Author: Laura Marchand

Few students abuse ADHD meds, but it doesn’t help grades, says expert

After she took the pill, she felt like she was flying. Sasha—whose real name has been changed to protect her identity—had struggled with anxiety and depression in the past, and it had been showing in her grades. Desperate, she turned to her doctor—and the ADHD medication he suggested.

Sasha was never tested for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but she still found herself taking the generic Ritalin prescribed by her doctor. After that, she remembers being able to get prescriptions and refills easily. “I would go see my family doctor … and he would just prescribe me my medication,” she said.

To her, it was a blessing. Sasha believes the drugs helped bring back her marks from failing grades to straight A’s. “I was able to do so much in so little time,” Sasha remembers, recalling a time when she could write page after page of essays in mere minutes. “It was as if each second were a minute of work,” Sasha said.

But Sasha may be part of an increasingly shrinking group. While it seems that Ritalin and Adderall are widely used among the Concordia student body, Gabriella Szabo, a health promotion specialist with Concordia University, says that’s simply not true.

“Sometimes, this [drug use] is written about as if it’s something that’s very commonplace,” Szabo said. She explained that in 2013, Concordia participated in a nation-wide study looking at student behaviour on campus. On the topic of misuse of ADHD medication, the study found that only five per cent of Concordians had misused such drugs in the past 12 months.

“Calling it an ‘epidemic’ is really cool and eye-catching and sexy,” Szabo said. “But it’s simply not what the research shows.”

In addition, Szabo warns students looking to improve performance will likely not find better grades in a pill bottle. “In students at the university level who are not diagnosed [with ADHD], it doesn’t have an impact … you [have to understand the material], and there’s no medication that does that.”

Sasha first began taking the pills in her second year of CEGEP to help bring up her grades. Although she had been seeing a psychiatrist, Sasha says she found the sessions unhelpful: no one addressed the root cause of why she wasn’t succeeding. “They never really continued to look into [my struggles with school],” Sasha said. So she continued to take the pills.

Szabo says that for some students, medication may not address the gaps in their education. “Maybe [some students] haven’t learnt how to study,” she said. “Take a look at your high school education. Do you feel you were prepared for university?”

In Sasha’s case, she still doesn’t know if she actually has ADHD. She was told there was a “huge waiting list” to be tested at a price she found herself unwilling to pay. Instead, she continued to take the pills, desperate to improve her academic performance.

But after several years of continuous use, Sasha began to realize the medication was losing its effect. “I went back to my doctor a couple of times and told him the [new drug] Concerta is not working,” she said. “And he’s telling me it’s the best on the market … so he says he’ll just up my medication.” Since then, Sasha said her dosage has been upped at least three times, without any effect. “It’s been a year [that] I’ve been struggling. I’m still not focused,” she said.

Now, even with the high dose, she worries her struggles with school are even worse than before. “I’ve gotten to be very forgetful … I don’t know if that’s the medication,” Sasha said. “I don’t know if it’s a brain thing. Has taking this drug continuously all the time … is it something that is going to affect me? I don’t know.”

This year, Sasha is beginning to see her grades slide again. “I went from starting school with a 3.47 GPA, down to a 2.0,” Sasha said, referring to the times when the medication was working and when it was not. “I don’t know if it’s killing me more than making me better.”

Szabo warns every medication has adverse effects, and ADHD medication is no exception. “Stimulants like Ritalin—used in people who do not have the conditions—can lead to psychosis, seizures, and cardiovascular events like heart problems,” she said. “Maybe that’s where a person will say ‘Okay I’m having a problem, because now I’m putting myself at risk of messing up my heart, or my brain.’”

On the topic of doctors prescribing ADHD to students, Szabo hopes professionals will continue to be prudent. “One would hope that this will not be prescribed to people without a diagnosis, of course. One would hope that doctors are acting responsibly,” Szabo said. “Especially with this level and type of medication.”

