The science journal “Nature” has an online commentary advocating broad use of drugs that affect brain function – like Ritalin and Adderall.
The commentary compares them to coffee or a good night’s sleep.
MIT Technology Review interviews one of the authors of the commentary:
Technology Review: The commentary suggests that healthy adults should have access to cognitive-enhancing drugs. Why do you think this is a good idea?
Gazzaniga: Normal ageing finds one’s memorial processes not what they use to be. If there were drugs that helped and were safe, I would certainly be for them being available to the public.
I agree. And I can’t wait for Starbucks & McDonalds to get in an ad war for their competing brands of Ritalin. Or for all that camaraderie you can build around a Ritalin dispenser down in the office kitchen.
But seriously, as someone who’s life is quite dependent on drugs that would make me ineligible to compete in many sports, I’ve got NO problem with technologies that make people smarter or able to work/think longer. As a particularly smart and hard working person already (-:…. I may not choose to use them but I don’t mind if an adult pops a Ritalin instead of eight Diet Pepsis.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
As Libertarians then we should accept liberty of freely consenting adults to do anything that does not harm the neighbors: consume and traffic in substances for any purpose (ritalin, cocaine, alcohol, oxycodon, marijuana, Pepsi, etc), marry each other regardless of gender, carry a firearm, engage in sexual activities, speak ill of any religion.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I don’t believe that a large percentage of the adult population wandering around and doing their thing is not harming a whole lot of others others. Just picking up the trash in San Francisco will show you that.
A filthy bum comes into Starbucks and fills his cup full of the fresh cream set out for paying coffee customers. Is the bum harming his neighbor?
December 11th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I’m fine with the things in #1 as long as I’m not on the hook for their fall. I favor less rules and stiff penalties for violations of the far fewer rules.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Caveat to #3….. marriage is a state sponsored agreement. I think that should be between a man and a woman. I don’t mind contracts that simulate marriag between same sexes but only those that obligate ONLY those in the contract, not me, the government (i.e. me) or any 3rd party.