have. As I said, I know this drug, and I know this diagnosis.

But as far as a rebuttal, this isn't one.

 

[loveoforganic]

Ok, as you've done all the researching already, could you please cite me a study that draws the results you're mentioning? I highly doubt you can, as I doubt it would be ethical to allow treatment of those without ADHD diagnosis with methylphenidate, or any other prescription ADHD medication. If you can find one that uses a standardized assessment to measure level of ADHD, compares post treatment level on the same assessment not just for overall efficacy, but broken down by pretreatment level, please post, that would work.

 

[Tin Man]

To me it comes down to this:

There are two college students of equal intelligence. They both have a physics test tomorrow. They both get off work at five-o'clock and start studying by six. One of the students is able to get some adderal, while the other student is not able, or does not want to obtain any. If the student that got the adderal in this situation has the advantage because he/she will be able to concentrate and retain information better, then that is cheating IMO. Pretty much everyone has agreed that adderal gives an advantage to the student who takes it as far as studying goes. Student one ends up taking no breaks and gets an A on the test. Student 2 has to take a break every two hours because he can no longer concentrate because he is tired and gets a B.

I could say that life isn't fair, sucks to be you. But then you'd whine. So I'll say what I already said.

The ONLY reason that methylphenidate is illegal is because it can be used to get high. THAT'S IT. You take away that aspect, and you could order it over the phone. The only reason a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD is required is due to it being (simply) cocaine in pill format.

At I am guessing that, since you are arguing so vehemently against it, you have never popped methylphenidate. So I can say that if you want similar effects, most energy drinks, or even a ton of coffee will give you the same effect as a prescritpive dose of Ritalin. And people DO have access to that. The concentration boost that people get from the drug is almost never more powerful than someone can get from an Amp. So your fairness argument, even in that context, is still null.

 

[Beren]

Then I would like to know what you think of my response above yours. It has nothing to do with the legality of it. It simply has to do with the fact that adderal gives people an advantage while studying. We could go into a huge philosophical debate about every drug and the political influence on the FDA (which is obviously huge) but that is not what we are talking about, or at least it should not be.

I would add, that because it has potentially serious side-effects, it is controlled. Using it when others refuse to break that law is getting an unfair advantage.

If adderall had minimal side effects, required no Rx, and widely available, then there might be a case for it being fair.

Still, it bypasses the natural objective of testing. We shouldn't allow it anymore than we should allow people with prosthetic appendages that confer advantage to race in the Olympics. Otherwise, the races would be overwhelmingly determined by technology rather than natural ability and training.

At I am guessing that, since you are arguing so vehemently against it, you have never popped methylphenidate

What's with all this about 'having to try it?" You don't have to have snorted coke or smoked crack to know about the negative effects of it. I'm sure a crackhead off the street could say, "It's not as bad as you think, you haven't even tried it"

 

[kami333]

To me it comes down to this:

There are two college students of equal intelligence. They both have a physics test tomorrow. They both get off work at five-o'clock and start studying by six. One of the students is able to get some adderal, while the other student is not able, or does not want to obtain any. If the student that got the adderal in this situation has the advantage because he/she will be able to concentrate and retain information better, then that is cheating IMO. Pretty much everyone has agreed that adderal gives an advantage to the student who takes it as far as studying goes. Student one ends up taking no breaks and gets an A on the test. Student 2 has to take a break every two hours because he can no longer concentrate because he is tired and gets a B.

What about student C, who was parents that give him money so he doesn't have to work and has 5hours more than both A and B to study? Does that mean he has an "unfair" advantage? Are his parents helping him "cheat" by giving him money, therefore more time than A or B?

Or student D, who gets off work with A and B but then goes to study with his tutor who has taken the class before with the same professor? While this tutor doesn't know what is going to be on the test, he is familiar with the professor's testing style and is able to steer the student towards areas to concentrate on. Is he cheating?

