Does this constitute cheating?

[teenmachinery1]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Caffeine isn't really close at all in structure compared to amphetamines, which is why I conceded the caffeine point.

You're a med student so no fair...

Peyton is so... charismatic. Hard to argue against him!

👍

 

[teenmachinery1]

Am I the only one concerned about the lack of morality in this thread? With around 75% of pre-meds and med students saying that it is not cheating (albeit mostly after the "but i would never take it myself" wink wink disclaimer).

Cheating is something that gives you an advantage over someone else given otherwise identical sets of circumstances. If it in any way confers an advantage not given to others, then its cheating. The fact that people take shows that it confers an advantage.

To those saying that its widely available, thus everyone has access, thus its not cheating, what a BS argument. What this is saying is that IF you're willing to break the law, and IF you're willing to risk the cardio complications of high doses of prescription-strength amphetamines, then you have access. Saying you have to break the law to have access is saying that not everyone can (or should) have access.

To those saying that it doesn't matter because its still you putting in the work with studying, then I'd say you're the exact same as any steroid user in sports. Adderall allows one to focus and retain knowledge better, as anabolic steroids allow one to retain muscle better. In both cases, you're still "working out", but one allows it to have a greater effect. Now others have argued that this is not an appropriate metaphor, because one is an end (being a good baseball player) and one is a means (focusing to do better on a test to do something later in life). Well I say if you're drug abuse allows you to do better on a test, it gives you an unfair advantage in a class, then in a job/grad school application, and then later in life.

On another note, am I the only future doctor that has any respect for the power and effect of certain pharmaceuticals, and the necessity behind the prescription based regulatory system? The ability to prescribe is one of the most powerful given to a doctor, and seeing abuse like this (while far and away from the worst abuse I'll see I'm sure), still is disheartening.

To summarize. Adderall gives you an unfair advantage that is not available to others who don't want to break the law or dose on amphetamines. Rationalize it if you want, but you're still cheating if you use it to give yourself a boost.

Hallelujah.

👍

 

[teenmachinery1]

I couldn't see how it would be cheating, their just increasing their using a prescription medicine to stay up longer, basically.
They could just take high doses of caffeine really, sure it's illegal, but it's not cheating.

my ****** alert just went off again. Sorry, caffeine isn't even close to the psychoactive power of amphetamines.

 

[boaz]

I'm shocked that the poll shows more people saying it does NOT constitute cheating. Perhaps another poll should be posted to find out how many people actually do it?

Maybe MCAT administration should include urine tests?

How is this any different from steroids? I won't be surprised if we see some congressional hearings on this new phenomenon within the next couple of years.

 

[greatnt249]

I know I asked you earlier about how wrong this was. If you were a doctor and some1 (without ADD) came and asked for adderall to study better, would you prescribe it knowing that no one else would find out?

No, I would not prescribe it because it's not indicated to prescribe said drugs in this case.

No... I've offered the conditions that I qualify as cheating, whether you agree or not. You have not provided a workable definition or the necessary conditions. It's easy for you to keep pushing it on me.

Accusing someone of cheating is leveling an allegation at them. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU if you're charging someone with cheating/academic dishonesty. I'm sure nearly EVERY university/institution on higher education has a written policy ("anti-cheating rules," as you so eloquently put them) that dictates what constitutes cheating. If the use of Adderall/other psychostimulants is not on there, then it isn't cheating.

EDIT: I'm done with this thread and all the premed-sanctimony that's now pouring in along with the territory.

 

[Tin Man]

Alright, here is the challenge I pose to the opposition. We seem to have gotten our roles switched.

In cases where one side is making a prosecuting assertion, such as, "Taking methylphenidate is cheating", the burden of proof is on them.

So far, I have been the only one to provide sources supporting the fact that methylphenidate affects everyone equally, regardless of diagnosis, which would mean that the opposition would have to also assert that everyone who has ADD is also being given an unfair advantage through their PRESCRIBED methylphenidate. That's fine, but no one seems to be willing to take that argument.

