For years now organized athletics, with the exception of a few federations and "fringe" sports (e.g. bodybuilding, powerlifting, various MMA organizations, etc.), have condemned performance-enhancing drugs.

While anabolic steroids seem to be the primary drug vilified by the media and the general population, HGH and blood doping have proven to be just as potent performance-enhancers depending on the specific sport. Even diuretics occupy a spot on the NFL's "Banned Substance List".

2014 NFL Banned Substance List

One of my favorite documentaries, filmed by former national champion powerlifter Chris Bell (now known as the older brother of the world-renowned powerflifter Mark "Smelly" Bell), discusses at length both the pros and cons of steroid use as it pertains to combating illness or furthering athletic performance. Bell even discusses irregular forms of "cheating" and "performance-enhancing" not deemed as illegal, such as Tiger Woods receiving LASIK eye surgery (which subsequently increased his depth perception by providing him with better than 20/20 vision) and the utilization of altitude chambers for endurance athletes.

Bigger, Stronger, Faster

The reason why I bring all of this up is due in part to the thread related to drug testing occurring among Alabama fraternities and also my eventual reaction in the wake of Tyrann Mathieu's dismissal from the LSU football program several years ago.

I find it odd that student-athletes are subject to random drug testing while the rest of students are not. Some might argue that the reason pertains to the athletes' financial benefits, but then how do you account for students on academic scholarship? It seems to me that any university student who receives financial aid, particularly through their respective university or via state funding, should be subject to similar drug screenings and punished accordingly.

Why should student-athletes be subject to a more rigorous discipline code? Because they are public figures? You could argue that any university student is a direct representative of the university at large and therefore should be held to the same standard.

More importantly, if the issue pertains more to eliminating the use of performance-enhancing drugs among student-athletes in order to prevent them from gaining a competitive edge (see Will Grier at Florida), then why should students not face similar judgment or policing when it comes to academic fraud via stimulant usage?

When it comes to drug use, I admittedly have a very liberal view despite never having consumed any drug other than an occasional glass of wine (I drank a decent amount during my sophomore year but then I decided that I didn't like how alcohol impacted me). However, stimulants are a different classification from drugs used to achieve a high or a feeling of satisfaction. Stimulants direclty impact brain function. I understand that caffeine operates as a mild-grade stimulant, but I am willing to bet that it's impact on brain function is a fraction of what Adderrall yields.

I have heard students praise Aderrall as some sort of miracle drug which provides them with immense focus and concentration in order to prepare for an intimidating exam or as an aid for finishing a grueling writing assignment.

Considering that many scholarships are academic-merited, it seems like students are cheating their "God-given" intellectual limitations or attempting to shortcut their apathy and poor study habits by engaging in such drug use.

Also, for those of you have attended law school or enrolled in a highly-competitive graduate program, you will note that you are graded against your peers and therefore are concerned with not only your ability to learn the material, but also your ability to surpass peers.

It is at this point that the argument of competitive advantage comes into play. One of my girlfriend's law professors recently spoke out against Adderrall usage and admonished any one who might seek out such aid. The subject of Adderrall came up in a discussion among classmates later that day and my girlfriend was somewhat ostracized for admitting to her abstinence from Adderrall. They made it seem as though she was the odd one for not attempting to partake in such shortcuts.

So I ask, how significant is Adderall in regards to academic fraud/cheating? Should all students be subject to drug-testing in order to ensure that academic integrity is maintained?

TL;DR version: Students use Adderrall to cheat. Is it bad?