I pretty much agree with Tin Man, while taking non-prescription ritalin may be illegal, I don't consider it cheating nor necessarily immoral.
(I also think that everyone is ADD to a certain extent, we've just set an artificial threshold below which people can get medication for it. This threshold could be changed at any time)

 

[Tin Man]

Ok, as you've done all the researching already, could you please cite me a study that draws the results you're mentioning? I highly doubt you can, as I doubt it would be ethical to allow treatment of those without ADHD diagnosis with methylphenidate, or any other prescription ADHD medication.

Ethical? It has nothing to do with ethics. Ever heard of 5-Hour Energy? Botox? Plastic surgery? What about smoking?

It's not at all uncommon for people to go the medical route for some perceived benefit, whether mentally, physically, or aesthetically. And in most cases, people don't care. The times when people DO care is when that benefit comes with a risk. With methylphenidate, that risk is in the form of addiction and its euphoric effects when overdosing.

Like I said earlier, methylphenidate has been around since the 1950's. ADD/ADHD was not recognized as a mental problem until the 1970's. This drug has been used long before it was ever used to "treat" ADD.

As for a cite? Here's some I found through Google.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nxk3ydjdpc5565en/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r220l771x61qu671/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7406657

It's actually common knowledge amongst people who know what they're talking about. Feel free to join the club. 😉

 

[loveoforganic]

"Act similarly" and "parallel results" aren't same end result.

 

[Beren]

What about student C, who was parents that give him money so he doesn't have to work and has 5hours more than both A and B to study? Does that mean he has an "unfair" advantage? Are his parents helping him "cheat" by giving him money, therefore more time than A or B?

Or student D, who gets off work with A and B but then goes to study with his tutor who has taken the class before with the same professor? While this tutor doesn't know what is going to be on the test, he is familiar with the professor's testing style and is able to steer the student towards areas to concentrate on. Is he cheating?

I pretty much agree with Tin Man, while taking non-prescription ritalin may be illegal, I don't consider it cheating nor necessarily immoral.
(I also think that everyone is ADD to a certain extent, we've just set an artificial threshold below which people can get medication for it. This threshold could be changed at any time)

Being rich is an unfair advantage... but not illegal (doesn't break any rules).

Not really sure about the relevance of student D, but having a tutor, like being rich, or getting a caffeinated drink, or sleeping more is not illegal.

Buying a prescription drug without a prescription (which can have addictive and dangerous side effects) while 90% of other ppl won't is not only unfair, but also illegal. Both conditions are necessary.

"Act similarly" and "parallel results" aren't same end result.

I agree, the study shows that adderall can increase learning in tasks, which we knew. However, there is no good quantitative data that proves Tinman's claim, that everyone is brought up to the same level.

 

[Tin Man]

"Act similarly" and "parallel results" aren't same end result.

🙄

Semantics. If you've ever been involved in research, EVER, you know that nobody talks in absolutes. Germ theory is still technically a theory.

 

[chman]

I could say that life isn't fair, sucks to be you. But then you'd whine. So I'll say what I already said.

The ONLY reason that methylphenidate is illegal is because it can be used to get high. THAT'S IT. You take away that aspect, and you could order it over the phone. The only reason a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD is required is due to it being (simply) cocaine in pill format.

At I am guessing that, since you are arguing so vehemently against it, you have never popped methylphenidate. So I can say that if you want similar effects, most energy drinks, or even a ton of coffee will give you the same effect as a prescritpive dose of Ritalin. And people DO have access to that. The concentration boost that people get from the drug is almost never more powerful than someone can get from an Amp. So your fairness argument, even in that context, is still null.

First lesson of communication 101 is to never assume things. When I was younger I was prescribed ritalin. I now think that I was probably mis-diagnosed. I did not take it for very long, but I did take it. So before you assume that I know nothing about a
subject maybe you should ask.

EDIT: Also, please stop using the coffee comparison. I have done both coffee and ritalin, amphetamines are different than coffee.

 

[chman]

What about student C, who was parents that give him money so he doesn't have to work and has 5hours more than both A and B to study? Does that mean he has an "unfair" advantage? Are his parents helping him "cheat" by giving him money, therefore more time than A or B?

Or student D, who gets off work with A and B but then goes to study with his tutor who has taken the class before with the same professor? While this tutor doesn't know what is going to be on the test, he is familiar with the professor's testing style and is able to steer the student towards areas to concentrate on. Is he cheating?

