Adderall in Law School Forum

[TheBigMediocre]

This thread is retarded.

Perhaps it needs some adderall?

[Nikrall]

This thread is retarded.

Perhaps it needs some adderall?

That would give it an unfair advantage over the other threads.

[bgdddymtty]

Let's set aside personal ethics here. I don't know about anyone else, but I was referring to professional ethics. To break a law, namely that of ingesting an illicit substance, in order to gain an advantage over your law school peers, is a violation of legal professional ethics. Were it known publicly, no bar in the country would admit the offender.

Similarly, if one, knowing he does not suffer from a given medical condition, presses upon a doctor to commit a violation of his code of professional ethics, he himself is complicit in that ethical breach.

On another note, one who has no particular respect for or fidelity to the law is, though unfortunately very common in the field, not fit to practice law.

[Nikrall]

Eh, its less common then you'd think. It depends on who you hang out around, really. I don't know anyone who did adderall in LS, but I heard talk of some people who did it. Also I suspect some people do it and just don't talk about it...for reasons that should be clear from the reactions of some individuals in this thread.

Well, the whole C&F issue might be part of that - I'm sure that if extensive use of illicit substances (prescription or otherwise) came to light, that most would not pass (or at least have trouble with) the C&F portion of the bar. There are also many Alcohol and Drug abuse orgs for lawyers, specifically.

I haven't done the C&F yet, but I'm pretty sure they don't specifically ask you whether you've done any illegal substances. They ask about arrests, but not whether you've ever done anything illegal.

My law school states that use of illegal drugs violates the student code of conduct, as well - which the use of adderall would fall under, for me. If it were to give everyone an advantage in focus, and one uses the drug and the other does not because it is following the Code of Conduct, and it is a banned substance, how is that not an ethical violation? Taking advantage of the system in order to gain an advantage over one's peers seems like an ethics issue to me. Illegality is part of it, the other is the fact that the organizations which directly regulate lawyers and law schools, in large part, are against illicit drug use.

Similar to laws, I don't equate the student code of conduct with ethics. How is doing something illegal "taking advantage of the system"?

In my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong. It is supposed to be about each individual's merits, not who was able to take advantage of the system in order to advantage themselves.

So doing legal things that give you an added boost are OK...but if its illegal its somehow "taking advantage of the system"? The system, if it finds out, will fuck you in the ass for taking drugs to help you study. But somehow these people are taking advantage of it?

The idea behind C&F, at least as I interpret it, is to ensure an ethical and fit practice of law by the lawyer. You don't see any conflict with C&F and breaking the law? I certainly do. And certainly, extensive and open use could be uncovered in a C&F investigation if it were to ever get that far. If you could be potentially disbarred (or not allowed to pass the C&F portion of the bar) you don't see it as an ethical violation? Because I think that it would certainly be a hangup.

And yes, doing legal things that give you an added boost are OK. Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't excuse the illegality of it. Some need adderall in order to be on in an even spot due to disabilities. Those uses are OK under the law and the code of conducts that exist. Someone using the drug without a prescription is doing so because it gives them a boost over other students. Why use it if it doesn't give you an advantage? The legality plays a role in ethical violations. While there have been and still are unjust laws that exist, those that relate to controlled substances typically aren't discriminatory.

And the speeding ticket examples you've used previously aren't analogous either. They are extremely minor violations that can easily happen by accident, possession of controlled substances is frequently a felony. Very different types of violations. Analogize it with another nonviolent felony, at the very least.

No I don't see a conflict between C&F and breaking ANY LAW. It depends on which laws you are breaking. Umm sure it could be exposed by an "investigation", but why the hell would they be investigating something they don't even ask to pass C&F?

So doing legal things are ok? So we are back to a weird fetishization of following the law, regardless of whether its idiotic or not. Nobody is saying its like Jim Crow, but just because a law isn't as bad as Jim Crow or isn't discriminatory doesn't mean it needs to be automatically followed. Think about the law, for fucks sake, before just automatically using it as your moral compass.

