Can Ritalin really improve my grades?

[Robin Hood]

i'm a post-modernist, deconstructionist, what??? punctuation, capitalization… i refuse to let my writing be restricted (really, i'm just lazy, n too immersed in thought to coherently write with proper punctuation, roflmao)

 

Or you just have ADHD. I too have trouble with structuring with ideas, but maybe it's due to my NVLD.

[MaeFleur]

No I'm aware of that. It's just some people think guys like usain bolt only race every 4 years or something

 

How are you so aware that they dont use drugs? Maybe in their sport it's of minimal advantage? If not, then maybe they're not at the top of the world class level? If not both of those, then I'd say that you're not getting the truth.

 

I live with one! Who lives with the rest of the team for half of the year and yes they are top of the world class. It would a huge advantage to cheat but they don't. Of course I don't follow them all around all the time but these guys are real athletes who are tested constantly and wouldn't take the risk. I just don't want y'all to be so jaded and cynical! I think most Canadian athletes are the "good guys" who should be admired.

[future_doc]

A cheater is a loser no matter what the world believes.

[medigeek]

I live with one! Who lives with the rest of the team for half of the year and yes they are top of the world class. It would a huge advantage to cheat but they don't. Of course I don't follow them all around all the time but these guys are real athletes who are tested constantly and wouldn't take the risk. I just don't want y'all to be so jaded and cynical! I think most Canadian athletes are the "good guys" who should be admired.

 

Being at world class standard =/= winning at the world class level. It's very easy to believe people who finish 6th-7th or whatever dont cheat.

 

A cheater is a loser no matter what the world believes.

 

Unfortunately all the people winning in individual sports are "cheating" left and right.

[apache]

what about the fact that now that we cracked down on steroids in baseball, 12 percent of the players now are on amphetamines/methylphenidate for their purported adhd… that can turn a 0.200 hitter to a 0.250… which means a major league contract and 500 g a year… if you can already hit worth half a ****, then you can elevate yourself to all star status

 

Being at world class standard =/= winning at the world class level. It's very easy to believe people who finish 6th-7th or whatever dont cheat.

 

 

 

Unfortunately all the people winning in individual sports are "cheating" left and right.

[10wattbulb]

I totally agree with you future_doc when you say that, "a cheater is a loser no matter what the world believes."

 

Many people who cheat don't get caught, and so one would think that they benefited from 'gaming' the system. But in reality, they can never feel totally satisfied with themselves because deep down inside, they know that they don't deserve their 'reward.' I, for my part, believe that each of us creates our own little heaven or hell. When we cheat, we are being dishonest not just towards others but also with ourselves, as we start to subconsciously doubt our true capabilities. Hence, we create our own hell by depending on our capabilities of cheating instead of depending on our true talents (or lack there of) in order to get by and reach our goals. Do you guys really think that the athletes who have to dope themselves to win are truly satisfied with themselves? On the surface they may appear to be...like any good cheater...

 

Personally, what worries me about those who take drugs (Ritalin w/o prescription, caffeine pills) to get good grades in undergrad is the fact that they will probably have to do the same thing when they reach Med school. Once drug habits form, they are hard to break (like any other bad habit AAMOF)... Would any of you really feel comfortable to have an open heart surgery performed by a surgeon who had to take a cocktail of drugs in order to concentrate to get by his/her MD studies? I, for my part, certainly wouldn't. Because MDs literally have their patients' lives in their hands, I feel that an MD's sense of morality should be particularly acute.

[Robin Hood]

I totally agree with you future_doc when you say that, "a cheater is a loser no matter what the world believes."

 

Many people who cheat don't get caught, and so one would think that they benefited from 'gaming' the system. But in reality, they can never feel totally satisfied with themselves because deep down inside, they know that they don't deserve their 'reward.' I, for my part, believe that each of us creates our own little heaven or hell. When we cheat, we are being dishonest not just towards others but also with ourselves, as we start to subconsciously doubt our true capabilities. Hence, we create our own hell by depending on our capabilities of cheating instead of depending on our true talents (or lack there of) in order to get by and reach our goals. Do you guys really think that the athletes who have to dope themselves to win are truly satisfied with themselves? On the surface they may appear to be...like any good cheater...

 

Personally, what worries me about those who take drugs (Ritalin w/o prescription, caffeine pills) to get good grades in undergrad is the fact that they will probably have to do the same thing when they reach Med school. Once drug habits form, they are hard to break (like any other bad habit AAMOF)... Would any of you really feel comfortable to have a open heart surgery performed by a surgeon who had to take a cocktail of drugs in order to concentrate to get by his/her studies? I, for my part, certainly wouldn't. Because MDs literally have people's lives in their hands, I feel that the MD's sense of morality should be particularly acute.

