Terrible costs don't matter, at least not for the target market.
Mephistopheles: Here is a [Faustian MacGuffin] which will make you rich and powerful, the envy of men and the desire of women! But after [time period], you will descend in to hell, to be tortured for all eternity! Muhaha!
Males 18-34: Booya! This totally rocks!
Mephistopheles: You heard the part about eternal torture, right?
Males 18-34: Yeah, whatever. Hot babes, here I come!
Mephistopheles: [Pause.] Did you want to negotiate, maybe?
Males 18-34: C'mon, c'mon, gimme the [Faustian MacGuffin] already!
Edit: Okay, I was exaggerating for effect. Really, terrible future costs are a factor even to young males. On the other hand, Hollywood marketers can count on the young male demographic as a whole to exhibit some characteristic kinds of akrasia. In descriptive economic terms, I'm thinking hyperbolic discounting and tolerance for risk. Evo-psych would approach the same analysis a different way. In the end, I submit, young males are unusually likely to use steroids, ride motorcycles, or attempt to adopt a "gangsta" lifestyle, than the rest of the population. If young males think that nootropics are dangerous in the long term but lead to high status in (at least) the short term, then young males will become interested in nootropics.
Judging from the trailer, the drug doesn't seem to have any side effects (except for maybe dependence).
Limitless is a movie coming out this Friday which includes nootropics as a major plot device. I think that the way they are portrayed in the movie, and the subsequent media discussion (if any) about nootropics would be of interest here, even if the movie isn't.
From what I can tell, the movie is about a guy who uses a drug to improve his mental capabilities, uses those to radically alter his life, who is then targeted because its just that genre of movie.
Just a heads up, if anyone is interested.