So I am asking the opposition to somewhere, somehow prove that people who do NOT have ADD, and who are taking methylphenidate without a prescription, have a significant advantage both over those who have a prescription AND those who do not take the medication at all.

Of course, that would just be the start. Then we'd get to get back into debating about how one can define cheating, and any sources that one of the opposition can provide would be great. For instance, if legal (or even semi-legal) precedent can be found for punishing a student based on academic dishonesty relating to methylphenidate or something of the like, then that would certainly strengthen your argument.

But while I will not go so far as to say that I have logic and you have emotion, I will say that the side saying that "Drugs are Bad, mmmkay?" would have the image of emotional bias, and that isn't helped due to the fact that I've been the only one to provide sources this whole debate.

So I say it's time to get back to the gentlemen's rules of debate and actually make the accusing side back up the aggression, and let "innocent until proven guilty" reign.

What say you, knaves? 🙂

 

[Tin Man]

I'm shocked that the poll shows more people saying it does NOT constitute cheating. Perhaps another poll should be posted to find out how many people actually do it?

Maybe MCAT administration should include urine tests?

How is this any different from steroids? I won't be surprised if we see some congressional hearings on this new phenomenon within the next couple of years.

Already covered and abandoned due to being a horrible comparison. You can feel free to read the earlier pages. Differences include the necessity to overdose on steroids to get the sports-enhancing effect as compared to the safe, legal dose of methylphenidate, the relative safety of each drug, and the differences between banning a drug in a closed system like a game as compared to the much more open and realistic system of education.

 

[greatnt249]

What say you, knaves? 🙂

I agree wholeheartedly; however, I will be watching this thread from the sidelines from here on out.

 

[Beren]

No, I would not prescribe it because it's not indicated to prescribe said drugs in this case.



Accusing someone of cheating is leveling an allegation at them. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU if you're charging someone with cheating/academic dishonesty. I'm sure nearly EVERY university/institution on higher education has a written policy ("anti-cheating rules," as you so eloquently put them) that dictates what constitutes cheating. If the use of Adderall/other psychostimulants is not on there, then it isn't cheating.

EDIT: I'm done with this thread and all the premed-sanctimony that's now pouring in along with the territory.

Goodbye

 

[teenmachinery1]

Already covered and abandoned due to being a horrible comparison. You can feel free to read the earlier pages. Differences include the necessity to overdose on steroids to get the sports-enhancing effect as compared to the safe, legal dose of methylphenidate, the relative safety of each drug, and the differences between banning a drug in a closed system like a game as compared to the much more open and realistic system of education.

👎

 

[azrael87]

That's what your definition was earlier in the thread (page 3 and 4). Yours and Tinman's perspective was that cheating only occurred if anti-cheating rules were being broken - it's not enough that FDA's regulations for the drug are broken. Because they aren't rules against cheating. Am I right?

Hold on, let me find that quote:

The fact that cheating only occurs if anti-cheating rules are broken doesn't mean the definition of cheating has to be worded circularly. Theft only occurs if anti-theft laws are broken. The definition of theft is to take possession of something that legally belongs to another person, business, or company without their consent. The definition of cheating is not "the breaking of anti-cheating rules". That was a flawed extrapolation.
The definition of cheating is outlined in a school's rules. As such, if what is outlined in those rules does not occur, it is not cheating. That is what was meant (and explained, I had thought).

I hope that provost responds soon. I'm actually surprised no full docs or admins have weighed in on this subject yet (unless I missed it). I would think it would be cleared up pretty quickly one way or the other. Then again, seeing how polarized it is for us, maybe it'd be the same for them.

 

[Beren]

Alright, here is the challenge I pose to the opposition. We seem to have gotten our roles switched.

In cases where one side is making a prosecuting assertion, such as, "Taking methylphenidate is cheating", the burden of proof is on them.

So far, I have been the only one to provide sources supporting the fact that methylphenidate affects everyone equally, regardless of diagnosis, which would mean that the opposition would have to also assert that everyone who has ADD is also being given an unfair advantage through their PRESCRIBED methylphenidate. That's fine, but no one seems to be willing to take that argument.