I pretty much agree with Tin Man, while taking non-prescription ritalin may be illegal, I don't consider it cheating nor necessarily immoral.
(I also think that everyone is ADD to a certain extent, we've just set an artificial threshold below which people can get medication for it. This threshold could be changed at any time)

Like I have said; we can always come up with more variables, but that is not what we are debating. We are debating a specific issue. There are always more variables that could come into play. But if we always added more variables experiments would never be conclusive.

 

[Tin Man]

First lesson of communication 101 is to never assume things. When I was younger I was prescribed ritalin. I now think that I was probably mis-diagnosed. I did not take it for very long, but I did take it. So before you assume that I know nothing about a subject maybe you should ask.

The fact my assumption was incorrect doesn't change anything at all about my argument. It merely shows that you should know better.

 

[greatnt249]

To me it comes down to this:

There are two college students of equal intelligence. They both have a physics test tomorrow. They both get off work at five-o'clock and start studying by six. One of the students is able to chug three Red Bulls and pop a caffeine pill, while the other student is not able, or does not want to obtain any. If the student that got the three Red Bulls and a caffeine pill in this situation has the advantage because he/she will be able to concentrate and retain information better, then that is cheating IMO. Pretty much everyone has agreed that caffeine gives an advantage to the student who takes it as far as studying goes. Student one ends up taking no breaks and gets an A on the test. Student 2 has to take a break every two hours because he can no longer concentrate because he is tired and gets a B.

Same situation.

 

[chman]

The fact my assumption was incorrect doesn't change anything at all about my argument. It merely shows that you should know better.

I am done with this. You are not going to change your mind and nor am I. I am not sure what you mean by, "I should know better." Why? Because I have been prescribed a drug before that you thought I had not? Therefor I should agree with you? I think not.

Another lesson of communications is to recognize that when arguing you will never get anywhere if you never recognize the other's point of view. I recognize your view. However, I have a feeling you will not begin to recognize mine. That is why I wish to not longer continue this pointless discussion. Instead, I must study, most likely without any adderal.

 

[loveoforganic]

🙄

Semantics. If you've ever been involved in research, EVER, you know that nobody talks in absolutes. Germ theory is still technically a theory.

You realized you said that a subject with ADHD and a subject without ADHD would be taken to the same level of functioning (an absolute) following medication, correct? You talk in a very condescending manner for not even being able to stay on point. And the germ theory analogy is just awful.

 

[Beren]

Same situation.

Not quite. The side effects of caffeine have not warranted the FDA yet to regulate its availability. Hence, there is no transgression in buying caffeinated products at a grocery store.

Adderall has enough effects so that the FDA does limit its use. Buying it without a prescription is unfair and unlawful.

 

[Tin Man]

I am done with this. You are not going to change your mind and nor am I. I am not sure what you mean by, "I should know better." Why? Because I have been prescribed a drug before that you thought I had not? Therefor I should agree with you? I think not.

Another lesson of communications is to recognize that when arguing you will never get anywhere if you never recognize the other's point of view. I recognize your view. However, I have a feeling you will not begin to recognize mine. That is why I wish to not longer continue this pointless discussion. Instead, I must study, most likely without any adderal.

The point I was making originally (the one you commented on) was the fact that anyone who has been on methylphenidate knows that it doesn't do much more than an energy drink would. And I said you should know better than to contradict that, if you've been on it, so the argument that it's not available to everyone is dumb. Maybe the pill isn't, but the effect is.

And I can't argue against you without recognizing your opinion. If I didn't recognize your opinion, I wouldn't be responding to anything you say. 🙂

 

[greatnt249]

Not quite. The side effects of caffeine have not warranted the FDA yet to regulate its availability. Hence, there is no transgression in buying caffeinated products at a grocery store.

Adderall has enough effects so that the FDA does limit its use. Buying it without a prescription is unfair and unlawful.

I don't see why the law has anything to do with this question; if you're going to argue that Adderall is unlawful because it can give individuals an unfair advantage, then the burden of proof is on you to show that Adderall is regulated for that purpose.