However, Szabo also said most students are not likely getting ADHD medication from health care providers. “One of the bigger issues is when people who do have it prescribed for a medical condition choose to share it,” she said.

It’s not an unfamiliar process to those who have prescriptions. “I gave a few [pills] to friends,” Sasha said. “[One of them] took my medication, a year and a half ago. She was able to do her work but she ended up staying up all night because she took it so late.”

Szabo believes awareness on sharing prescription drugs could go a long way to curbing the supply on campus. “It’s not going to help in their grades—it’s going to put them at risk of heart problems and brain problems with these adverse effects.” The sharing and sale of prescription drugs is also illegal.

But Sasha thinks it’s better than some of the other options that students have. “I think it’s a more healthy alternative [than chugging Red Bull],” said Sasha. “I don’t see it being an issue because it’s accessible—which it is! Yes, the pharmacist puts restrictions on it [but it’s still easy to access].”

That’s a dangerous line of thinking, warns Szabo. “I would say that is a wrong statement, because [prescription misuse] is the number one reason people are sent to the emergency in the hospital when it comes to medication,” said Szabo. “They’re using this medication that wasn’t prescribed to them.”

But Sasha doesn’t see an end in sight for students using prescription drugs. “I think we’re in a period where we need to be like robots. It’s too fast-paced,” she said. “I think we’re noticing now that [the education system] needs a reform … The expectations that they put us on, it forces us to think of other alternatives.”

Modern model arrives after lengthy delays

After years in production and months of delays, Montrealers finally got to step inside the long-promised AZUR métro train for the first time this weekend.

The test train was brought into service Feb. 7 at the Henri-Bourassa station with long-anticipated applause from STM staff. For at least 61 days, the all-electric train will be serving commuters on the Orange line as part of its final round of testing. If all goes well, then the STM will move forward with the delivery of the remaining 51 trains through to 2018.

The testing period is aimed at confirming that the new train systems can handle day-to-day operations with passengers. This includes when doors are blocked or emergency intercoms are used, which are difficult to test without public engagement.

The trains boast a number of improvements including larger doors for ease of entry, better suspension, and increased capacity. Other features include armrests at certain seats, screens with bus information and upcoming stations, and vents designed for air circulation that offer a cool breeze at high speeds. The train has no divisions between cars, allowing passengers to move freely across the train.

The Quebec government paid 75 per cent of the costs associated with the AZUR project, a sum of $1.8 billion—a price tag Quebec Transportation Minister Jacques Daoust says is well worth the benefits.

“The engine of the economy in Quebec is Montreal,” said Daoust. “We have to make sure that mobility is easy in Montreal… it’s not an expense, it’s an investment.” The remaining 25 per cent ($600 million) was paid by the City of Montreal.

The introduction of the AZUR coincided with the 50th anniversary of the métro system—symbolism that was not lost on Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre. “I’m very proud to be a Montrealer, like my predecessor 50 years ago on his first trip in the métro,” said Coderre. “Now we have our first trip with AZUR. I feel great.”

But “great” is not used to describe the timeline of the AZUR trains, which was plagued by delays. The trains were initially planned to come into service in late 2014 but métro tunnels had to be widened to accommodate the new model, and the first cars were delivered months behind schedule. In 2015, software delays caused further setbacks, leading Bombardier to halt production until last October.

Some feel like they’ve waited long enough. “I like [the new train], I think it’s really nice and modern—I also think it’s really late,” said Michael Piovesana, a student at McGill who entered the métro specifically to ride on the first AZUR. “These trains were supposed to be running in 2014, now it’s 2016. But it’s nice to see them.”

Those hoping to see a new AZUR train pull into Guy-Concordia should not expect much: the Green line’s MR-63s will be replaced with the Orange line’s newer (but similar) MR-73s. While trains tend to move between lines occasionally, overall the AZUR will be running exclusively on the Orange line.