The speeding tickets are completely analogous. You said:

You don't see any conflict with C&F and breaking the law?

Nowhere have we discussed degrees of punishment for crimes or how bad they are in the laws eyes. Instead you've drawn the line at legality and illegality. So if breaking the law means there is a conflict with C&F, then there is a conflict between speeding and C&F.

[Nikrall]

Let's set aside personal ethics here. I don't know about anyone else, but I was referring to professional ethics. To break a law, namely that of ingesting an illicit substance, in order to gain an advantage over your law school peers, is a violation of legal professional ethics. Were it known publicly, no bar in the country would admit the offender.

Similarly, if one, knowing he does not suffer from a given medical condition, presses upon a doctor to commit a violation of his code of professional ethics, he himself is complicit in that ethical breach.

On another note, one who has no particular respect for or fidelity to the law is, though unfortunately very common in the field, not fit to practice law.

So any gay lawyers in Texas before 2003 weren't fit to practice the law?

[bgdddymtty]

Let's set aside personal ethics here. I don't know about anyone else, but I was referring to professional ethics. To break a law, namely that of ingesting an illicit substance, in order to gain an advantage over your law school peers, is a violation of legal professional ethics. Were it known publicly, no bar in the country would admit the offender.

Similarly, if one, knowing he does not suffer from a given medical condition, presses upon a doctor to commit a violation of his code of professional ethics, he himself is complicit in that ethical breach.

On another note, one who has no particular respect for or fidelity to the law is, though unfortunately very common in the field, not fit to practice law.

So any gay lawyers in Texas before 2003 weren't fit to practice the law?

You go, Bob the Builder. Construct that straw man, then knock him down!

There's a difference between breaking a law and systematically dismissing the law altogether. The philosophy you've expounded here amounts to following whichever laws you feel like and dismissing all others. That is, in a word, anarchy.

[rando]

The speeding tickets are completely analogous. You said:

You don't see any conflict with C&F and breaking the law?

Nowhere have we discussed degrees of punishment for crimes or how bad they are in the laws eyes. Instead you've drawn the line at legality and illegality. So if breaking the law means there is a conflict with C&F, then there is a conflict between speeding and C&F.

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind.

Further. You don't seem to grasp what circular means. ex - Drugs are illegal and thus it is immoral to do drugs. Since it is immoral to do drugs they should be illegal. That is circular. hth.
There is nothing circular about grasping the concept of social construct and utilizing the laws to form a basis for your ethics and morals.

For those who say this thread is ridiculous. Ridiculous would have been 4 pages of talking about what percentage of people in LS use Adderall for the thousandth time. Debating ethics, laws, and professionalism is a healthy part of the profession of lawyering.

[Nikrall]

Let's set aside personal ethics here. I don't know about anyone else, but I was referring to professional ethics. To break a law, namely that of ingesting an illicit substance, in order to gain an advantage over your law school peers, is a violation of legal professional ethics. Were it known publicly, no bar in the country would admit the offender.

Similarly, if one, knowing he does not suffer from a given medical condition, presses upon a doctor to commit a violation of his code of professional ethics, he himself is complicit in that ethical breach.

On another note, one who has no particular respect for or fidelity to the law is, though unfortunately very common in the field, not fit to practice law.

So any gay lawyers in Texas before 2003 weren't fit to practice the law?

You go, Bob the Builder. Construct that straw man, then knock him down!

There's a difference between breaking a law and systematically dismissing the law altogether. The philosophy you've expounded here amounts to following whichever laws you feel like and dismissing all others. That is, in a word, anarchy.

Umm, engaging in homosexuality in Texas before 2003 was "breaking a law". I'm not talking about the suit that overturned the sodomy statutes, I'm talking about engaging in sodomy when it was against the law...hence breaking the law.

[Nikrall]

The speeding tickets are completely analogous. You said:

You don't see any conflict with C&F and breaking the law?

Nowhere have we discussed degrees of punishment for crimes or how bad they are in the laws eyes. Instead you've drawn the line at legality and illegality. So if breaking the law means there is a conflict with C&F, then there is a conflict between speeding and C&F.

