Maybe, or maybe not. Here's Samuel Johnson on "blogging" in 18th-century England (courtesy of Peter Martin's biography). Sound familiar?
(Writing of the proliferation of independent printers) "If we consider chiefly the state of our own country, [it] may be styled with great propriety The Age of Authors...The province of writing was formerly left to those, who by study, or appearance of study, were supposed to have gained knowledge unattainable by the busy part of mankind; but in these enlightened days, every man is qualified to instruct every other man."
(Writing on the pressure of frequent deadlines) "He that condemns himself to compose on a stated day, will often bring to his task an attention dissipated, a memory embarrassed, an imagination overwhelmed, a mind distracted with anxieties, a body languishing with disease: he will labour on a barren topic, sill it is too late to change it; or in the ardour of invention, diffuse his thoughts into wild exuberance, which the pressing hour of publication cannot suffer judgement to examine or reduce."
I have read before that newly prevalent coffee houses in Johnson's era helped to spur the development of literary culture, caffeine promoting attention and perspicacity more effectively than the psychotropics available in taverns and alehouses. Fast forward to contemporary neuroenhancement, whose prime time status is attested to by Margaret Talbot's review of the phenomenon in The New Yorker.
Talbot interestingly profiles college students who, unmedicated, might lapse into indie slackers, but who seem to fire on all cylinders thanks to Adderall, as well as new agey scientific gurus who swear by Provigil. She covers all the usual objections to widespread and off-label use of such agents: the pressure of technocratic conformity, the emphasis upon focused productivity at the expense of serendipitous creativity, and of course known and unknown adverse physiological effects. But she seems to conclude that the practice is roughly analogous to plastic surgery, that is, regrettable perhaps, but likely not illegal or even necessarily unethical.
The enhancement issue occupied my mind a great deal a couple of years ago and yielded a couple of published papers, but here I would say only that neuroenhancement does differ from plastic surgery inasmuch as the former affects not only one's attributes, but also one's capacity or inclination to reflect upon those attributes. If someone without ADHD is in some hyper-focused state due to Adderall or Ritalin, this state may in itself vitiate his ability to consider whether this is a good thing (just as, similarly albeit more dramatically, an actively inebriated person is not well placed to appreciate the virtues of sobriety). It is as if a plastic surgery procedure were to directly (and not just indirectly) make one even more superficial and other-directed than one already was.
For the psychiatrist, it is also somewhat quaint to hear talk of these agents as being fraught with prodigious impact and potentially hazardous effects, when the issue for many folks with real ADHD is less likely to be side effects than limited efficacy.