I don't see the ethical problem as all that dramatic, other things being equal (i.e. the side effects of the antagonists are negligible).

Negligible compared to what? Psychoactive drugs always have non-negligible side effects - at a bare minimum, they can cause their intended effect in people who don't need that effect. And a clinical trial that demonstrates that the side effects are less bad than addiction is far cry from demonstrating that it's harmless enough to be added to the general water supply on Manhatten.

I'm not advocating compulsion.

Because "take this drug or you lose your job" isn't compulsion? That is a very scary precedent to set.

But there is a public interest in preventing financial traders from hotdogging.

Of course. That is why we have financial regulators.

But enough public interest to justify violating the principle of informed consent? We don't even do that for the polio vaccine, and wiping out polio is a clear-cut case of public interest if I've ever seen one.

If you want traders to stop gambling with other people's money, you change the rules of operation of the stock exchange so they can't do it. You don't spike their lunch with psychopharmaca. We've been down that road before, and that's a really ugly neighbourhood.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.