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal? Then pray tell, what exactly is the line. And please explain these various quotes:

"The legality is a big part of it"
" It is hardly ridiculous to abide by government imposed laws because it is the moral thing to do"
"n my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong" (but taking advantage of a non-banned substance is OK".

If legality is not the line, then what exactly is the line?

I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm saying its stupid to get on your high horse and judgmental because some people take adderall.

"In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind."

Well I'm sure glad we don't live in a world where everyone takes performance enhancing substances every day. A world where there was a Starbucks on every corner would be a world just too hard to live in.

[bgdddymtty]

Let's set aside personal ethics here. I don't know about anyone else, but I was referring to professional ethics. To break a law, namely that of ingesting an illicit substance, in order to gain an advantage over your law school peers, is a violation of legal professional ethics. Were it known publicly, no bar in the country would admit the offender.

Similarly, if one, knowing he does not suffer from a given medical condition, presses upon a doctor to commit a violation of his code of professional ethics, he himself is complicit in that ethical breach.

On another note, one who has no particular respect for or fidelity to the law is, though unfortunately very common in the field, not fit to practice law.

So any gay lawyers in Texas before 2003 weren't fit to practice the law?

You go, Bob the Builder. Construct that straw man, then knock him down!

There's a difference between breaking a law and systematically dismissing the law altogether. The philosophy you've expounded here amounts to following whichever laws you feel like and dismissing all others. That is, in a word, anarchy.

Umm, engaging in homosexuality in Texas before 2003 was "breaking a law". I'm not talking about the suit that overturned the sodomy statutes, I'm talking about engaging in sodomy when it was against the law...hence breaking the law.

Right. They were breaking the law. You are systematically dismissing the law, as well as professional codes of ethics and the student codes of ethics that mirror them. The two situations are not analogous.

[Nikrall]

So any gay lawyers in Texas before 2003 weren't fit to practice the law?

You go, Bob the Builder. Construct that straw man, then knock him down!

There's a difference between breaking a law and systematically dismissing the law altogether. The philosophy you've expounded here amounts to following whichever laws you feel like and dismissing all others. That is, in a word, anarchy.

Umm, engaging in homosexuality in Texas before 2003 was "breaking a law". I'm not talking about the suit that overturned the sodomy statutes, I'm talking about engaging in sodomy when it was against the law...hence breaking the law.

Right. They were breaking the law. You are systematically dismissing the law, as well as professional codes of ethics and the student codes of ethics that mirror them. The two situations are not analogous.

Well its a good thing I wasn't analogizing them to myself. What I was doing was responding to your comment that said:

On another note, one who has no particular respect for or fidelity to the law is, though unfortunately very common in the field, not fit to practice law.

Or do you think breaking the law on a regular basis is compatible with having a "particular respect or fidelity to the law"?

[rando]

The speeding tickets are completely analogous. You said:

You don't see any conflict with C&F and breaking the law?

Nowhere have we discussed degrees of punishment for crimes or how bad they are in the laws eyes. Instead you've drawn the line at legality and illegality. So if breaking the law means there is a conflict with C&F, then there is a conflict between speeding and C&F.

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal? Then pray tell, what exactly is the line. And please explain these various quotes:

"The legality is a big part of it"
" It is hardly ridiculous to abide by government imposed laws because it is the moral thing to do"
"n my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong" (but taking advantage of a non-banned substance is OK".

If legality is not the line, then what exactly is the line?

I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm saying its stupid to get on your high horse and judgmental because some people take adderall.

"In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind."

Well I'm sure glad we don't live in a world where everyone takes performance enhancing substances every day. A world where there was a Starbucks on every corner would be a world just too hard to live in.

Geez man. That is the point of this whole thread is that what you are arguing about is breaking the law. The law is a construct that should serve as a guide for morality and ethics. I haven't seen a categorical following the law is good and not following is bad. But your dismissal of it as unimportant is where the lines get crossed. To be clear, just because people are advocating that the legality of it is important does not give credence to arguments that every law on the books is moral/ethical/rational.

