A recent debate hosted by George Washington University examined the question: Should college students be allowed to take “smart drugs”? Nita Farahany, professor of law and philosophy at Duke University, strongly believes on a philosophical level that the answer to this question is a resounding yes. I examined some of her key arguments made in her opening speech.

• Students should be empowered to make their own choices about their bodies.

This puts a particular emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy. Autonomy is defined as the capacity of an individual to make a rational and well-informed decision free of coercion. Drugs themselves limit personal autonomy by influencing individuals to make uninformed and impulsive decisions. This is also the case when the mental state of an individual is not in an adequate state for decision making. No reasonable person would state that a suicidal person is in the right state of mind to make well-intentioned decisions about their body. Similarly, college students are particularly susceptible to the stress and anxiety that can cause a state of mind that adversely affects the decision-making process. Decisions made in altered mental states, whether that state is altered by drugs or anxiety, are not autonomous decisions. This decreases an individual’s ability to arbitrate in decisions of personal well-being.

• Gradual improvement of brains is a societal good that we should pursue.

Farhany states that, “Widespread improvement in cognitive function would result in widespread societal benefits, like economic gains or even reducing dangerous errors.” To begin with, the term “smart drugs” is in and of itself a severe overstatement of the drugs in question. Many of these drugs simply work to improve memory and/or focus; they do not miraculously make an individual “smarter.” Additionally, the possibility of tolerance and reliance while using these drugs cannot be ignored. What will happen when an individual has become reliant on the drug to complete their work, but has simultaneously developed a tolerance to the drug? The potential effect of this is a decrease in cognitive ability--which surely no one is arguing for.

• Life isn’t a competition.

This argument was made when explaining why the use of smart drugs should not be equated to the use of steroids in sports. Farhany feels that they are essentially not the same because steroids are used in a competition where there are winners and losers. Although in life the distinction of winning and losing may not be as clear as in say, a game of baseball, it is wholly incorrect to assume that life it not a competition. Individuals, and particularly college students, are constantly competing--for grades, spots in graduate and medical schools, awards, jobs, research grants etc… To assume smart drugs are different than steroids simply because one is part of a competition and one is not does not hold up.

In all, I do not think that Farahany’s arguments held up in the debate over smart drugs. There seem to be many inconsistencies in her findings and plenty of reasons to oppose allowing students to take smart drugs. For now, I would oppose allowing college students to freely take smart drugs.