 

Some people won't care about satisfation, and just about $$$. But those who need to take Ritalin w/o prescription in UG in order to get in, I don't know how they will be able to support the coursework of med school. As for those who cheat, if they ever get caught, then they'll be in big trouble.

[medigeek]

I totally agree with you future_doc when you say that, "a cheater is a loser no matter what the world believes."

 

Many people who cheat don't get caught, and so one would think that they benefited from 'gaming' the system. But in reality, they can never feel totally satisfied with themselves because deep down inside, they know that they don't deserve their 'reward.' I, for my part, believe that each of us creates our own little heaven or hell. When we cheat, we are being dishonest not just towards others but also with ourselves, as we start to subconsciously doubt our true capabilities. Hence, we create our own hell by depending on our capabilities of cheating instead of depending on our true talents (or lack there of) in order to get by and reach our goals. Do you guys really think that the athletes who have to dope themselves to win are truly satisfied with themselves? On the surface they may appear to be...like any good cheater...

 

Personally, what worries me about those who take drugs (Ritalin w/o prescription, caffeine pills) to get good grades in undergrad is the fact that they will probably have to do the same thing when they reach Med school. Once drug habits form, they are hard to break (like any other bad habit AAMOF)... Would any of you really feel comfortable to have an open heart surgery performed by a surgeon who had to take a cocktail of drugs in order to concentrate to get by his/her MD studies? I, for my part, certainly wouldn't. Because MDs literally have their patients' lives in their hands, I feel that an MD's sense of morality should be particularly acute.

 

 

When discussing sports, in many cases you're not actually "cheating" because you are doing what everyone else at the very top does. If everyone does it, it's not cheating.

 

You really shouldnt mention caffeine pills or else having a large coffee counts as cheating too...right?

[10wattbulb]

Dear medigeek, I don't want to get too philosophical here, but just because "you are doing what everyone else at the very top does" does NOT make cheating any more acceptable. You should know this by now. Get caught doping youself in a sports event or plagiarizing on your English composition and see what happens to you... (and rightly so, I must add).

 

BTW, common sense tells us that: "though achieving lethal dose with caffeine would be exceptionally difficult with regular coffee [even a super-sized jug of Starbucks espresso], there have been reported deaths from overdosing on caffeine pills." That's why I talked about caffeine pills and not large coffee; the devil's in the details... Everything is a matter of degrees...

[megaMooMoo]

A cheater is a loser no matter what the world believes.

 

not in the financial world, those guys are call CEO's : D

[medigeek]

everyone at the top is not cheating but i do admit they are very very special individuals...

 

your argument of everyone is cheating so its not cheating is definitely not the strongest. growing up i used to know an entire extended family cheating the welfare system and their justification was a lot of other people are doing the same thing so why cant we do it as well... guess we live in an age of self justification...

 

anyways i think it would be a good idea for me to keep out of morality debate though since i have a bit of a moral high horse.

 

In the specific topic of the elite world class (in some sports) what I said is fully justified. See the eastern europeans in the 70s, USSR in the 70s/80s, the US in the 70s/80s/90s. In a track and field 100m race, when the most talented guys were also the guys doing the drugs, nothing is really cheating there.

 

Dear medigeek, I don't want to get too philosophical here, but just because "you are doing what everyone else at the very top does" does NOT make cheating any more acceptable. You should know this by now. Get caught doping youself in a sports event or plagiarizing on your English composition and see what happens to you... (and rightly so, I must add).

 

BTW, common sense tells us that: "though achieving lethal dose with caffeine would be exceptionally difficult with regular coffee [even a super-sized jug of Starbucks espresso], there have been reported deaths from overdosing on caffeine pills." That's why I talked about caffeine pills and not large coffee; the devil's in the details... Everything is a matter of degrees...

 

A lethal dose of caffeine would take probably about 80 cups of timmies medium sized coffee (yes 80). So your starbucks expresso isn't the best analogy Once you're past 400mg or so in a dose, you'll get a high resting heart rate and feel like crap... not the most ideal state to be in for studying.

[10wattbulb]

Medigeek said, "You really shouldnt mention caffeine pills or else having a large coffee counts as cheating too...right?"

 

The idea here, medigeek, is that taking a large cup of coffee can do no harm to you neither health-wise nor morally/ethically, even if you decide to take the coffee for the caffeine thinking that it might help you stay focused. This is because the amount of caffeine in even the largest of coffee cups does not contain enough caffeine to have any true effects or side effects (you might just feel a little more awake and ). As I've previously said, everything is a matter of degrees. This also holds for morality; arguing with someone (as we're all doing here) is certainly not immoral, but fighting and harming one another would definitely be. Likewise, there is a difference b/w a cup of coffee and caffeine pills (one contains much more caffeine than the other).