And equating starbucks with a world where everyone has to take prescription drugs to be on the same level is ludicrous (yeah, we get it, you can say that the govt. could just make caffeine a prescription drug).

[Baylan]

The speeding tickets are completely analogous. You said:

You don't see any conflict with C&F and breaking the law?

Nowhere have we discussed degrees of punishment for crimes or how bad they are in the laws eyes. Instead you've drawn the line at legality and illegality. So if breaking the law means there is a conflict with C&F, then there is a conflict between speeding and C&F.

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal? Then pray tell, what exactly is the line. And please explain these various quotes:

"The legality is a big part of it"
" It is hardly ridiculous to abide by government imposed laws because it is the moral thing to do"
"n my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong" (but taking advantage of a non-banned substance is OK".

If legality is not the line, then what exactly is the line?

I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm saying its stupid to get on your high horse and judgmental because some people take adderall.

"In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind."

Well I'm sure glad we don't live in a world where everyone takes performance enhancing substances every day. A world where there was a Starbucks on every corner would be a world just too hard to live in.

First Bolded: The difference is that the regulatory bodies in law see illicit drugs as something AGAINST their ethical codes. They don't see caffeine as something against their ethical codes. There are reasons that these drugs are controlled substances. If you don't agree with it, lobby against it or do something in order to change it. Don't say that we're wrong for following the code of conduct and ethics that has been set in front of us by the regulatory organization that controls the profession that we are a part of (or hope to be a part of).

Second bolded: Ethical decision making? I'm on my high horse because it is illegal and gives others an advantage over someone (like myself) obeying the law in a situation where your illicit/illegal advantage inherently disadvantages me.

And finally, you can't compare caffeine to adderall. It is a completely different drug, and the legality of each drug matters. Your systematic dismissal of the legality as an important factor shows exactly what the other poster stated - that you are systematically disregarding the law. That, in the eyes of the bar, is (from my understanding) typically a bigger deal than a singular violation.

[rando]

you can't compare caffeine to adderall. It is a completely different drug, and the legality of each drug matters. Your systematic dismissal of the legality as an important factor shows exactly what the other poster stated - that you are systematically disregarding the law. That, in the eyes of the bar, is (from my understanding) typically a bigger deal than a singular violation.

It also comes down to the fact that utilizing prescription drugs for performance puts your competitors (fellow LS) in the precarious situation of having to choose between putting themselves on a level playing field and legal and/or professional repercussions. That seems to be blatantly unethical. At least to me.

I'm done. Have fun with the rest of the argument.

[picotin]

I think taking Adderall when you've done well throughout college is lame and just displays lack of confidence in one's own abilities. I was bothered when I knew of people around me taking adderall, and it is annoying to not want to do something but feel like I was being disadvantaged for it. But this might dissuade anyone from overpaying a psychiatrist for a prescription: I don't think adderall really improved anyone's performance. It can cause people to be jittery and obsessive about things that are definitely not relevant to finals.

[Nikrall]

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal? Then pray tell, what exactly is the line. And please explain these various quotes:

"The legality is a big part of it"
" It is hardly ridiculous to abide by government imposed laws because it is the moral thing to do"
"n my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong" (but taking advantage of a non-banned substance is OK".

If legality is not the line, then what exactly is the line?

I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm saying its stupid to get on your high horse and judgmental because some people take adderall.

"In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind."

Well I'm sure glad we don't live in a world where everyone takes performance enhancing substances every day. A world where there was a Starbucks on every corner would be a world just too hard to live in.

Geez man. That is the point of this whole thread is that what you are arguing about is breaking the law. The law is a construct that should serve as a guide for morality and ethics. I haven't seen a categorical following the law is good and not following is bad. But your dismissal of it as unimportant is where the lines get crossed. To be clear, just because people are advocating that the legality of it is important does not give credence to arguments that every law on the books is moral/ethical/rational.

And equating starbucks with a world where everyone has to take prescription drugs to be on the same level is ludicrous (yeah, we get it, you can say that the govt. could just make caffeine a prescription drug).