So I am asking the opposition to somewhere, somehow prove that people who do NOT have ADD, and who are taking methylphenidate without a prescription, have a significant advantage both over those who have a prescription AND those who do not take the medication at all.

Of course, that would just be the start. Then we'd get to get back into debating about how one can define cheating, and any sources that one of the opposition can provide would be great. For instance, if legal (or even semi-legal) precedent can be found for punishing a student based on academic dishonesty relating to methylphenidate or something of the like, then that would certainly strengthen your argument.

But while I will not go so far as to say that I have logic and you have emotion, I will say that the side saying that "Drugs are Bad, mmmkay?" would have the image of emotional bias, and that isn't helped due to the fact that I've been the only one to provide sources this whole debate.

So I say it's time to get back to the gentlemen's rules of debate and actually make the accusing side back up the aggression, and let "innocent until proven guilty" reign.

What say you, knaves? 🙂

The point was, all things being equal (amount of time studied, access to course material, etc) the one who pops adderral the night before the exam will likely have enhanced focus to study better.

This is the advantage for those who are willing to break national law to obtain and use the drug.

In a sense, the ones who choose to obey FDA regulations are being cheated by those who don't, if they have to take the same test in a curved class.

 

[Beren]

The fact that cheating only occurs if anti-cheating rules are broken doesn't mean the definition of cheating has to be worded circularly. Theft only occurs if anti-theft laws are broken. The definition of theft is to take possession of something that legally belongs to another person, business, or company without their consent. The definition of cheating is not "the breaking of anti-cheating rules". That was a flawed extrapolation.
The definition of cheating is outlined in a school's rules. As such, if what is outlined in those rules does not occur, it is not cheating. That is what was meant (and explained, I had thought).

I hope that provost responds soon. I'm actually surprised no full docs or admins have weighed in on this subject yet (unless I missed it). I would think it would be cleared up pretty quickly one way or the other. Then again, seeing how polarized it is for us, maybe it'd be the same for them.

No, I am pointing out that there are other rules (i.e. FDA regulations) that can be broken to gain the unfair advantage.

Breaking codified anti-cheating laws isn't the only way to cheat.

 

[boaz]

Already covered and abandoned due to being a horrible comparison. You can feel free to read the earlier pages. Differences include the necessity to overdose on steroids to get the sports-enhancing effect as compared to the safe, legal dose of methylphenidate, the relative safety of each drug, and the differences between banning a drug in a closed system like a game as compared to the much more open and realistic system of education.

Where exactly do you get this data from?

 

[chman]

Deleted because I just don't care anymore.

 

[boaz]

......

It would be unfair to passively force players of a sport to take drugs that are pretty dangerous and have some serious long term effects just to be competitive with everyone else. Therefore, they are banned, so that nobody has to put themselves in any additional danger than the sport itself provides. College isn't quite like that, both with the fact that college kids aren't regulated by drug rules designed to govern competition and that the drug itself is not nearly on the same level as a typical sports-enhancing steroid.

You are completely ignoring the fact that the reality of college does not adhere to your idyllic picture of students mindless of everything except learning the material. Yes, college is hotly competitive. Who knows how many students are now addicted to METH because they got into it from Adderall, which they got into because they saw other students dramatically change from a C average to an A+ after starting to take Adderall.

Perhaps the AMCAS should include a yes/no question near the grades: "Are these Adderall grades or natural?"

 

[Beren]

You are completely ignoring the fact that the reality of college does not adhere to your idyllic picture of students mindless of everything except learning the material. Yes, college is hotly competitive. Who knows how many students are now addicted to METH because they got into it from Adderall, which they got into because they saw other students dramatically change from a C average to an A+.

Perhaps the AMCAS should include a yes/no question near the grades: "Are these Adderall grades or natural?"

👍 Lol. They should have a question, "have you ever taken adderall without a prescription?" and then change all the grades to A*.

 

[teenmachinery1]

Deleted because I just don't care anymore.

this made me chuckle!

👍

 

[teenmachinery1]

👍 Lol. They should have a question, "have you ever taken adderall without a prescription?" and then change all the grades to A*.

Have you ever taken adderall or exchanged sex for adderall with someone in Eastern Africa or the former Soviet Union between 1983 and 1984.2?

 

[boaz]

If you do take Adderall for "cognitive enhancement" would you publicize it in real life? Would you care if the adcoms knew? Why not?

 

[loveoforganic]

So far, I have been the only one to provide sources supporting the fact that methylphenidate affects everyone equally, regardless of diagnosis, which would mean that the opposition would have to also assert that everyone who has ADD is also being given an unfair advantage through their PRESCRIBED methylphenidate.

Really, how many different ways can I say this isn't right? The logic is so flawed...

 

[anchor00]

Quite honestly the steroid analogy was perfect.

You're abusing a regulated substance in order to gain an unnatural advantage over your competition.

Adderall =/= Caffeine. No matter how much you try to argue that it does.



While people are more than fine with saying they pulled an all nighter with the help of a crap load of coffee, how willing would you be to announce that you only did as well as you did in a class because you had help from your special little friend... meth?

 

[greatnt249]

Quite honestly the steroid analogy was perfect.

You're abusing a regulated substance in order to gain an unnatural advantage over your competition.

Adderall =/= Caffeine. No matter how much you try to argue that it does.



While people are more than fine with saying they pulled an all nighter with the help of a crap load of coffee, how willing would you be to announce that you only did as well as you did in a class because you had help from your special little friend... meth?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Just because you'd be embarrassed to say you did something doesn't make it cheating; for all you know, it just means they don't want people to think they're a tweaker.

 

[Beren]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Just because you'd be embarrassed to say you did something doesn't make it cheating; for all you know, it just means they don't want people to think they're a tweaker.

Welcome back. I think it was just a joke to insinuate there are ethical issues, and not as an argument that taking adderall is cheating. Again, the smiley face.

 

[anchor00]

Welcome back. I think it was just a joke to insinuate there are ethical issues, and not as an argument that taking adderall is cheating. Again, the smiley face.

You'd be correct.

Still wish he would have replied to something other than the joke. 🙄

 

[JJMrK]

Quite honestly the steroid analogy was perfect.

You're abusing a regulated substance in order to gain an unnatural advantage over your competition.

Adderall =/= Caffeine. No matter how much you try to argue that it does.



While people are more than fine with saying they pulled an all nighter with the help of a crap load of coffee, how willing would you be to announce that you only did as well as you did in a class because you had help from your special little friend... meth?

👍

 

[greatnt249]

You'd be correct.

Still wish he would have replied to something other than the joke. 🙄

What the heck do you want me to say? I've already stated my opinion on the issue; the only way that it'd be settled is if someone who actually had university policy in front of them weighed in on this. I could really care less if it's considered cheating or not; I just enjoy sparring for the sake of sparring sometimes.

On a side note, the issue of "unfair/unnatural advantage" gets brought up a lot, but I don't recall anyone actually defining what a "fair advantage" is; what do you guys think?

 

[Beren]

What the heck do you want me to say? I've already stated my opinion on the issue; the only way that it'd be settled is if someone who actually had university policy in front of them weighed in on this. I could really care less if it's considered cheating or not; I just enjoy sparring for the sake of sparring sometimes.

On a side note, the issue of "unfair/unnatural advantage" gets brought up a lot, but I don't recall anyone actually defining what a "fair advantage" is; what do you guys think?

I'd say going to every class, taking meticulous notes, and studying everday gives you a fair advantage.

 

[Tin Man]

Regardless of whether you think my sources and interpretations of said sources were valid, I'll still wait for yours. Remember, per regular debate rules, the burden of proof falls upon the accuser. I'm pretty patient.

Until then, I really do have things to do that don't fall within the realm of arguing something that, in the end, isn't going to change anybody's study habits. 🙂

 

[greatnt249]

I'd say going to every class, taking meticulous notes, and studying everday gives you a fair advantage.