 

Taking caffeine pills or Ritalin w/o prescription (or any other unnecessary drug) in order to get better grades is not only risky for your health, but it is also immoral. You can easily overdose with caffeine pills, and anyways, excess caffeine will probably actually make your studying more difficult because you'll have the jitters. Same thing goes for the Ritalin; if you don't actually have ADHD, the Ritalin won't help you do better.

 

Finally, what I have been trying to get across all along is that when you want to be an MD, you got to have a very acute sense of moral judgement. You have your patients' lives in your hands, unlike the sports athletes, the CEOs, etc. You will NOT be able to rely on ANY drug as a Med student in order to pass your exams. If it becomes known that you are abusing of a substance as a Med student or an actual MD, you can be sued and can face severe penalties.

 

P.S. Even if virtually everyone in a given field 'cheats,' it does NOT make it any more moral for you to do the same. Think about this one...

[apache]

ok ok, dexedrine is amphetamine, what do you think hitler was giving his troops in the first two years of the war, methylphenidate is a pretty similar compound but acts more like cocaine… (i.e. more euphoria, less ass kicking concentration)… i'm not trying to condone the use of this or anything, but the science-geek in me wants to get this out because you're flat out wrong, unless the person does have anxiety issues.

 

also, normative morality doesn't exist, if someone takes ritalin so they can better defend their racially-motivated maliciously prosecuted client, is that unethical?? what about giving dexedrine to fighter pilots during war time?? again, i'm not advocating any view, but realize yours isn't the absolute view.

 

i have a big issue with time management during my exams, i may get 47/50 of the questions i did on an exam with 70 questions… so in a way i need meds to fulfill my full potential, then again, give me an extra hour on a two hour exam, i'm going to get say 66/70, whereas person beside me will go from 50/70 to 53/70.

 

As someone who's especially attuned to the law, and the history of how certain laws come into fruition, you'd be surprised how many laws, which effect the moral zeitgeist of the common person, are born out of bureaucratic need for funding, poor economic conditions requiring systemic lowering of certain segments of the populations… so tag a certain "scurge" on that population and deport them… i can give you a 2 hour narration regarding the last 150 years of the individuals, motivations, and details, legal proceedings, even the first farmer convicted under the marihuana (it was even spelled differently back then ) tax act (marijuana wasn't initially made illegal, you just needed a certificate of sorts to grow out, one which wasn't handed out, this was challenged by tim leary in 69 or 71 i believe, as in order to get the stamp, you needed to have marijuana, which was illegal to have without the stamp, meaning the government had to require you to break to the law in order to get a government licensure to produce marihuana (or the stamp), hence making the federal act of handing out the stamps itself knowingly profiting from criminal activity… it also violates the fifth amendment, you know the one about not incriminating yourself, which you have to do to get the stamp... oops (on an aside, i have to say i love leary, he's definitely the guy that blends my interest of medicine and law… plus the man's a brilliant psychologist (check out his work at harvard before he went all hippy), although definitely let his emotions over-radicalize him)… i'd also like to add that that the american medical association opposed this act; mayor laguardia (the guy the airport is named after in case you haven't heard of him) of new york also commissioned a 6 year study which found all the premises upon which the act was founded were pretty much b.s. here's some of anslinger's (the initial head of the federal bureau of narcotics, who initially thought the job was a paper-pushing demotion, that marihuana was harmless, but was ambitious to grow his limited budget (which was limited because the states thought most narcotics - many of which we're used in medicine, were harmless).

 

Here is the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION'S RESPONSE to the following testimoney of Anslinger in the 1937 Marijuana hearings:

 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/t8.htm

 

and here is Anslinger… what he's saying is even more preposterous if you read the 6 year medical report LaGuardia commissioned, which was entirely done by medical researchers, etc.

 

As a stimulant to crime the drug is probably as important as cocaine, certainly far more so than opium or any of its derivatives, and narcotic-control agencies will be put to a severe test in routing out this traffic.

 

As a rule the addict passes into a dreamy state in which judgment is lost and imagination runs riot. Fantasies arise which are limitless and extravagant. Scenes pass before the mind's eye in kaleidoscopic confusion and there is no sense of the passing of time.

 

Under relatively large doses consciousness does not leave entirely, even though actions and movements are out of control. As the influence of the drug persists there may be periods of stupor from which, however, the patient can be aroused. In most individuals there is no succeeding nausea and the thrill seeker finds inhibitions destroyed and, abandoning his normal sense of propriety, he may do and say things quite foreign to his makeup.

 

Cannabis indica is the medicinal preparation known to physicians. But the potent resin produced chiefly by the top of the female plant is as much sought after in certain quarters as is opium. Its legitimate use in the field of medicine is relatively limited, as other drugs more accurate and dependable as to effects have largely taken its place.

 

Cases of fatal poisoning rarely if ever occur. Nevertheless, it is one of the dangerous drugs that should be known only to be shunned--an intoxicant with the most vicious propensities.

