Desktop version

Home arrow Health arrow Cognitive enhancement : ethical and policy implications in international perspectives


[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

  • 13. Global Commission on Drug Policy. War on Drugs: Open Society Institute; 2011. Available at: Accessed on March 6, 2014.
  • 14. Room R, Reuter, P. How well do international drug conventions protect public health?

The Lancet. 2012;379(9810):84-91.

  • 15. Count the Costs. The Alternative World Drug Report: Counting the Costs of the War on Drugs. 2012. Available at: Accessed on March 6, 2014.
  • 16. Hunt P. Human Rights Health and Harm Reduction: States’ Amnesia and Parallel Universes. Keynote address at the Harm Reduction Conference, Barcelona, 2008.
  • 17. Pillay N. UNHCHR Press Release: High Commissioner calls for focus on human rights and harm reduction in international drug policy. Geneva: United Nations; 2009.
  • 18. Bewley-Taylor DR. Emerging policy contradictions between the United Nations drug control system and the core values of the United Nations. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16(6):423-431.
  • 19. Lenton S, Single E. The definition of harm reduction. Drug Alc Rev. 1998;(17):213-220.
  • 20. Carter A, Miller P, Hall, W. The ethics of harm reduction. In: Riley D, Pates R, eds. Harm Reduction in Substance Use and High-Risk Behaviour. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2012:111-123.
  • 21. International Harm Reduction Association. What Is Harm Reduction? 2010. Available at: Accessed on March 6, 2014.
  • 22. Pfeiffer S. Rights of indigenous people and the international drug control regime: The case of traditional coca leaf chewing. Goettingen J Intl L. 2013;(5):287-324.
  • 23. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. December 6, 2013. Contribution of the Executive Director to the high-level review of the implementation of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem, to be conducted by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2014. UNODC/ED/2014/1.
  • 24. Bewley-Taylor DR. Challenging the UN drug control conventions: Problems and possibilities. Int J Drug Policy. 2003;14(2):171-179.
  • 25. Room R, MackKay S. Roadmaps to Reforming the UN Drug Conventions. Oxford, UK: Beckley Foundation; 2012.
  • 26. Fazey CS. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the United Nations International drug control programme: Politics, policies and prospect for change. Int J Drug Policy. 2003;14:155-169.
  • 27. Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet. 2007;369(9566):1047-1053.
  • 28. Nutt, DJ. Drugs—Without the Hot Air: Minimising the Harms of Legal and Illegal Drugs. Cambridge, UK: UIT; 2012.
  • 29. Caulkins JP, Reuter P, Coulson C. Basing drug scheduling decisions on scientific ranking of harmfulness: False promise from false premises. Addiction. 2011;106(11):1886-1890.
  • 30. Rolles S, Measham F. Questioning the method and utility of ranking drug harms in drug policy. Int J Drug Policy. 2011;22(4):243-246.
  • 31. Kalant, H. Drug classifications: Science, politics, both or neither? Addiction. 2010; 105:1146-1149.
  • 32. Danenberg E, Sorge LA, Wieniawski W, Elliott S, Amato L, Scholten WK. Modernizing methodology for the WHO assessment of substances for the international drug control conventions. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131:175-181.
  • 33. Swiss Federal Commission for Drug Issues. From a Policy on Illegal Drugs to a Policy on Psychoactive Substances, 1st ed. Bern, Switzerland: Huber; 2006. [Full report available in German only].
  • 34. Stevens A. Drugs, Crime and Public Health. The Political Economy of Drug Policy. Oxon, UK: Routledge; 2011.
  • 35. Foddy B, Savulescu J. A liberal account of addiction. Philos Psychiatry Psychol. 2010;17(1):1-22.
  • 36. Davies JB. The Myth of Addiction, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Harwood; 2000.
  • 37. Carter A, Hall, W. Addiction Neuroethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
  • 38. Room R. Scales and blinkers, motes and beams: Whose view is obstructed on drug scheduling? Addiction. 2011;106(11):1895-1896.
  • 39. Hunt N. Public health or human rights: What comes first? Int J Drug Policy. 2004;15(4):231-237.
  • 40. Boire RG. On cognitive liberty I. J Cogn Liberties. 1999;1:7-13.
  • 41. Boire RG. On cognitive liberty II. J Cogn Liberties. 2000;2(2):7-20.
  • 42. Bublitz JC. My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In: Hildt E, Francke A, eds. Cognitive Enhancement. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013:233-264.
  • 44. Bublitz JC. (2015). Cognitive liberty or the international human right to freedom of thought. In: Clausen J, Levy N, eds. Springer Handbook of Neuroethics, Dodrecht, NL, pp. 1309-1333.
  • 45. Husak DN. Drugs and Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
  • 46. Ree EV. Drugs as a human right. Int J Drug Policy. 1999;10:89-98.
  • 47. Bublitz JC, Merkel R. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Crim Law Philos. 2014;8(1):51-77.
  • 48. Husak, D. Recreational drugs and paternalism. Law Philos. 1989;8(3):353-381.
  • 49. Feinberg, J. Harm to Self: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.
  • 50. Boiteux L, Chernicharo LP, Alves CS. Human rights and drug conventions: Searching for humanitarian reason in drug laws. In: Labate B, Cavnar C, eds. Prohibition, Religious Freedom, and Human Rights. Regulating Traditional Drug Use. Dodrecht, NL: Springer; 2014:1-23.
  • 51. Flacks S. Drug control, human rights and the right to the highest attainable standard of health: A reply to Takahashi. Hum Rights Q. 2011;33:856-877.
  • 52. Merkel R. Treatment—prevention—enhancement: Normative foundations and limits. In: Merkel R, Boer G, Fegert J, Galert T, Hartmann D, Nuttin B, Rosahl S, eds. Intervening in the Brain: Changing Psyche and Society. Dodrecht, NL: Springer; 2007:286-378.
  • 53. Schleim S. Cognitive enhancement—Sechs Grunde dagegen. In: Fink H, Rosenzweig R, eds. Kunstliche Sinne, gedoptes Gehirn. Paderborn, DE: Mentis; 2010:179-207.
  • 54. Hofmann A. LSD My Problem Child: Reflections on Sacred Drugs, Mysticism and Science. Santa Cruz, CA: MAPS; 2009.
  • 55. Shulgin A, Shulgin A. Phikal. Berkeley, CA: Transform; 2007.
  • 56. Gasser P, Holstein D, Michel Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of lysergic acid diethylamide- assisted psychotherapy for anxiety associated with life-threatening diseases. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014;202(7):513-520.
  • 57. Griffiths RR, Richards WA, McCann U, Jesse R. Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology. 2006;187:268-283.
  • 58. Griffiths RR, Richards WA, Johnson MW, McCann UD, Jesse R. Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later. Psychopharmacology. 2008;22(6):621-632.
  • 59. Studerus E, Kometer M, Hasler F, Vollenweider F. Acute, subacute and long-term subjective effects of psilocybin in healthy humans: A pooled analysis of experimental studies. Psychopharmacology. 2011 ;25(11): 1434-1452.
  • 60. Krebs T, Johansen PO. Psychedelics and mental health: A population study. PLOS Med. 2013;8(8):E63972
  • 61. Dubljevic V. Prohibition or coffee shops: Regulation of amphetamine and methylpheni- date for enhancement use by healthy adults. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(7):23-33.
  • 62. Manos MJ, Brams M, Childress AC, Findling RL, Lopez FA, Jensen PS. Changes in emotions related to medication used to treat ADHD. Part I: Literature review. J Atten Dis. 2011;15(2),101-112. doi:10.1177/1087054710381230.
  • 63. Repantis D, Schlattmann P, Laisney O, Heuser I. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacol Res. 2010;62(3):187-206.