Yeah, in an ideal world. The college world I remember consisted of many waiting until two days before an exam to crack open the book and begin studying. Herein lies the challenge of determining what's fair or not. In this case, the discussion is whether taking Adderall confers a significant advantage to the student taking it. Sure, he/she can concentrate better, but he/she still has to a) study and assimilate the information, b) recall said information once the "high" has worn off, and c) apply the information correctly when asked to recall the information on the examination. Is this really an advantage that is conferred every time the drug is taken, or is it more or less a perceived/potential advantage?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Yeah, in an ideal world. The college world I remember consisted of many waiting until two days before an exam to crack open the book and begin studying. Herein lies the challenge of determining what's fair or not. In this case, the discussion is whether taking Adderall confers a significant advantage to the student taking it. Sure, he/she can concentrate better, but he/she still has to a) study and assimilate the information, b) recall said information once the "high" has worn off, and c) apply the information correctly when asked to recall the information on the examination. Is this really an advantage that is conferred every time the drug is taken, or is it more or less a perceived/potential advantage?

i think you are waving off this very important point as ancillary, when in fact it is the heart of the matter

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Regardless of whether you think my sources and interpretations of said sources were valid, I'll still wait for yours. Remember, per regular debate rules, the burden of proof falls upon the accuser. I'm pretty patient.

Until then, I really do have things to do that don't fall within the realm of arguing something that, in the end, isn't going to change anybody's study habits. 🙂

refer to avatar

 

[greatnt249]

i think you are waving off this very important point as ancillary, when in fact it is the heart of the matter

I can concentrate better, therefore I automatically do better on examinations? If anything, I would think hyperconcentration could possibly work to your detriment if you focus on the wrong things.

 

[Tin Man]

refer to avatar

Hi. Welcome to the conversation. May I ask what you've contributed hencefar?

 

[Beren]

I can concentrate better, therefore I automatically do better on examinations? If anything, I would think hyperconcentration could possibly work to your detriment if you focus on the wrong things.

Well, most ppl who rely on it are the ones who have bad study habits.

But all things being equal, whoever used it will have better focus. So if two ppl went to all the classes, took the same good notes, and studied the same amount of time everyday. The one who uses adderall the night before will have the clear-cut advantage of hyperconcentration.

 

[loveoforganic]

Regardless of whether you think my sources and interpretations of said sources were valid, I'll still wait for yours. Remember, per regular debate rules, the burden of proof falls upon the accuser. I'm pretty patient.

Until then, I really do have things to do that don't fall within the realm of arguing something that, in the end, isn't going to change anybody's study habits. 🙂

You draw grossly invalid conclusions from studies. All the studies say is that Ritalin provides a concentration enhancement for both those with and without ADHD. I agree. Those who choose to take Ritalin w/o having ADHD are getting an unfair advantage, constituting cheating. Not sure what more you're looking for?

 

[Tin Man]

You draw grossly invalid conclusions from studies. All the studies say is that Ritalin provides a concentration enhancement for both those with and without ADHD. I agree. Those who choose to take Ritalin w/o having ADHD are getting an unfair advantage, constituting cheating. Not sure what more you're looking for?

It also means that people WITH ADHD are getting an unfair advantage, constituting cheating. After all, if it affects people the same way, then they would have a similar boost, regardless of where their concentration level is at first.

So far, though, no one is willing to say that the drug should be completely taken out. That would be the only logical way, though, to eliminate the problem if you were only worried about cheating, since people with a prescription are still cheating, per your definition and valid by the studies.

I'm just testing the limits of your argument, since no one seems to be able to build any argument except in contrast to mine.

 

[JJMrK]

Regardless of whether you think my sources and interpretations of said sources were valid, I'll still wait for yours. Remember, per regular debate rules, the burden of proof falls upon the accuser. I'm pretty patient.

Until then, I really do have things to do that don't fall within the realm of arguing something that, in the end, isn't going to change anybody's study habits. 🙂

😕

 

[greatnt249]

Well, most ppl who rely on it are the ones who have bad study habits.

But all things being equal, whoever used it will have better focus. So if two ppl went to all the classes, took the same good notes, and studied the same amount of time everyday. The one who uses adderall the night before will have the clear-cut advantage of hyperconcentration.

