What Users Think about the Differences between Caffeine and Illicit/Prescription Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement

Purpose European studies have shown lower prevalence rates of prescription stimulant use for cognitive enhancement, especially among student populations, compared to North America. This difference requires more cross-country research of the various factors involved. To find out whether other parts of the globe are witnessing similar increases in extra-medical stimulant use, and how this might relate to cognitive enhancement, requires empirical study of local contexts. This paper aims to argue that the academic and public discussion on cognitive enhancement should consider the specific country context of drug policy and research and rethink which drugs are included under the term cognitive enhancement drugs. Design/methodology/approach This paper offers a general review and a sociological country comparison between the Netherlands and Finland, focusing not only on prescription stimulants used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but also illicit amphetamines among young adults and methylphenidate use among Dutch and Finnish participants of the Global Drug Survey. This paper emphasises sociocultural perspectives and the importance of context in cognitive enhancement in general as the line between therapeutic and enhancement use can often be blurred. Data is drawn from global, European and national sources, including the International Narcotics Control Board, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and Global Drug Survey. Findings There are hardly any national empirical studies done on cognitive enhancement drug use in Finland. On the other hand, there have been studies in the Netherlands showcasing that the use of prescription stimulants and other drugs for enhancement purposes is something that is happening among young people, albeit yet in a relatively small scale. Illicit and licit stimulant use and drug policy action in relation to cognitive enhancement drugs in the two countries varies, emphasising the importance of country context. Originality/value Given that cross-country research is scarce, this general review provides one of the first glimpses into cognitive enhancement drug use by comparing the country context and research in Finland, where the phenomenon has not been studied, with the Netherlands, where the topic has received more research and public attention. Further research areas are suggested.

Download Full-text

A Bubble of Enthusiasm: How Prevalent Is the Use of Prescription Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement?

Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance - Cognitive Enhancement ◽

10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_4 ◽

2013 ◽

pp. 39-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Bradley Partridge

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Enhancement ◽

Prescription Stimulants

Download Full-text

Professionals’ attitudes towards the use of cognitive enhancers in academic settings

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0241968 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (11) ◽

pp. e0241968

Author(s):

Sanyogita (Sanya) Ram ◽

Bruce Russell ◽

Carl Kirkpatrick ◽

Kay Stewart ◽

Shane Scahill ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Enhancement ◽

Mail Survey ◽

Extrinsic Factors ◽

Cognitive Enhancers ◽

Prescription Stimulants ◽

Self Identity ◽

Academic Settings ◽

Professional Registration ◽

Willingness To Use ◽

Design And Methods

Introduction and aims The non-medical use of prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate, dexamphetamine and modafinil is increasing in popularity within tertiary academic settings. There is a paucity of information on awareness, attitudes, and acceptability by professionals of use in this context. This study aimed to investigate professionals’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the use of cognitive enhancers (CEs) in academic settings, and their willingness to use a hypothetical CE. Design and methods A mail survey was sent to doctors, pharmacists, nurses, accountants and lawyers in New Zealand. These disciplines were chosen as they require professional registration to practice. The questionnaire comprised four sections: (1) demographics, (2) knowledge of CEs, (3) attitudes towards the use of CEs, and (4) willingness to use hypothetical CEs. Results The response rate was 34.5% (414/1200). Overall, participants strongly disagreed that it was fair to allow university students to use CEs for cognitive enhancement (Mdn = 1, IQR: 1,3), or that it is ethical for students without a prescription to use cognitive enhancers for any reason (Mdn = 1, IQR: 1,2). Professions differed in their attitudes towards whether it is ethical for students without a prescription to use CEs for any reason (p = 0.001, H 31.527). Discussion and conclusion Divergent views and lack of clear consensus within professions and between professionals on the use of CEs have the potential to influence both professionals and students as future professionals. These divergent views may stem from differences in the core values of self-identity as well as extrinsic factors of acceptability within the profession in balancing the elements of opportunity, fairness and authenticity in cognitive enhancement. Further research is required to inform the development of policy and guidelines that are congruent with all professions.

Download Full-text