 

Copyright, 1936, by the Chicago-Tribune, New York Times Syndicate, Inc.

I will give you gentleman just a few outstanding evidences of crimes that have been committed as a result of the use of marihuana.

MR. REED: The testimony before the committee of which I was formerly chairman in reference to heroin said in reference to the effect of it that it made men feel fearless, and that a great majority of the crimes of great violence that were committed were committed by addicts, and one man stated that it would make a rabbit fight a bulldog. Does this drug have a similar effect?

 

MR. ANSLINGER: Here is a gang of seven young men, all seven of them, young men under 21 years of age. They terrorized central Ohio for more than two months, and they were responsible for 38 stick-ups. They all boast they did those crimes while under the influence of marihuana.

 

MR. LEWIS: Was that as an excuse, or a defense?

 

MR. ANSLINGER: No, sir.

 

MR. LEWIS: Does it strengthen the criminal will; does it operate as whisky might, to provoke recklessness?

 

MR. ANSLINGER: I think it makes them irresponsible. A man does not know what he is doing. It has not been recognized as a defense by the courts, although it has been used as a defense.

 

MR. LEWIS: Probably the word "excuse" or "mitigation" would be better than defense, I think.

 

MR. ANSLINGER: Here is one of the worst cases I have seen. The district attorney told me the defendant in this case pleaded that he was under the influence of marihuana when he committed that crime, but that has not been recognized.

 

We have several cases of that kind. There was one town in Ohio where a young man went into a hotel and held up the clerk and killed him, and his defense was that he had been affected by the use of marihuana.

 

MR. FULLER: The only question was whether or not he knew what he was doing, whether he was insane. That is always a defense, whether or not a man is in such a state of mind that he does not know good from evil. The question is whether or not his mind is right, whether he is responsible.

 

MR. ANSLINGER: As to these young men I was telling you about, one of them said if he had killed somebody on the spot he would not have known it.

 

In Florida a 21-year-old boy under the influence of this drug killed his parents and his brothers and sisters. The evidence showed that he had smoke marihuana.

 

In Chicago recently two boys murdered a policeman while under the influence of marihuana. Not long ago we found a 15-year-old boy going insane because, the doctor told the enforcement officers, he thought the boy was smoking marihuana cigarettes. They traced the sale to some man who had been growing marihuana and selling it to these boys all under 15 years of age, on a playground there.

 

MR. JENKINS: In my home town just recently two boys were sent to the penitentiary for life for killing a man, and their defense was built upon the fact that they had used a drug. I do not believe it was this drug.

 

MR. ANSLINGER: There have been a number of cases in Ohio recently.

 

MR. JENKINS: The defense was made for them by a very successful lawyer.

 

MR. REED: Is there any cure for a person who becomes an addict?

 

MR. ANSLINGER: I do not think there is such a thing as not being able to cure an addict. Marihuana addicts my go to a Federal narcotic farm. But I have not seen many addicts who could not be cured. An addict could drop it and he will not experience any ill effects.

 

One of these boys I referred to went insane, and they stopped it. Here in Colorado -- and Colorado seems to have had a lot of cases of violence recently -- in Alamosa County, and in Huerfano County the sheriff was killed as the result of the action of a man under the influence of marihuana. Recently in Baltimore a young man was sent to the electric chair for having raped a girl while under the influence of marihuana.

 

I will show you how this traffic is increasing.

 

MR. MCCORMACK: Have you completed your statement in reference to the criminal cases?

 

MR. ANSLINGER: I have a number of cases here.

 

MR. MCCORMACK: Are you acquainted with the report of the public prosecutor at New Orleans in 1931?

 

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, sir.

 

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that would be valuable. That was a case where 125 our of 450 prisoners were found to be marihuana addicts, and slightly less than one-half of the murderers were marihuana addicts, and about 20 percent of them were charged with being addicts of what they call "merry wonder".

 

the fact that the drug was suddenly being thought to be imported from "RED CHINA" and "JAPAN" just happened to be a bit convenient too… i should add that anslingers campaigns were heavily financed by competitors with hemp companies (hemp used as a textile… it is the best, after all), who had a big financial interest in the law being passed… i'm sure because of their concern for american health… just quit while you're ahead, i could write for another few days straight on this, lol

 

le sigh

[10wattbulb]

To muse87: First of all, Hitler is the symbol 'par excellence' of immorality; his name should really not come up in this debate on morality. Secondly, going to war -on drugs- and taking an exam -on drugs- are two completely different issues/situations. Many pilots have to take drugs to keep themselves awake because they are otherwise going to crash. Foot soldiers took drugs to have more stamina to fight better (war is a matter of life and death after all!). Meanwhile, students who have to take drugs to do well on an exam in Med school are a hazard to their future patients.