I don't know, maybe I'm just biased because I feel more sorry for those that feel they need speed to help them study than I care about any advantage there is to be gained from using it. In my head, I know I did the best I could with my natural abilities, and that's all that really matters to me.

Just for clarification, my ambivalence on whether I think it's cheating or not does not take away from how stupid I think it is to resort to such means in the first place.

 

[greatnt249]

It also means that people WITH ADHD are getting an unfair advantage, constituting cheating. After all, if it affects people the same way, then they would have a similar boost, regardless of where their concentration level is at first.

So far, though, no one is willing to say that the drug should be completely taken out. That would be the only logical way, though, to eliminate the problem if you were only worried about cheating, since people with a prescription are still cheating, per your definition and valid by the studies.

I'm just testing the limits of your argument, since no one seems to be able to build any argument except in contrast to mine.

Are you arguing that Adderall has double the effect on those with ADHD as it does on normal people? Here I was thinking that its purpose was to return those with such conditions to a level of normal functioning.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I can concentrate better, therefore I automatically do better on examinations? If anything, I would think hyperconcentration could possibly work to your detriment if you focus on the wrong things.

no, but that's the unfair advantage you have gained by usage of this drug. how well you use this advantage is a different story.

 

[Beren]

I don't know, maybe I'm just biased because I feel more sorry for those that feel they need speed to help them study than I care about any advantage there is to be gained from using it. In my head, I know I did the best I could with my natural abilities, and that's all that really matters to me.

Just for clarification, my ambivalence on whether I think it's cheating or not does not take away from how stupid I think it is to resort to such means in the first place.

👍 This I can agree with. And let's say I know many ppl who get 4.0 and ~40 MCATs without using the drug. This is even beyond adderall.

 

[Tin Man]

Are you arguing that Adderall has double the effect on those with ADHD as it does on normal people? Here I was thinking that its purpose was to return those with such conditions to a level of normal functioning.

No. I'm saying the opposite. Let's assign arbitrary numbers in terms of concentration disability, 100 being normal, <100 being less concentration.

Person 1: 100
Person 2: 90
Person 3: 40
Person 4: 20
Person 5: 0

With methylphenidate, and assuming that everything EXCEPT concentration ability (assuming due to ADHD) being held constant:

Person 1: 120
Person 2: 120
Person 3: 120
Person 4: 120
Person 5: 0 (no such person exists who would actually benefit from methylphenidate, since a person with no concentration ability is a vegetable 🙂)

The drug works on the same pathways, and brings people to the same level, which is what the studies showed as best as possible. It would be extremely difficult to test whether or not it actually increases grades or not due to the massive amount of variables that would have to be accounted for to make the study anything other than garbage, but it is generally accepted by people who have a lot of experience with this drug and these disorders (...like me...) that this is the general trend with psychostimulants. Variations exist, but mainly due to body weight and other such factors.

But no, a person having ADD or ADHD would not make them more or less sensitive to the drug. Which is why, according to the logic of the opposition, ANYBODY who takes the drug, even with a prescription, is "cheating" because they too would have an "advantage."

 

[Beren]

No. I'm saying the opposite. Let's assign arbitrary numbers in terms of concentration disability, 100 being normal, <100 being less concentration.

Person 1: 100
Person 2: 90
Person 3: 40
Person 4: 20
Person 5: 0

With methylphenidate, and assuming that everything EXCEPT concentration ability (assuming due to ADHD) being held constant:

Person 1: 120
Person 2: 120
Person 3: 120
Person 4: 120
Person 5: 0 (no such person exists who would actually benefit from methylphenidate, since a person with no concentration ability is a vegetable 🙂)

The drug works on the same pathways, and brings people to the same level, which is what the studies showed as best as possible. It would be extremely difficult to test whether or not it actually increases grades or not due to the massive amount of variables that would have to be accounted for to make the study anything other than garbage, but it is generally accepted by people who have a lot of experience with this drug and these disorders (...like me...) that this is the general trend with psychostimulants. Variations exist, but mainly due to body weight and other such factors.