Unfair? How hard could it possibly be to get someone to hook you up with Adderall if you really wanted it?

 

[Tin Man]

You realized you said that a subject with ADHD and a subject without ADHD would be taken to the same level of functioning (an absolute) following medication, correct? You talk in a very condescending manner for not even being able to stay on point. And the germ theory analogy is just awful.

I'm saying that the absolute exists, given the exact same conditions save for the differing diagnosis. No one ever states anything in absolutes (at least not until it becomes law). But all research points to that direction, just like all research points to the direction of germs existing, or evolution existing, or whatever. You can figure out your own analogy if you don't like mine, but nitpicking the points away doesn't erase that fact. You won't find many reputable papers out there that say that evolution is 100% certain, even though all scientific progress hencefar assumes it is.

 

[loveoforganic]

Neither of the papers you cited say anything (even general) about your proclamation. Was that non-nitpicky enough for you?

Edit: I take this back. The paper mentioning "parallel results" does indirectly talk about your proclamation - it speaks in the contrary.

 

[Beren]

I don't see why the law has anything to do with this question; if you're going to argue that Adderall is unlawful because it can give individuals an unfair advantage, then the burden of proof is on you to show that Adderall is regulated for that purpose.

Unfair? How hard could it possibly be to get someone to hook you up with Adderall if you really wanted it?

Only together, does unlawfulness and unfairness provide a robust framework for defining "cheating" that is necessary and sufficient. Neither alone is necessary and sufficient.

Uhhh, what I said was adderall is unlawful because it can be easily abused and causes side-effects, outweighing positive benefits as we know it from recreational use. That is why society regulates it. Using it for studying is unfair to those who choose to follow the law.

 

[Beren]

I'm saying that the absolute exists, given the exact same conditions save for the differing diagnosis. No one ever states anything in absolutes (at least not until it becomes law). But all research points to that direction, just like all research points to the direction of germs existing, or evolution existing, or whatever. You can figure out your own analogy if you don't like mine, but nitpicking the points away doesn't erase that fact. You won't find many reputable papers out there that say that evolution is 100% certain, even though all scientific progress hencefar assumes it is.

Experimental science will always have error, but the body of work on evolution is overwhelming and compelling enough to establish facts.

As for adderall's effects, there is hardly a consensus among the relatively sparse studies (in relation to evolution) on its effects to confirm your point.

 

[Tin Man]

Neither of the papers you cited say anything (even general) about your proclamation. Was that non-nitpicky enough for you?

From the links in respective order...

A significant medication effect was detected following MPH treatment: segment 3 amplitudes in MPH-treated hyperactive children were not significantly different from those of healthy controls.

Deficient sustained attention is a symptom of hyperactivity that can be improved by stimulant medication. Recently, amphetamine has been shown to increase detections during a vigilance task in both normal and hyperactive boys. The present study applied signal detection analysis to the vigilance performance of 15 hyperactive and 14 normal boys divided into two age groups (6–9 and 10–12). A computerized continuous performance test was administered under amphetamine and placebo. Overall group comparisons indicated that perceptual sensitivity or d

was higher for the normal boys and the older groups, and analysis of drug treatments showed that amphetamine significantly increased d

. Interactions between drugs and age groups demonstrated that amphetamine affected the younger boys to a significantly greater degree than the older children for both d

and response bias or

. It is notable that the results were essentially parallel for both normal and hyperactive children.

The effects of a single oral dose of dextroamphetamine sulfate on motor activity, vigilance, learning, and mood were compared for normal and hyperactive prepubertal boys and normal college-aged men using a double-blind crossover design. Both groups of boys and men showed decreased motor activity increased vigilance, and improvement on a learning task after taking the stimulant drug. The men reported euphoria, while the boys reported only feeling "tired# or "different# after taking the stimulant. It is not clear whether this difference in effect on mood between adults and children is due to differing experience with drugs, ability to report affect, or a true pharmacologic age-related effect. While there were some quantitative differences in drug effects on motor activity and vigilance between these different groups, stimulants appear to act similarly on normal and hyperactive children and adults.