 

Thirdly, everything is a matter of degrees. It is often hard to draw the line as to what is moral and what isn't, but somewhere, the line has got to be drawn. And saying that normative morality doesn't exist is quite a debatable philosophical claim in and of itself. While I certainly don't believe that I (or anyone else) detains the absolute truth, I do believe that my perspective is closer to the truth (i.e. more accurate) than yours, otherwise I would not be arguing (and neither would you if you didn't believe the same of your own perspective).

 

Finally, I am perfectly aware that societal laws and morality are often at odds against one another. I have never said the contrary. Please reread again my previous post a little more carefully, especially this part:

 

Taking caffeine pills or Ritalin w/o prescription (or any other unnecessary drug) in order to get better grades is not only risky for your health, but it is also immoral. You can easily overdose with caffeine pills, and anyways, excess caffeine will probably actually make your studying more difficult because you'll have the jitters. Same thing goes for the Ritalin; if you don't actually have ADHD, the Ritalin won't help you do better.

 

Finally, what I have been trying to get across all along is that when you want to be an MD, you got to have a very acute sense of moral judgement. You have your patients' lives in your hands, unlike the sports athletes, the CEOs, etc. You will NOT be able to rely on ANY drug as a Med student in order to pass your exams. If it becomes known that you are abusing of a substance as a Med student or an actual MD, you can be sued and can face severe penalties.

 

P.S. Even if virtually everyone in a given field 'cheats,' it does NOT make it any more moral for you to do the same. Think about this one...

[aaronjw]

You make it seem as though drugs make them smarter.

 

If there is such a drug please let me know cause I'll buy up all the underground sh1t that I can.

 

And I'm sick of this moral judgement crap. Physicians take drugs for the same purposes that a student may take a drug like Ritalin or modafinil.

 

You guys are out to freaking lunch if you believe physicians are actually as benevolent many here seem to think they are. They are people just like the rest of us. I doubt the standard deviations differ for lying, chesting, divorce, etc as for Joe public.

 

To muse87: First of all, Hitler is the symbol 'par excellence' of immorality; his name should really not come up in this debate on morality. Secondly, going to war -on drugs- and taking an exam -on drugs- are two completely different issues/situations. Many pilots have to take drugs to keep themselves awake because they are otherwise going to crash. Foot soldiers took drugs to have more stamina to fight better (war is a matter of life and death after all!). Meanwhile, students who have to take drugs to do well on an exam in Med school are a hazard to their future patients.

 

Thirdly, everything is a matter of degrees. It is often hard to draw the line as to what is moral and what isn't, but somewhere, the line has got to be drawn. And saying that normative morality doesn't exist is quite a debatable philosophical claim in and of itself. While I certainly don't believe that I (or anyone else) detains the absolute truth, I do believe that my perspective is closer to the truth (i.e. more accurate) than yours, otherwise I would not be arguing (and neither would you if you didn't believe the same of your own perspective).

 

Finally, I am perfectly aware that societal laws and morality are often at odds against one another. I have never said the contrary. Please reread again my previous post a little more carefully, especially this part:

 

Taking caffeine pills or Ritalin w/o prescription (or any other unnecessary drug) in order to get better grades is not only risky for your health, but it is also immoral. You can easily overdose with caffeine pills, and anyways, excess caffeine will probably actually make your studying more difficult because you'll have the jitters. Same thing goes for the Ritalin; if you don't actually have ADHD, the Ritalin won't help you do better.

 

Finally, what I have been trying to get across all along is that when you want to be an MD, you got to have a very acute sense of moral judgement. You have your patients' lives in your hands, unlike the sports athletes, the CEOs, etc. You will NOT be able to rely on ANY drug as a Med student in order to pass your exams. If it becomes known that you are abusing of a substance as a Med student or an actual MD, you can be sued and can face severe penalties.

 

P.S. Even if virtually everyone in a given field 'cheats,' it does NOT make it any more moral for you to do the same. Think about this one...

[10wattbulb]

You make it seem as though drugs make them smarter.

 

If there is such a drug please let me know cause I'll buy up all the underground sh1t that I can.

 

Haha! I don't think so. But some people really do think drugs can help, including some scientists. I think it's all a big placebo effect...

 

But read this article: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/03/09/brain-candy-can-ritalin-turn-you-into-an-a-student/

 

Oh, you don't have to agree with me that it's immoral to take underground sh1t, but watch out for the side-effects and the future lawsuits/reprimands. Good luck!

[10wattbulb]

i think you clearly demonstrated by this statement you don't know what your talking about. and i was partly taking your side on the moral side of the debate...