But no, a person having ADD or ADHD would not make them more or less sensitive to the drug. Which is why, according to the logic of the opposition, ANYBODY who takes the drug, even with a prescription, is "cheating" because they too would have an "advantage."

What's the saturating dose? I'm sure there has to be a dose dependent effect. Why would they even bother with prescription volumes then?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

But no, a person having ADD or ADHD would not make them more or less sensitive to the drug. Which is why, according to the logic of the opposition, ANYBODY who takes the drug, even with a prescription, is "cheating" because they too would have an "advantage."

uh what

 

[spicedmanna]

Okay...it's absolutely ridiculous that we are even having this discussion. I fail to see how it is not cheating to take a drug that is not prescribed for you, for a use in which it is not indicated, and for the purpose of achieving or gaining an unfair advantage. There's no discussion here. It's cut and dry.

Patients with ADHD aren't at an unfair advantage because they are taking a drug that is prescribed to them because they have a PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS that is corrected and/or being treated by the drug. It makes no sense to compare folks without ADHD with those who have it with respect to the premise of cheating due to the medication. It's not cheating if you have ADHD and are taking the medication. ADHD patients need it to have normal function, because, duh, they are impaired in this area. 🙄

Let's use a more familiar analogy. If you have a testosterone deficiency, it is appropriate to supplement with it. It's not cheating if you use it because you need it to have normal function. However, if you are Barry Bonds, it's cheating.

 

[Tin Man]

What's the saturating dose? I'm sure there has to be a dose dependent effect. Why would they even bother with prescription volumes then?

Dose dependent. I guess you didn't see where I said "everything held constant except concentration ability blah blah blah...". Stronger dose = stronger effect. Too much of a dose = high (which is the only reason it's not being sold over the counter...). But it doesn't have anything to diagnosis.

uh what

Oh, you again. I forgot. What were you saying that was even remotely involving you in the conversation? I either forgot, or didn't see it anywhere...

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Oh, you again. I forgot. What were you saying that was even remotely involving you in the conversation? I either forgot, or didn't see it anywhere...

lol.

 

[Tin Man]

Okay...it's absolutely ridiculous that we are even having this discussion. I fail to see how it is not cheating to take a drug that is not prescribed for you, for a use in which it is not indicated, and for the purpose of achieving or gaining an unfair advantage. There's no discussion here. It's cut and dry.

The poll fails to support you. 🙂

Patients with ADHD aren't at an unfair advantage because they are taking a drug that is prescribed to them because they have a PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS that is corrected and/or being treated by the drug. It makes no sense to compare folks without ADHD with those who have it with respect to the premise of cheating due to the medication. It's not cheating if you have ADHD and are taking the medication. ADHD patients need it to have normal function, because, duh, they are impaired in this area. 🙄

Actually, as I've been saying, they aren't brought to a "normal" level. They get a huge concentration boost. To "normal" people, it looks like they slow down, due to the fact that their once crazy lack of concentration is now focused. It looks like "normal" people speed up because they now can't STOP focusing on something and just doze. But the pathology doesn't change how the drug affects a person.

I don't think that using the drug can be cheating. However, if you think it is, you would have to admit that ANYBODY, including people with ADD, who takes the drug is cheating. It's simply a matter of how the drug works. Same thing with SSRI's, really. Ever read about people without depression or emotive problems experimenting with Paxil?

Let's use a more familiar analogy. If you have a testosterone deficiency, it is appropriate to supplement with it. It's not cheating if you use it because you need it to have normal function. However, if you are Barry Bonds, it's cheating.

I don't know much behind the pharmacology of these testosterone drugs, but if you're describing them that way, then it means there is a vector-type movement that relates the strength of the drug to the testosterone deficiency. As I've stated above, that's simply not how methylphenidate works. It does not "fill the hole" of concentration before spilling over the top. It simply brings someone to a certain level. That happens regardless of whether the person is normal, has ADD, has schizophrenia, or whatever.

 

[Tin Man]

lol.

Attaboy.