The Chairman of the STM Board of Directors Philippe Schnobb explained that bringing AZUR to the Green line was not financially viable. “The decision has been made to keep our trains from the 70s for another period of time,” explained Schnobb. “They’re so reliable that there’s no need to invest a billion just to replace them. It wouldn’t be a good investment to change the trains for the sake of changing the trains.”

During the 61-day testing period, a second AZUR train will continue to undergo after-hours testing to ensure compatibility on the Green, Yellow and Blue lines. The STM warns that commuters may potentially encounter delays, but notes that the AZUR has systems designed to alert the operator before it is forced to make a stop, which should allow for maintenance at a terminus without interrupting operations. A dedicated crew will be monitoring the single AZUR train in daily service “for the slightest fluctuations in its systems.”

Economist and activists warn about the agreement’s ramifications

The Canadian government has confirmed that it will sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, reports the CBC. But Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, in an open letter to concerned Canadians, underlined that “signing does not equal ratifying” and that “only a majority vote in our Parliament can allow the agreement to take force.”

The partnership is a complex web of trade deals between 12 Pacific-coast countries, including Canada, the United States, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore. According to the Government of Canada, the combined markets represent over 800 million people and $28.5 trillion in GDP. All countries involved have two years to properly ratify the agreement before the TPP comes into effect.

But not everyone is ready for the brave new world of free trade: Harold Chorney, a professor in Concordia University’s political science department and political economist, warns students that the agreement could risk their jobs post-education—if only they knew what it entailed.

“The problem with the TPP… is that it was negotiated in secret, behind closed doors,” said Chorney. “Young people in particular want to make sure they have jobs in the future, and that trade pacts increase job opportunities rather than decrease them. And these are not easy questions to figure out.”

He believes that Canadian youth will understand what is at risk with the TPP. “Students all too well know, unfortunately, the experience of working in low-wage jobs where they appear to be fun for a while but then become dead-end jobs,” said Chorney. “And they want to make sure, and I want to make sure… that they’re going to have jobs and opportunities in the years to come, in the decades to come.”

But Chorney warns that not all trade agreements can lead to those opportunities. “Sometimes you lose jobs, because the sectors that you’ve got—that you specialize in—are hurt by opening up the international economy to freer flows of trade,” said Chorney. “[Industries] are not totally mobile. Not everybody can relocate to Japan, or even wants to—or to China, or from there to here. It’s not that simple.”

He believes that the first step for Canada is a high-tech and diversified economy that isn’t depending on raw material export. “That’s the name of the game these days,” he said, while also noting that Canada needs to protect its social framework and health care.

Economists are not the only ones weighing in on the TPP debate. Claude Vaillancourt, president of Quebec chapter of the Association for the Taxation of financial Transactions and Aid to Citizens (ATTAC Québec), warns that the agreement could be worse than people expect, especially in the realms of intellectual rights and education.

“In every country they have their own system of education, and it’s very protected,” explained Vaillancourt. “And you can understand why—it’s our vision, our values … they want to take out all the obstacles that prevent [for-profit and online universities] from exporting courses and education [to other countries].”

Vaillancourt also warns that TPP would give international corporations the ability to sue governments and affect their policies. “It’s a tool for lobbying,” said Vaillancourt, who claims that Canada has already been sued many times under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). “Let’s say the government wants to pass a new law. You don’t like this law. It will cost you money. So you send your lobbyer to the government and say ‘We are going to sue you.’ It’s very efficient.”

Negotiations for the TPP began in September 2008, when the United States engaged in trade talks with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore). Canada became an observer at the talks in 2010, and officially joined in the discussions in 2012, alongside Mexico.

Students to decide if they want to remain under ASFA

This week, the Political Science Students Association of Concordia (PSSA) is asking its student body to give it legal standing to represent its students.

A successful referendum would make the PSSA independent of the Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA).