 

I know quite well what I'm talking about. I've taken quite a few higher level Chem & Biochem courses, and I know that clinical studies & research on mind-altering/psycho-stimulant drugs is difficult (i.e. results are often inconclusive), and it is often very hard to distinguish b/w a true effect and a placebo effect. Look at the scientific debate on antidepressants; some experts think they might not even work at all (i.e. only placebo)! Please note that I haven't said that I think they don't work. One of my profs who's actually a practicing clinical psychologist told us that many kids are falsely diagnosed with ADHD and are prescribed Ritalin as a result. But, these kids don't actually have ADHD; one way of knowing this is that the Ritalin has no effect on their behavior.

 

Medical research is often times not as rigorous as we think it is or ought to be. One day it is claimed that red wine can prevent cardiovascular diseases, and the following day, this very same claim is denied by another group of experts...

 

Ergo, those who think that by taking Ritalin they'll do better on their exams might really just be fooling themselves.

[medigeek]

Medigeek said, "You really shouldnt mention caffeine pills or else having a large coffee counts as cheating too...right?"

 

The idea here, medigeek, is that taking a large cup of coffee can do no harm to you neither health-wise nor morally/ethically, even if you decide to take the coffee for the caffeine thinking that it might help you stay focused. This is because the amount of caffeine in even the largest of coffee cups does not contain enough caffeine to have any true effects or side effects (you might just feel a little more awake and ). As I've previously said, everything is a matter of degrees. This also holds for morality; arguing with someone (as we're all doing here) is certainly not immoral, but fighting and harming one another would definitely be. Likewise, there is a difference b/w a cup of coffee and caffeine pills (one contains much more caffeine than the other).

 

Taking caffeine pills or Ritalin w/o prescription (or any other unnecessary drug) in order to get better grades is not only risky for your health, but it is also immoral. You can easily overdose with caffeine pills, and anyways, excess caffeine will probably actually make your studying more difficult because you'll have the jitters. Same thing goes for the Ritalin; if you don't actually have ADHD, the Ritalin won't help you do better.

 

Finally, what I have been trying to get across all along is that when you want to be an MD, you got to have a very acute sense of moral judgement. You have your patients' lives in your hands, unlike the sports athletes, the CEOs, etc. You will NOT be able to rely on ANY drug as a Med student in order to pass your exams. If it becomes known that you are abusing of a substance as a Med student or an actual MD, you can be sued and can face severe penalties.

 

P.S. Even if virtually everyone in a given field 'cheats,' it does NOT make it any more moral for you to do the same. Think about this one...

 

You're throwing the term caffeine pills around like it's a set amount of caffeine. Standard caffeine pills contain 100mg per pill, that's like a large cup of coffee. I've used as much as 400mg during track meets along with another stimulant... the combination of these in no way would have assisted me if I was studying (anymore than a cup of coffee would have).

 

Also, which drug exactly is it that is helping students get the marks they want? lmao.

[megaMooMoo]

Medigeek said, "You really shouldnt mention caffeine pills or else having a large coffee counts as cheating too...right?"

 

The idea here, medigeek, is that taking a large cup of coffee can do no harm to you neither health-wise nor morally/ethically, even if you decide to take the coffee for the caffeine thinking that it might help you stay focused. This is because the amount of caffeine in even the largest of coffee cups does not contain enough caffeine to have any true effects or side effects (you might just feel a little more awake and ). As I've previously said, everything is a matter of degrees. This also holds for morality; arguing with someone (as we're all doing here) is certainly not immoral, but fighting and harming one another would definitely be. Likewise, there is a difference b/w a cup of coffee and caffeine pills (one contains much more caffeine than the other).

 

Taking caffeine pills or Ritalin w/o prescription (or any other unnecessary drug) in order to get better grades is not only risky for your health, but it is also immoral. You can easily overdose with caffeine pills, and anyways, excess caffeine will probably actually make your studying more difficult because you'll have the jitters. Same thing goes for the Ritalin; if you don't actually have ADHD, the Ritalin won't help you do better.

 

Finally, what I have been trying to get across all along is that when you want to be an MD, you got to have a very acute sense of moral judgement. You have your patients' lives in your hands, unlike the sports athletes, the CEOs, etc. You will NOT be able to rely on ANY drug as a Med student in order to pass your exams. If it becomes known that you are abusing of a substance as a Med student or an actual MD, you can be sued and can face severe penalties.

 

P.S. Even if virtually everyone in a given field 'cheats,' it does NOT make it any more moral for you to do the same. Think about this one...

 

you have the most messed up sense of logic ever bro. so what if im a very sensitive boy and even a slight arugement would hurt my feelings? i can easily drink 500mg of caffeine from 2-3 esspressos so i suggest that you stop quoting things out of ur bum : /

[megaMooMoo]

You're throwing the term caffeine pills around like it's a set amount of caffeine. Standard caffeine pills contain 100mg per pill, that's like a large cup of coffee. I've used as much as 400mg during track meets along with another stimulant... the combination of these in no way would have assisted me if I was studying (anymore than a cup of coffee would have).

 

Also, which drug exactly is it that is helping students get the marks they want? lmao.

