>And these practices are in a way unfair against the rest of us workers!
This raises interesting philosophical questions about work in general. If work is inherently valuable, isn't anything that enhances it a good thing (assume lack of side effects for simplicity)? Is it "unfair" if a doctor/scientist/programmer uses a product to be more productive? Very few of us are formally competitive athletes, and special rules apply to those of us who are. I think it's unfair that some people can afford secretaries, accountants, editors, private schools, etc., those seem much less fair than ADHD medicine.
One of my childhood heroes, the great mathematician Paul Erdos, was a famous amphetamine user, does that mean the wonderful contributions he made to our understanding of the universe are "unfair"?
This raises interesting philosophical questions about work in general. If work is inherently valuable, isn't anything that enhances it a good thing (assume lack of side effects for simplicity)? Is it "unfair" if a doctor/scientist/programmer uses a product to be more productive? Very few of us are formally competitive athletes, and special rules apply to those of us who are. I think it's unfair that some people can afford secretaries, accountants, editors, private schools, etc., those seem much less fair than ADHD medicine.
One of my childhood heroes, the great mathematician Paul Erdos, was a famous amphetamine user, does that mean the wonderful contributions he made to our understanding of the universe are "unfair"?