Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
March 28, 2024 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

A Bitter Pill

("(B)aderrall?" May 6)

I particularly take issue with his column's complete misrepresentation of the potential health risks that Adderall carries. Contrary to Jennings' absurd claim that Adderall can be compared to Advil, the U.S. has classified Adderall as a Schedule II drug meaning it is considered to have a high potential for abuse and/or severe psychological dependence. Its active ingredients are amphetamines, which work on the central nervous system, and the same chemicals that compose Speed, an illegal drug with similar stimulant effects. The drug information for a common brand of extended release Adderall warns that misuse can lead to "sudden death and serious cardiovascular adverse effects," as well as the "emergence of new psychotic and manic symptoms."

It is lazy and shocking in the extreme that Jennings thought it adequate to dismiss these health risks with the sentence, "I can't imagine Adderall being any worse for you than cigarettes or alcohol." If Jennings had taken two seconds to Google the side effects of Adderall, he would not have had to imagine he would have found numerous legitimate sources detailing the dangers that the drug can pose to users, particularly those who have not consulted with a doctor and are therefore unaware of the underlying conditions that can be fatally aggravated by its use. Whether or not the effects of cigarettes and alcohol are comparable to Adderall could be debated, but Jennings' failure to even engage with this issue demonstrates a disturbing willingness to gloss over inconvenient facts.

As the sibling of a younger brother with Attention Deficit Disorder, I also take offense that Jennings likens the use of neurochemical drugs such as anti-depressants and prescription sleep aids, which are prescribed for legitimate medical conditions, to the use of similarly brain-altering drugs by perfectly healthy individuals. Jennings unwittingly highlights the inherent difference between these scenarios when he cites Nicolas Sarkozy, who compensates for his short stature by standing on a stool. Both Sarkozy and my brother use aids to make up for natural deficiencies. There is nothing unfair about these coping strategies; if anything, the use of artificial aids corrects unfair imbalances that would prevent my brother from succeeding in school and Sarkozy from projecting an image of strength befitting a world leader. I would no more take medication away from my brother or a stool from Sarkozy than I would take a wheelchair from a person with a physical disability.

Students who illegally obtain Adderall to accomplish inhuman feats of reading, writing and studying are not correcting any inherent disadvantage. They are abusing a prescription drug to achieve heightened capabilities, beyond anything that is naturally attainable, or attainable through legal stimulants such as caffeine and energy drinks like Red Bull. Jennings obscures this distinction, and in doing so hurts the cause of people who actually do suffer from ADD/ADHD, and already face scorn and ridicule from critics who scoff that these are "made-up" disorders.

Once a true picture of Adderall's risks has been established, its use as a study aid becomes far less benign. Students who use Adderall and other amphetamine-based stimulants for this purpose are gambling with their health. Perhaps this gamble is no bigger than the one taken by those who chose to smoke cigarettes. If the question is whether Adderall abuse is fair, however, then in the context of these dangers, the answer is a resounding no.

When a highly-regulated prescription drug bestows clear advantages on users with no real disorder or disease, it creates a situation in which those willing to break the law and threaten their own wellbeing can gain a competitive advantage. The dilemma that this poses for the population that stands to benefit from use of the drug in this case highly motivated college students is hugely unfair. Students should never feel that they must choose between safeguarding their health and competing academically, just as athletes should not have to choose between avoiding the dangerous side effects of anabolic steroids and attaining the ability to break world records. Any substance that forces this dilemma is unfairly influencing competition by rewarding risky behavior.

Jennings airily dismisses any attempt to quantify fairness with the assertion that such concepts are arbitrary, and therefore college will never be "fair." He points to private school educations and tutors as examples of unfair advantages, as well as natural inequities in intelligence, athletic capability and physical appearance. Once again Jennings has muddied the waters with inaccurate comparisons. The factors that he cites have indirect and inconsistent impacts on academic success. Amphetamines have a direct, distinguishable effect on students' ability to complete specific, intense tasks, such as writing a long research paper or completing extensive readings.

It is terrifying to me that I might someday face a situation where I have to decide between illegally taking brain-altering prescription drugs, and falling behind my peers academically. Disingenuous arguments like the one Jennings posits bring such a day that much closer.