 

the morality drugggggggg : D

[10wattbulb]

You're throwing the term caffeine pills around like it's a set amount of caffeine. Standard caffeine pills contain 100mg per pill, that's like a large cup of coffee. I've used as much as 400mg during track meets along with another stimulant... the combination of these in no way would have assisted me if I was studying (anymore than a cup of coffee would have).

 

Also, which drug exactly is it that is helping students get the marks they want? lmao.

 

Facts on caffeine:

 

- A no-brainer: people drink coffee mainly for the taste/enjoyment, but people who take caffeine pills take it for the psycho-stimulant drug effect (i.e. a different motivation).

- Average cup of brewed coffee has 80-135 mg of caffeine.

- Average caffeine pill has 200 mg of caffeine, equivalent to 2 cups of strong coffee.

- Popeye's 4Ever Fit Caffeine pills (very popular) have 200 mg of caffeine. Take only 4 and you've got 800 mg in your system (you'd need to drink 8 cups of strong coffee -2 liters- to do the same). Note that it's much easier to prop pills into your mouth than to drink cup after cup of coffee to overdose.

- Taking 400+ mg of caffeine in one sitting can result in 'a state of intoxication known as caffeinism, which is characterized by restlessness, agitation, excitement, rambling thought and speech, and insomnia. These symptoms clearly overlap with those of many psychiatric disorders.'

- 'A recent review (Maughan & Griffin, 2003) concluded that single doses of caffeine such as those found in commonly consumed beverages have little or no diuretic action, although large doses (>250 mg) do.'

- 'Caffeine may also be harmful in pregnancy; intakes above 300 mg/day may be associated with low birth weight and miscarriage (Food Standards Agency, 2001; Parazzini et al, 2005).'

- 'Caffeine may precipitate sinus tachycardia but does not increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias, except at very high dose (Katan & Schouten, 2005).'

Source: http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/11/6/432.full

 

Bottom line: Any substance can be harmful in large enough quantities. You usually can't get any serious side effects from taking a large cup of coffee or double espresso. Apart from the dosage of caffeine, you also need to consider the fact that most people take quite some time to finish up that large cup of Starbucks coffee or espresso. And luckily for us, "we have mechanisms built into the human body that let us know we’ve had enough of something. This is true with caffeine overdose. Well before we are at a toxic level, we experience side effects that prevent us from consuming more, ie. nausea and vomiting." But this won't happen if you overdose with caffeine pills. Ergo, side effects are much more common with people taking caffeine pills than coffee.

 

From a moral standpoint, I feel that taking a potentially harmful amount of any substance is wrong, no matter how you take that substance (don't feel obliged to agree with me on this, though). It's much easier, however, to overdose on caffeine when you take it as a pill than as a drink. Also, when you drink coffee, you usually do so because you enjoy its taste. But when you pop a pill into your mouth, you just want the drug's effect. And in the morality debate, the motivation(s) behind a given deed matters. For example, say you kill someone . If you murdered the person, you've done something highly immoral, but if you accidentally killed the person in a car accident (and you weren't drunk or anything of the sort), then you've done nothing immoral. In both cases, the 'concrete' end result is the same (you killed someone), but the moral end result is different. Either way, taking caffeine pills to boost your intellectual performance on an exam is only slightly unethical; the health side-effects are more worrisome.

 

As for your question: "Also, which drug exactly is it that is helping students get the marks they want?" Read this article: http://advan.physiology.org/content/31/4/332.full . You'll learn that the general class of drugs known as 'stimulants' can be abused by students to increase their marks; and students often take caffeine pills instead of Ritalin because they're easier to get.

 

BTW megaMooMoo, if you're 'a very sensitive boy and even a slight argument would hurt your feelings', it is not my ethical/moral problem but yours. You have the moral obligation to be a responsible person and to not do things that will harm your sensitive self; so if going on this forum where people might argue against you will lead you to feel sad and hurt, then don't come here! I am not intentionally trying to harm you; hence I'm not doing nothing immoral

[aaronjw]

congrats on taking these courses.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of feeling sorry for said person having taken these courses lmao

[megaMooMoo]

Facts on caffeine:

 

- A no-brainer: people drink coffee mainly for the taste/enjoyment, but people who take caffeine pills take it for the psycho-stimulant drug effect (i.e. a different motivation).

- Average cup of brewed coffee has 80-135 mg of caffeine.

- Average caffeine pill has 200 mg of caffeine, equivalent to 2 cups of strong coffee.

- Popeye's 4Ever Fit Caffeine pills (very popular) have 200 mg of caffeine. Take only 4 and you've got 800 mg in your system (you'd need to drink 8 cups of strong coffee -2 liters- to do the same). Note that it's much easier to prop pills into your mouth than to drink cup after cup of coffee to overdose.

- Taking 400+ mg of caffeine in one sitting can result in 'a state of intoxication known as caffeinism, which is characterized by restlessness, agitation, excitement, rambling thought and speech, and insomnia. These symptoms clearly overlap with those of many psychiatric disorders.'

- 'A recent review (Maughan & Griffin, 2003) concluded that single doses of caffeine such as those found in commonly consumed beverages have little or no diuretic action, although large doses (>250 mg) do.'

- 'Caffeine may also be harmful in pregnancy; intakes above 300 mg/day may be associated with low birth weight and miscarriage (Food Standards Agency, 2001; Parazzini et al, 2005).'

- 'Caffeine may precipitate sinus tachycardia but does not increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmias, except at very high dose (Katan & Schouten, 2005).'

Source: http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/11/6/432.full

 

Bottom line: Any substance can be harmful in large enough quantities. You usually can't get any serious side effects from taking a large cup of coffee or double espresso. Apart from the dosage of caffeine, you also need to consider the fact that most people take quite some time to finish up that large cup of Starbucks coffee or espresso. And luckily for us, "we have mechanisms built into the human body that let us know we’ve had enough of something. This is true with caffeine overdose. Well before we are at a toxic level, we experience side effects that prevent us from consuming more, ie. nausea and vomiting." But this won't happen if you overdose with caffeine pills. Ergo, side effects are much more common with people taking caffeine pills than coffee.

 

From a moral standpoint, I feel that taking a potentially harmful amount of any substance is wrong, no matter how you take that substance (don't feel obliged to agree with me on this, though). It's much easier, however, to overdose on caffeine when you take it as a pill than as a drink. Also, when you drink coffee, you usually do so because you enjoy its taste. But when you pop a pill into your mouth, you just want the drug's effect. And in the morality debate, the motivation(s) behind a given deed matters. For example, say you kill someone . If you murdered the person, you've done something highly immoral, but if you accidentally killed the person in a car accident (and you weren't drunk or anything of the sort). Either way, taking caffeine pills to boost your intellectual performance on an exam is at best only slightly immoral; the health side-effects are more worrisome.

 

As for your question: "Also, which drug exactly is it that is helping students get the marks they want?" Read this article: http://advan.physiology.org/content/31/4/332.full . You'll learn that the general class of drugs known as 'stimulants' can be abused by students to increase their marks; and students often take caffeine pills instead of Ritalin because they're easier to get.

 

BTW megaMooMoo, if you're 'a very sensitive boy and even a slight argument would hurt your feelings', it is not my ethical/moral problem but yours. You have the moral obligation to be a responsible person and to not do things that will harm your sensitive self; so if going on this forum where people might argue against you will lead you to feel sad and hurt, then don't come here! I am not intentionally trying to harm you; hence I'm not doing nothing immoral

 

by your logic, after knowing that you can do me harm, shouldn't you be the one refraining from going on pm101?

 

 

--> "taking a potentially harmful amount of any substance is wrong" guess you should take veggies and fruits out of your diet since pesticides are a biatchhhh. wait.....i swear in one of my classes i learned that breathing can also cause harm in humans as well in the long run...uh oh : ( no more suckling on that sweet sweet O2 for you anymore.

[10wattbulb]

by your logic, after knowing that you can do me harm, shouldn't you be the one refraining from going on pm101?

 

If my purpose is to harm you, then I should refrain. If my purpose is NOT to harm you, then I have no reason to refrain. It's about the motivation behind the act. The devil's in the details...

 

You really have a hard time grasping that "taking a potentially harmful amount of any substance is wrong," do you?

 

Here's an example that will help you:

 

Taking one cup of water is good for you; taking 10 litres of it is wrong; you can die! There's a woman who died after a water-drinking contest. Don't tell me that it is moral to carry out such a contest.

[A Second Daniel]

 

Medical research is often times not as rigorous as we think it is or ought to be. One day it is claimed that red wine can prevent cardiovascular diseases, and the following day, this very same claim is denied by another group of experts...

 

Look at who funds the research and that may clear things up...Often times its the use of trivial data that becomes exaggerated to come to a certain conclusion. It's no different than labs getting paid by smoking companies to at least come up with neutral results in a way that doesn't tarnish the industry, even though it's a no-brainer that smoking is bad.

 

I question the legitimacy of some of the things you say, such as the dosing...I'm sure it does have an effect on studying (caffeine/ritalin definitely do, just ritalin is magnitudes beyond). On the whole however, I agree with you that students should not take these drugs unless they are prepared to take them for ever because then the process of that doctor diagnosing is based on a student's performance without ritalin, which is unknown. Would your patients think the same of you if they knew you took therapeutic psycho-stimulants to do your job, or would they perceive a liar in their midst? Bottom line: If you have no sense of integrity, no moral backbone, or no academic astuteness, then yes, take ritalin- it's your only shot at getting in.