5 ms·
I agree with you, but... :) There are quite a few people who go overboard with it, and I'm not arguing complete unfettered access for all, but I think the reas
by natecavanaugh 10y ago
I agree with you, but... :)
There are quite a few people who go overboard with it, and I'm not arguing complete unfettered access for all, but I think the reason it's dangers are trivialized is in reaction to how trivialized alcohol is in our culture. Every show you watch, and people are drinking alcohol left and right. In entertainment it's just something you do.
Costco is willing to sell you gallons of it cheaply and of high quality.
And yet the dangers of alcohol both short and long term are taken as "things we just put up with" from a societal perspective.
I think when people compare the dangers of long term apathy, malaise and possible overeating (which also just sound like responses to getting older ;) to people who get drunk and murder other people and end up killing themselves, short or long term, one set does seem kind of trivial.
*Note: I am not meaning to make it sound like I'm anti-alcohol or pro-cannabis. I think responsible people can handle each one responsibly, and that instead of prohibiting everyone, we do what we do with bad drivers: we help them get better or forbid them from doing that activity any more and provide safe alternatives.
- josinalvo 10y agoWhile I fully agree with limiting the WOW and canabis usage of irresponsible users as a goal, I wonder how to do it without creating very illiberal policies. That is: I am not opposed to a small amount of "nanny-state" to force heavy users into a better path (and that is very illiberal, I know) but I wonder if it is possible to do it in a fashion that has minimal "illiberal side effects".