If the only justification for condemning adderall use is based on its illegality, then it seems like it is the case that If illegal then bad is an assumed premise. Show me the difference between caffeine and adderall thats not based on legality, and then maybe you can make the argument for shades of grey in the legal sense. But as long as people are basing their condemnation on illegality alone...yeah, its pretty black and white.

Nobody is arguing that the legality is important, and solely important. What every argument against adderall has hinged upon is its legality and everyone has cited legality as a reason to specifically be against it. Nobody seems to have a problem with using drugs as study aids...but its somehow completely different when its illegal drugs. And you want to tell me that legality somehow isn't the sole thing people are basing the argument on?

[jayn3]

i am so sick of people making adderall threads every few weeks. is it really that hard to use the search function? or make your own decisions about quasi-legal substance abuse?

[itsfine]

Taking adderall isnt any more cheating than drinking coffee. Stop bitching

[beaniew]

Many people at my school used adderall on a regular basis. None of those I knew did very well. Most of them just got all cracked out on it and spun their wheels to no end. I never used it, and I never intend to. I ranked in the top 2%. My friends who got all zooted on that stuff ended up talking way to fast, focusing for hours on really minor points, printing off thousands of cases from lexis nexis and never reading them, listening to stupid supplement tapes at 4 am, etc. All the while, I remained calm and calculated. That mindset allowed me to "dominate."

In the end, it seems as if their prolonged adderall use led to their self destruction come finals time. Dominating Law school requires a sustained effort. I recommend good sleep, healthy eating habits, and exercise. Its really naive to think that an amphetamine derivative will work wonders and help you crank out "genius" papers in 6 hrs. I say let the Dofusses think they are coasting towards a superman like final performance on finals on addy. Its fun watching the madness take hold in the wake of finals.

[Nikrall]

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal? Then pray tell, what exactly is the line. And please explain these various quotes:

"The legality is a big part of it"
" It is hardly ridiculous to abide by government imposed laws because it is the moral thing to do"
"n my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong" (but taking advantage of a non-banned substance is OK".

If legality is not the line, then what exactly is the line?

I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm saying its stupid to get on your high horse and judgmental because some people take adderall.

"In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind."

Well I'm sure glad we don't live in a world where everyone takes performance enhancing substances every day. A world where there was a Starbucks on every corner would be a world just too hard to live in.

First Bolded: The difference is that the regulatory bodies in law see illicit drugs as something AGAINST their ethical codes. They don't see caffeine as something against their ethical codes. There are reasons that these drugs are controlled substances. If you don't agree with it, lobby against it or do something in order to change it. Don't say that we're wrong for following the code of conduct and ethics that has been set in front of us by the regulatory organization that controls the profession that we are a part of (or hope to be a part of).

Second bolded: Ethical decision making? I'm on my high horse because it is illegal and gives others an advantage over someone (like myself) obeying the law in a situation where your illicit/illegal advantage inherently disadvantages me.

And finally, you can't compare caffeine to adderall. It is a completely different drug, and the legality of each drug matters. Your systematic dismissal of the legality as an important factor shows exactly what the other poster stated - that you are systematically disregarding the law. That, in the eyes of the bar, is (from my understanding) typically a bigger deal than a singular violation.

Yes. We get it. Regulatory bodies/the government/etc, etc don't like Adderall. I'm not saying you are wrong for following them, I am saying that merely because they say X isn't an adequate justification for believing that X is the morally correct thing to do.

So you're on your high horse because its illegal, basically. The "omg it gives other people an advantage" is bullshit. Other people got to use caffeine in law school cause it worked for them. It didn't work for me. I somehow managed to not bitch about how unfair it all was.

Caffeine and adderall are both uppers which help people do work. Are they different drugs? Sure. But please specifically describe how exactly caffeine is so different in this case.

Disregarding the law would be committing illegal acts. They don't give a shit if I say "I don't think that following the law is a morally necessary act". Aside from, who the hell cares what the bar examiners think? You sure are eager to follow any authority figure you can glob onto.