A “yes” vote would make the PSSA an official body recognized by the Quebec government. That would mean Concordia would be bound to provide the PSSA with an office, furniture and means to contact the political science student body. The incorporation process (required by the ministry) would allow the PSSA to have a bank account, and the accreditation process means that the PSSA could fund itself through fee levy, like the Concordia Student Union (CSU) and ASFA. It would also make the PSSA the legal representative of Concordia’s political science students, capable of legal action in court.

Jason Poirier Lavoie, the current PSSA president, is a major force who pushed for the referendum on accreditation. He said the PSSA in its current form is unofficial, and exists in a precarious grey zone of allowances and courtesies.

“We exist because ASFA permits us [to exist]. We’re ‘ASFA Lite,’” Poirier Lavoie explained. “We have this office because the department is nice enough to give it to us. We have this furniture because they donate it to us. I can’t contact my members because it’s a breach of privacy for the university … for money, we have to beg to ASFA, or spend my own money. So we’re very informal.”

However, the PSSA has several unique privileges, such as offering the association a vote on the Political Science department council and allowing students to interview candidates for positions in the department. “But these are all informal, these are all courtesies,” said Poirier Lavoie. He warned that any of these advantages could be taken away without explanation.

Poirier Lavoie admits that these changes may in and of themselves sound benign, but he alleges that these shifts would signal a change of power dynamics for the PSSA. “When you think of ASFA, and the way they treat [member associations] as disposable attachments, the way this department gives us privileges, but they’re optional … this would shift us on to better footing.”

It’s something former executives agree with. “Accreditation should happen because when I was in the PSSA … we were operationally disadvantaged,” said former PSSA VP of internal affairs Nikos Pidiktakis.

“I voted for the accreditation because I don’t see that many events that ASFA directly does for poli sci students, and the PSSA execs are people that we know and have access to,” said Alex Decarie, a political science student who voted in the referendum Monday. “The PSSA holds regular events throughout the year that involve both students and faculty which really helps students get to know each other and their professors outside of class which is pretty cool. So I voted yes because of all the hard work that the PSSA puts into their events and with what they’re promising to offer us once they get accredited.”

That isn’t to say that there are no disadvantages. Poirier Lavoie says that political science students will still need to pay the fee levy for ASFA, even after the PSSA’s accreditation—effectively paying the fee for two separate associations without the benefits, “since ASFA will simply take the money and reorient it somewhere else,” according to Poirier Lavoie.

But Poirier Lavoie said he plans on renegotiating this issue with ASFA, which he believes will have to undergo dramatic changes in light of its recent problems including a series of resignations and a major harassment scandal.

“The thing you’re seeing now, this thing we know as ‘ASFA’, is breathing its last breaths,” said Poirier Lavoie. “If ASFA is to continue going in the direction that it is we [the PSSA] have no choice but to leave.”

Students sound off on a blank cheque for every Canadian

Financial troubles and higher education seem to go hand-in-hand: who hasn’t heard the stereotype of the student eating instant noodles for the 12th night in a row? Student debt is a harsh reality for many, even years after receiving their degree.

To make ends meet, many students work while they study: 49 per cent of all full-time Canadian students earn while they learn, according to a Statistics Canada report. The report also notes that the average student works approximately 17 hours a week at their part-time job, earning around $6, 000 a school year—far short of the “median cost of the … school year for postsecondary students age 18 to 24 [which] was $10,900,” and a different Statistics Canada report claims that “full-time students in Canada paid an average of $14, 500 to pay for post-secondary schooling in 2010–2011”.

Yet, this is how most students manage to pay for their education: “more than one-half of students report that either savings (27 per cent) or earnings (26 per cent) provide the largest amount of money towards the total cost of their school year.”

That’s an average of 17 hours a week that isn’t spent studying. A study by Jeffrey S. DeSimone, Professor at the University of Maryland for the United States National Economic Bureau concluded that “each additional weekly work hour reduces academic year GPA by 0.011 points.” For those who are already struggling—financially or academically—balancing work and studies is a high-stakes juggle between education and debt.

Is there an alternative? Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, proposed one in the last federal election: a Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI). The proposed GLI would eliminate poverty-focused welfare programs, and replace them with a blank check: $10,000 for anyone making below a certain threshold, students included.

In its public platform statement, the Green Party wrote it was “deeply concerned about the widening income gap, and the steadily increasing numbers of people trapped in the low-wage economy—workers, especially our young, who are struggling to survive with part-time, non-standard precarious employment.”

The Green Party claims that Canada spent one tenth of its gross domestic product (GDP) on income support in 2013, a sum of about $185 billion. They also claim that one third of Canadians make less than $20,000 a year. The plan would involve the GLI being taxed back as the recipient’s own income rises, and at $60,000 the recipient would no longer receive the stimulus.

Speaking to the Huffington Post, May argued that ridding Canada of the bureaucracy that surrounds the welfare system, in addition to lowering poverty-induced strain on the hospitals, would save the government billions. “It will fix our health-care system, it will fix our criminal justice system,” said May last November. “But more than that, it gives every Canadian kid a chance to succeed in life.”

In 2014, the Liberal Party of Canada passed Policy Resolution 100, which called for “a Federal Liberal Government work with the provinces and territories to design and implement a Basic Annual Income in such a way that differences are taken into consideration under the existing Canada Social Transfer System.”

Although previous Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau admitted it was a “good theory,” he is quoted by the Toronto Star as expressing his skepticism. “We cannot guarantee to bring everyone over the poverty line by giving them part of the taxpayers’ pocket.”

Concordia students, however, feel that a guaranteed livable income would have helped them in their studies.

“Our books are not cheap,” said Claudio Pantoni, a mechanical engineering major at Concordia. “Being in engineering … you should be taking five classes a semester. But I have to do four to be able to work to pay for everything else—school, bills, whatnot.”

Autumn Cadorette, an art history major at Concordia, said she believes a guaranteed livable income would allow low-income Canadians to pursue post-secondary studies.

“[It will] promote education, because a lot of people don’t get as much of an education as they want because they can’t afford it,” said Cadorette, who described the GLI proposal as something “the student population needs.”

Emil St-Pierre, a recent graduate of Concordia University’s master’s anthropology program, said the extra income could have helped fellow students he saw struggling.

“I also know many students … that would have been able to graduate debt free, avoid precarious work, and worry less about rent with $10,000 a year (or even less),” said St-Pierre. He said he especially saw many students who “wanted to pursue further studies, but weren’t able to do so because they had no income living as students.”

According to a poll conducted by the Trudeau Foundation and Concordia University, 46 per cent of Canadians support the idea of a guaranteed income, with 42 per cent opposed. Support for the measure is most popular “in Quebec and among Canadians with lower levels of education and income, while most strongly opposed by Albertans and high income Canadians,” according to the report.

“The pushback is usually that everybody’s going to be just lazy and sit back and do nothing their whole life because the state is taking care of them. What they actually found was that that wasn’t what people did,” said May to the Huffington Post, citing a Manitoba experiment where the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba received GDI cheques for a five-year period between 1974-1979.

In 2011, the University of Manitoba released a report revisiting the results of that Manitoba “Mincome” (minimum income) experiment. The report found that “specifically hospitalizations for accidents and injuries and mental health diagnoses” fell during the experiment, and “students in grade 11 seemed more likely to continue to grade 12 than their rural or urban counterparts during the experiment.” Even those that did not receive the supplemental income contributed to an upward trend: “the involvement of friends and neighbours in the scheme might have led to changes in social attitudes and behaviours that influenced individual behaviour even among families that did not receive the supplement.”

Speaking to the Huffington Post, May said the GDI debate can be boiled down to a single phrase: “The question is what do we think of human nature?”

A previous version of this article quoted Justin Trudeau speaking against guaranteed income. These comments in reality came from Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father. The Concordian apologizes for this error.