You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Well, I also agree that using alcohol is a sign of weakness. Historically, alcoholic beverages were much less potent and served the purpose of preserving water quality relative to bacterial populations in the water that could be harmful if ingested. Because of the historical importance of alcohol, it has been ingrained in the culture of civilization.
However, I believe that the "happiness" to which you are referring is subjective. The sensations derived from ingesting any kind of compound is different for everyone. I understand the libertarian "hand's off" approach to regulating substances and I do agree with less government control of anything and everything.
But the fundamental disagreement we have is whether someone should be respected for excessively abusing a specific mechanism that brings them some mode of perceived utility, in this instance what you define as "happiness."
My main argument against that is the opportunity cost of excessive THC use. The money spent on pot could be invested in capital goods that could lead to further economic development. The time spent "being high" could be used for more constructive endeavors that could lead to an even overall greater "happiness" level. I think substance abuse is a shortcut to instant gratification that leads to a long term overall decrease in "happiness."
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Dalai_Llama ago
Well, I also agree that using alcohol is a sign of weakness. Historically, alcoholic beverages were much less potent and served the purpose of preserving water quality relative to bacterial populations in the water that could be harmful if ingested. Because of the historical importance of alcohol, it has been ingrained in the culture of civilization.
However, I believe that the "happiness" to which you are referring is subjective. The sensations derived from ingesting any kind of compound is different for everyone. I understand the libertarian "hand's off" approach to regulating substances and I do agree with less government control of anything and everything.
But the fundamental disagreement we have is whether someone should be respected for excessively abusing a specific mechanism that brings them some mode of perceived utility, in this instance what you define as "happiness."
My main argument against that is the opportunity cost of excessive THC use. The money spent on pot could be invested in capital goods that could lead to further economic development. The time spent "being high" could be used for more constructive endeavors that could lead to an even overall greater "happiness" level. I think substance abuse is a shortcut to instant gratification that leads to a long term overall decrease in "happiness."