[emorystud2010]

Forget

[bgdddymtty]

Forget adderall. I just get a new haircut, and im in the zone. That, and maybe a few jaggerbombs. Jaggerbombs.

You throw back Mick's lip sweat or something?

[nickwar]

Addy is freaking awesome, whether you take it to party or study. But, I didnt use it for the lsat because i thought i would become way too dependent on it, its really addicting to the point where you cannot actually do work without taking 20mgs of the stuff. I have written 10 page papers in 6 hours that were borderline genius and im pretty sure if i found it earlier in college id have at least a 3.6 gpa. In law school, I plan on not using it regularly for the same reason as above though, I do not want to be dependent on that stuff to get my shit done.

>Borderline Genius

>3.6 GPA

Why did it take you more than 6 hours to write an undergrad 10-page paper even off study drugs?

I want to see one of these "borderline genius" papers.

[nickwar]

Ironically, you are using the same type of argument that you are chastising others for. You making things black & white, but rarely are things black and white. No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal. And no one has argued that advocates of civil rights were in the wrong ethically, morally etc. However, at the time those advocates had to toe the line. You are not advocating for a change in the system, you are arguing for utilization of a substance in order to get an illicit boost on your peers. I haven't seen you be able to justify that except by saying you don't blindly follow the law.

No one has advocated a line at legal/illegal? Then pray tell, what exactly is the line. And please explain these various quotes:

"The legality is a big part of it"
" It is hardly ridiculous to abide by government imposed laws because it is the moral thing to do"
"n my eyes, taking advantage of a banned substance in order to advantage yourself (and thereby disadvantage your classmates, via the curve) is ethically wrong" (but taking advantage of a non-banned substance is OK".

If legality is not the line, then what exactly is the line?

I'm not arguing "for" anything. I'm saying its stupid to get on your high horse and judgmental because some people take adderall.

"In your world, everyone would have to take performance enhancing substances in order to be on the same playing field. In the end, everyone would be evened out except those that the drug was meant to help, who are again left behind."

Well I'm sure glad we don't live in a world where everyone takes performance enhancing substances every day. A world where there was a Starbucks on every corner would be a world just too hard to live in.

First Bolded: The difference is that the regulatory bodies in law see illicit drugs as something AGAINST their ethical codes. They don't see caffeine as something against their ethical codes. There are reasons that these drugs are controlled substances. If you don't agree with it, lobby against it or do something in order to change it. Don't say that we're wrong for following the code of conduct and ethics that has been set in front of us by the regulatory organization that controls the profession that we are a part of (or hope to be a part of).

Second bolded: Ethical decision making? I'm on my high horse because it is illegal and gives others an advantage over someone (like myself) obeying the law in a situation where your illicit/illegal advantage inherently disadvantages me.

And finally, you can't compare caffeine to adderall. It is a completely different drug, and the legality of each drug matters. Your systematic dismissal of the legality as an important factor shows exactly what the other poster stated - that you are systematically disregarding the law. That, in the eyes of the bar, is (from my understanding) typically a bigger deal than a singular violation.

Yes. We get it. Regulatory bodies/the government/etc, etc don't like Adderall. I'm not saying you are wrong for following them, I am saying that merely because they say X isn't an adequate justification for believing that X is the morally correct thing to do.

So you're on your high horse because its illegal, basically. The "omg it gives other people an advantage" is bullshit. Other people got to use caffeine in law school cause it worked for them. It didn't work for me. I somehow managed to not bitch about how unfair it all was.

Caffeine and adderall are both uppers which help people do work. Are they different drugs? Sure. But please specifically describe how exactly caffeine is so different in this case.

Disregarding the law would be committing illegal acts. They don't give a shit if I say "I don't think that following the law is a morally necessary act". Aside from, who the hell cares what the bar examiners think? You sure are eager to follow any authority figure you can glob onto.

Coffee isn't illegal without a prescription -- as you said.

[clseller]

too much adderall and you will end up like this guy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI