Oh, no. They have long hours and work that requires concentration. Off-label prescription drug use is one, not-uncommon way to keep up. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/education/seeking-academic-edge-teenagers-abuse-stimulants.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) is about use in high school, but here's the relevant paragraph:

"Pills that have been a staple in some college and graduate school circles are going from rare to routine in many academically competitive high schools, where teenagers say they get them from friends, buy them from student dealers or fake symptoms to their parents and doctors to get prescriptions."

I don't think Sherlock would be very bothered about those "law things" if he found such drugs interesting, and it's not out of character for him to use chemical means to sharpen that already razor wit.

Ah well then, that IS drug abuse. (And any idiot who does it gets what they deserve eventually)
But back to the show, it's not a matter of what is legal with the character of Sherlock; it is a matter of responsibility by the creators, Moftiss. It would be irresponsible of them to highlight that kind of drug abuse & again, it is not what ACD did with the canon.

Please, it is up to the Admin here but I would prefer you do not post any more links to those stories.
They are full of possible misinformation & dangerous assumptions. Drugs used as prescribed are 'safe' to a degree; drugs 'used however anyone wants to use them' is both a foolhardy way to live & abuses the human mind & body in many untold ways. If people think they need those to 'perform better' then they really have a shaky foundation to build their egos on.

imane nikko wrote:

Neither article in any way encourages non-prescribed use of such medications, and I trust both the New Yorker and the New York Times to keep "misinformation" to a minimum. They're not perfect, but the journalistic quality of both is very high.

But I'm sorry that this topic upsets you -- I thought we were just discussing the character, in the context of modern culture (hence the articles, since you appeared not to have heard about this subject) and various references in the show. Had I known I would not have pursued the conversation. Clearly you and I are approaching this issue from very different perspectives. My apologies.

The New Yorker article is negligent at best.
This is a rising problem in society & all they appear to do is tell a story about academics taking these drugs & a few side effects.
Where are the warnings about how dangerous it is? Young people will see a story about how people cope with stress and jump on board; there is nothing to tell them the dangers whatsoever. Telling half a story is akin to misinformation and is certainly not what I would call quality journalism.

The New York Times at least points out the dangers & effects & does in fact sound warnings to readers, but only after giving many examples of 'kids getting ahead' and spells it out in black & white exactly HOW you can get these drugs.
At least they gave the warnings.

As for upsetting me, I am more concerned when these things are posted online in forums etc where people (esp young people) will read some of it
but not all of it. Drug Education comes in many forms but this is not one of them in my opinion.

Society is more likely to overlook this kind of drug use 'because the kids get ahead' , another form of extremism. However woe betide any Sports person who uses similar drugs, the headlines scream "Cheat!!!" ; well isn't this what 'the kids' are doing? Both forms of drug abuse WILL result in long term negative effects.

So yes, from what I know & have seen (and I did know very well of this subject, I preferred to hope that you meant otherwise) I detest any kind of promotion of this in the public arena. That is how misconceptions & myths sprout.
"It's on the internet so it must be true".

kazza474 wrote:

And Sentimental Pulse, I kinds figured you may have been joking , but honestly if you've seen as much as I & others have ever since Feb this year, you'd understand why we sometimes 'miss' the joke part.
There have been some wild ideas floated around, lol.

Kazza I had zero doubts that you had me figured out. I always play Moriarty to your Sherlock. Always a step behind I am I can inagine you have seen some of these issues discussed ad nauseum

He did disguise himself as a vicar to gain entry to Irene's place and as a security guard to get into the Hickman Gallery...that's it for disguises so far.

Oh I dunno, the vicar one was used, but mainly Moftiss have used the modern day alternative to physical disguises such as 'borrowed' passes into military bases. No longer is identity confined to appearances remember.

I don't know if anyone here has seen the unaired pilot but we get much more than an insinuation that Sherlock has done drugs; we get a full admission. The plot is slightly tweaked, and has Sherlock playing drunk in order to get the cabbie to pick him up. The cabbie sticks a needle in his arm, but we don't see it, and the cabbie says,

Cabbie: "Do a lot of drugs, Sherlock Holmes?"
Sherlock: "Not for a while. Why?"
Cabbie: "Because most people would have passed out by now."

So we get confirmation, at least if we consider information conveyed in the pilot to be true in the finished series.

Davina wrote:

One thing I also just noticed is that immediately prior to Sherlock going up the stairs to the flat, whilst the police are rummaging about, his Belstaff coat is hanging on the bottom of the stairs i.e. on Mrs. Hudson's floor.

He left it there on purpose so the police wouldn't find his secret stash of 7%. 

Some speculation on how to hide drugs, anyone?
John: Where is it anyway?
Sherlock: Safest place I know.
Mrs H. has the phone.

John: It's a drugs bust, Mrs Hudson.
Mrs H.: They're herbal soothers. Just for my hip.

What if Sherlock did actually gave Mrs H. some "herbal soothers" to help her with the pain in her hip.
And Sherlock could get them just in case of an emergency (back)fall.