Why prohibit study drugs?

Abstract

This article combines methodologies and explorations from the fields of anthropology and applied ethics in order to examine the ethical assumptions underlying the illegal status of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers (PCEs) such as Adderall and other prescription stimulants often used to improve concentration, motivation, and alertness. We begin by presenting empirical data from ethnographic fieldwork conducted among university students, professors, and police officers in New York City. The data show that the students are not concerned with the illegality of PCEs, and while some students experience pressures related to performing well, they do not feel pressured into using PCEs. The empirical material furthermore reveals that the practices of the authorities in relation to PCE use are relaxed and do not always reflect the law. We then present a detailed ethical analysis of a certain type of argument in favor of the prohibition of PCEs, which has received little careful analysis in the bioethical literature. Our analysis, drawing on the philosopher Robert Nozick’s specification of coercion and the sociologist N. A. Fitz’s understanding of social pressure, shows that legalization of PCEs would not necessarily involve or bring about direct coercion; nor would it bring about morally problematic forms of coercion or social pressure. While the article shows that prohibition might not make a difference to uses of pharmaceuticals for enhancement, it also questions whether the gray zones between practices of the authorities and the actual law might in some ways be understood as coercive.

Keywords:

• Applied ethics
• ethnography
• prescription stimulants
• cognitive enhancement
• legalisation
• coercion

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Zohny (2015) argues that there is no consistent evidence that the PCEs often referred to in the bioethical literature augment cognitive abilities among those who use them.

2 Researchers who mention this worry without engaging in detailed ethical analysis of it include Farah et al. (2010), Greely et al. (2008), Glannon (2011) and Fitz et al. (2014).

3 See e.g. Sentintia (2004, 223) “Cognitive liberty is every person’s fundamental right to think independently, to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and to have autonomy over his or her own brain chemistry… The individual, not corporate or government interests should have sole jurisdiction over the control and/or modulation of his or her brain states and mental processes.”

4 This specification is identical to the characterization of ‘peer pressure’ given by Fitz et al. (2014, p. 5).