Un-Prescribed Study Drugs

Students who take un-prescribed study drugs create an unfair advantage because there is inequitable accessibility to these medications among students. People with ADHD/ADD are able to obtain medications through prescriptions from their health care professional, but others are still able to obtain it non-prescribed through diversion. Diversion is the process in which people with a legal prescription for medications give it those without a prescription for non-therapeutic purposes (Vrecko, 1982). A study conducted by McCabe, Teter, & Boyd (2006) found that 54% of students with a medical prescription for stimulants have been approached to sell or give away their medications to those without a prescription. The division process to obtain non-prescribed
medications often comes at a cost. The data scientists at Boston’s Children Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched streetRx, which documents the prices of illicit street drugs through user-submitted information in countries such as Canada (Freyer, 2015). If the search is localized to London, Ontario, the price for Adderall can be as high as $15 per capsule (StreetRx – Latest Street Prices For Prescription Drugs (n.d.).). To some, it is a small price to pay to experience enhanced cognitive abilities, but to others, it may not be within their financial means. The problem lies within the fact that access to said medications is not equal for all students, with one student benefitting from a supplement that another student may not have access to. This creates a compelling situation in which two students studying for the same examination are not competing on the same level. One student is functioning with enhanced cognition whereas the student who does not use stimulants is operating on their natural abilities. This difference is most pronounced on examinations where students are tested on memory recall. Many universities utilize examinations that emphasize rote-learning, which emphasizes the importance of remembering the material studied (Mayer, 2002). A study conducted by Lakhan & Kirchgessner (2012) suggested that the usage of stimulants increases memory recall and is most complimentary to rote-learning style exams, which is what universities mostly utilize. Universities need to play a prominent role in regulating the usage of study drugs by incorporating policies that classify it non-prescribed use as academic dishonesty. Institutions such as Western needs to ensure that every student has equal opportunities to learn in an equitable learning environment. The studies mentioned underpin the benefits of using study drugs as cognitive enhancers to be superior and undermines the importance of fairness. It is a dishonour to those who choose not to use a supplement, but their natural cognitive abilities to achieve their academic outcomes. Western University should treat the usage of non-prescribed study drugs as academic dishonesty to protect the well-being of its students. As of 2017, the University of Western Ontario Code of Student Conduct (2015) does not view the usage of study drugs as a form of academic dishonesty, but only the possession, illegal use, and distribution of a restricted substance as a violation. The lack of acknowledgement enforces the tacit acceptance of cognitive enhancers to improve academic performance because it is not seen as a violation of the standard of conduct expected of students. A study report that 1/3 of students at Ivy League schools do not believe that using study drugs is a form of cheating (Sifferlin, 2014). This has major implications in terms of the well-being of both students that require and do not require these medications. As previously stated, the usage of ADHD/ADD medication can result in side effects, and in more severe cases it can lead to hospitalization or death. In 2005, Health Canada banned Adderall XR because it resulted in 20 sudden deaths (“Health Canada Withdraws”, 2005). Students believe that it is worth risking their physiological well-being in order to gain a few more hours to studying or to concentrate a little bit harder. Universities need to take a more substantial role in regulating and condemning the non-prescribed usage to get ahead in order to protect their students. The non-prescribed usage has implications for students that actually have ADHD/ADD. The popularity of stimulants as study drugs has led to a shortage of medications for patients who actually require it. The growing demand is exceeding the supply. For example, the global pharmaceutical company Shire reported that the sales of Adderall have decreased by 5%, but the number of prescriptions has increased by 10% (Shire Pharmaceuticals Global, 2016). This is most pronounced among students on college campuses. A growing problem is the number of students feigning ADHD/ADD symptoms in order to gain prescriptions. For example, a study used two ADHD/ADD assessment in order to determine the ability of students to feign ADHD/ADD symptoms. He reported that college students were able to successfully feign ADHD/ADD outcomes on 77 and 93 percent of items on the assessment (Fischer, 2010). This represents the proportion of students that are able to successfully gain access to prescription medications for non-therapeutic purposes, despite not have substantial medical evidence to warrant it. This presents a challenge to people who medically require the medication for therapeutic purposes. Their ability to function on an equitable level among their peers is compromised because the medication that is intended to help them, is actually being used against them to further widen the disparity between themselves and others. Western University needs to create policies that regulate the usage of study drugs as a form of cognitive enhancement. It is important to instill that it is unethical to harm your body for improved performance, and it is unfair to take resources away from students that medically require its therapeutic effects in order to operate on an equal level with their non-affected peers. Critics contend that if stimulants such as Adderall should be treated as academic dishonesty, then other stimulants such as caffeine should be treated as such because it produces similar effects.
Caffeine can be consumed through coffee, tea, energy drinks, or caffeine supplements. Regardless of the form in which it is taken, caffeine has some effect on cognition. For example, a study conducted by Warburton (1995) found that caffeine intake results in increased alertness, concentration, and memory. Admittedly, there are parallels between the effects of caffeine and study drugs in relation to improved academic performance. It is understandable why critics present this argument because if both are influencing cognitive abilities to a certain extent, then both should be treated equally. However, a line must be drawn. On the surface, the effects of caffeine and ADHD/ADD medications may seem similar, but on a neurological level, the differences are significant. As previously mentioned, study drugs bind to dopamine and epinephrine receptors whereas caffeine binds to adenosine receptors (Doyle et al, 2010). This can influence how long the effect of the stimulants will impact the body. For example, the effects of caffeine can last up to six hours (University Health Service. (n.d.)) in the body whereas Adderall can last up to 12 hours in the body (Brams, Moon Pucci & López, 2010). The differences are significant and it is too far-fetched for the two to be compared. A stimulant that is in the morning cup of coffee or tea should not be compared to medications that are legally prescribed to patients with neurobehavioural
disorders.