Maybe if you read more than the last sentence of each study, you would get the point. But I really don't see how you're overlooking what these are saying... especially considering these are commonly-cited sources...

 

[loveoforganic]

Nothing you quoted and bolded says anything about same level of functioning following medication....

 

[Tin Man]

Experimental science will always have error, but the body of work on evolution is overwhelming and compelling enough to establish facts.

As for adderall's effects, there is hardly a consensus among the relatively sparse studies (in relation to evolution) on its effects to confirm your point.

Adderall doesn't have the same umbrella effect on science than evolution does. Of course there isn't going to be as much study.

That doesn't change the fact that it is the accepted standard. In fact, these are readily explained by how these drugs actually work. The pharmacology explains this as much as oxidation-reduction reactions explain neuronal impulses.

 

[Beren]

From the links in respective order...







Maybe if you read more than the last sentence of each study, you would get the point. But I really don't see how you're overlooking what these are saying... especially considering these are commonly-cited sources...

Again, we already knew there were similarities in the effects on these different populations. However, it does not demonstrate that it will always raise performance to the same point that is quantitative, irregardless of psychological state.

Adderall doesn't have the same umbrella effect on science than evolution does. Of course there isn't going to be as much study.

That doesn't change the fact that it is the accepted standard. In fact, these are readily explained by how these drugs actually work. The pharmacology explains this as much as oxidation-reduction reactions explain neuronal impulses.

Uhhh... what?

Even intelligent design studies make it into publications once in a while. This hardly makes it true. You have to consider the perspective as a whole and the level of evidence.

 

[greatnt249]

If those who believe taking Adderall for its unintended purpose constitutes cheating, could someone please explain what it is exactly that non-users are being cheated out of?

 

[randombetch]

Pretty much because the pharmacology of methylphenidate works the EXACT same way on anybody who takes the drug. People with ADD/ADHD have difficulty with concentration. So Ritalin takes care of that problem. Someone without ADD/ADHD has problems with concentration. Ritalin takes care of that problem.

The mechanism is the EXACT SAME no matter who takes it. Which means, essentially, that people with ADD/ADHD have an actual advantage, if we're assuming that people who take the drug actually get better grades.

So no, the legality has nothing to do with cheating, because at the end of the day, the legality was not based on the fact that it can be used to get an unfair academic advantage, but rather because when snorted or taken in large doses, people get the same effect as cocaine.

What difference does it make why it's illegal? Explain.

I argue legality does have to do with cheating because the definition of cheating deals with the breaking of rules. The law is a rule that is expected to be followed by all university students.

People with ADHD are not breaking rules by taking adderall, therefore the advantage is irrelevant.

 

[Tin Man]

Nothing you quoted and bolded says anything about same level of functioning following medication....

I need a good facepalm picture...

Given the fact that the studies above are saying that the drugs affect people in the same way, exactly how would you propose a study that would show that methylphenidate affects test scores?

The amount of variables you have to account for is endless. Body weight, dosage, age, innate study habits, test material, quality of teacher, quality of textbook, etc etc. It would be impossible to get any sort of conclusive result one way or the other. Think.

The drug affects people physiologically the exact same way. That was the point. What that means it that because it only results in physiological changes, and doesn't actually increase intelligence, it would be almost impossible to test for how it actually affects performance in the classroom.

You could have figured that out yourself.

 

[Tin Man]

What difference does it make why it's illegal? Explain.

I argue legality does have to do with cheating because the definition of cheating deals with the breaking of rules. The law is a rule that is expected to be followed by all university students.

But the law has nothing to do with bettering academic work. Drinking on campus isn't cheating. Being caught in the female dorms isn't cheating. Killing someone in class isn't cheating.

Your argument makes no sense. Breaking the rules is NOT cheating. You're getting confused.

There are rules AGAINST cheating. If you break THOSE rules, you are cheating. But there are no rules at any university that I am aware of that prohibits taking drugs that would help to increase your ability to study. If there was, then yes, you would technically be cheating. But since no such rule exists, you cannot break that rule.

Breaking the law designed to prevent people from getting high cannot constitute cheating.