  • [1] Dietz P, Striegel H, Franke AG, Lieb K, Simon P, Ulrich R. Randomized response estimates for the 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use in university students. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(1):44-50.
  • [2] Bewley-Taylor DR. International Drug Control: Consensus Fractured. Cambridge,New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
  • [3] Maslen H, Douglas T, Cohen Kadosh R, Levy N, Savulescu J. The regulation of cognitiveenhancement devices: Extending the medical model. J Law Biosci. 2014;1(1):68-93.
  • [4] Fitz NS, Reiner PB. The challenge of crafting policy for do-it-yourself brain stimulation.Journal of Medical Ethics. 2013; doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101458.
  • [5] United Nations. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. 1961 (amended in 1972). Availableat: 61_en.pdf.
  • [6] United Nations. Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Vienna, 1971. Available at:
  • [7] United Nations. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances. 1988. Available at:
  • [8] World Health Organization. Guidance on the WHO Review of Psychoactive Substances forInternational Control. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
  • [9] Nutt DJ, King LA, Nichols DE. Effects of schedule I drug laws on neuroscience researchand treatment innovation. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:577-585.
  • [10] United Nations. Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. New York:Author; 1973.
  • [11] Chatterjee SK. Legal Aspects of International Drug Control. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1981.
  • [12] Barrett D, Nowak M. The United Nations and drug policy: Towards a human rights-basedapproach. In: Koufa K, Constantinides A, Zaikos N. eds, The Diversity of InternationalLaw. Leiden, Germany: Nijhoff; 2009:449-478.
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >