4 ms·
Your point is logically sound, but you're judging the (possible) consequences to the few as of inherently higher importance than the benefit to the many. You co
by sailormoon 17y ago
Your point is logically sound, but you're judging the (possible) consequences to the few as of inherently higher importance than the benefit to the many. You could say very much the same thing about alcohol - some people just can't handle it and should probably not be allowed to drink it, but you can't deny it to everyone else just because of that. Or we don't, anyway, with alcohol, for historical reasons.
- radu_floricica 17y agoI actually support broader legalization, but this doesn't take anything from the argument. And with alcohol it's a different situation - it's not that "some can't handle it", it's that "some feel compelled to use it". A closer situation would be when a non-smoker feels left out from the social life at the company and actually can't advance his career because he's not part of the smoke breaks. Sounds ridiculous, but people have started smoking for exactly this reason, and some/most of them have worse health because of it. Now this is relatively indirect, but compare it with a situation when everybody at a company is easily able to pull 20 hour days in the week before launching a product. Even if you feel you don't really want to use drugs, can you?