Imagine this in the movie preview guy’s (the late Don LaFontaine’s) voice:

In a world where midterms week stretches on for months, students are left quivering with exhaustion in Olin Library. With students worked to the bone and rejecting sleep in favor of studying, Whispers’ coffee supply is beginning to dry up. As students begin to panic, one very talkative, slightly jittery group stands alone. These are the students with prescriptions for study drugs.

End preview, and stop imagining Don LaFontaine’s voice. Before I broach this topic, I’d like to issue a disclaimer stating that I am in no way advocating the illegal acquisition or abuse of these medications.

Advocating the widespread availability of prescription study drugs isn’t exactly a righteous or easy topic to tackle. The simple fact of the matter is, however, that these are the equivalent of educational steroids, and they provide an undeniable comparative advantage. Steroids are probably not the best comparison, since they’re considered cheating, and they have serious adverse health risks. Drugs like Adderall, when used properly, don’t. Nor are we professionals who are under contract to perform based on our natural abilities. Study drugs do not make us smarter the way steroids make athletes stronger. They do allow us to work longer, more productive hours.

The fact of the matter is that these substances are becoming increasingly available. I see more prescriptions handed out every day, and the playing field is becoming increasingly uneven. Those with access to study medications simply have the capability to work for longer periods at increased frequency.

Aside from the moral implications of widespread distribution, there are several counterarguments that are certainly relevant. One is the potential for abuse, as I’ve previously mentioned. Just as with any other regulated substance, however, those who intend to abuse it will find a way to do so no matter the substance’s availability. There is also the argument that those who are prescribed these medications work slower and less efficiently, and are thus at an inherent disadvantage, and that these medications aim to eliminate that disadvantage. I have no doubt that there are some who are genuinely at a disadvantage, but the increased number of prescriptions and growing availability of these drugs are compromising those who do genuinely need them. The problem is, where do you draw the line? I don’t necessarily believe that universal access is the right move to make. There are obviously consequences, but there are also benefits.

In an increasingly difficult school, where many students take on an overbearing workload, it is hard to argue against a product that allows us to work more effectively at times when we would normally be falling asleep at our desks. These are medications designed to help us study, so it begs us to ask, “Why not?” Imagine you had a week with two tests and two papers in the span of four days following another insanely busy week that prevented you from working ahead. Throw classes in the mix, and you are in a clear time crunch. When you would normally be burnt out and distracted after a full two days of studying, and with two major assignments still remaining, you would feel hopeless. But you now have something that you can take to help you power through these remaining two assignments with focus and determination that you quite simply couldn’t manage on your own accord. There are limits to a human’s capability to exert his or her brain. At a school that often asks us to go above and beyond these limits, it’s appealing to know that we could potentially have some help.