5 ms·

I don't use cannabis, but I wonder how much cannabis, alcohol, television, social media, etc sap energy and drive from people in general. At a societal level, i

I don't use cannabis, but I wonder how much cannabis, alcohol, television, social media, etc sap energy and drive from people in general. At a societal level, is that partially responsible for the decrease in entrepreneurship? How could we tell? Less entrepreneurship means less innovation and less jobs and less tax revenue, it's bad for society overall.

foobarian 3y ago
You know what, let's ban it all! What could possibly go wrong. /s
- slashdev 3y ago
  I'm not advocating for that, it was clearly a disaster. But I wonder if it's beneficial to discourage those things more through education, taxes, etc.
  - r2_pilot 3y ago
    Maybe instead of taxing it to reduce its use, we can try making life better all around so people aren't incentivized to use it? Making other things more fun/accessible would decrease the time/availability for that behavior.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      I don't think that's an either/or type of choice, do both
  - lp4vn 3y ago
    What about discouraging wealth inequality and the lack of social support for the population in general? This would be a horrifying interference of the state in the dynamic of society, right? But somehow for some people the state legislating about the behaviour of the average Joe to make sure he continues to be a well behaved cog is absolutely appropriate.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    In South Park, the real danger of cannabis is well explained: it may turn you into a couch potato, causing you to miss out on life instead of engaging in productive activities. And South Park is the most realistic depiction of the clown world we are living in.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    Why do you care what other people do with their private time?
sigspec 3y ago
"I'm just asking questions here guys" No new ideas. womp womp
helpfulContrib 3y ago
[dead]
rlili 3y ago
Wealth inequality, caused by worker exploitation (which drives cannabis/alcohol/television/etc up) is a lot worse for society.
this15testing 3y ago
not everyone wants to work every waking moment of their life, and that's ok.
- slashdev 3y ago
  I'm not saying everybody should be an entrepreneur, far from it, but a decrease in entrepreneurship at a societal level hurts everyone. You can see that too, right?
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    California has historically had some of the largest consumption of cannabis and the highest density of entrepreneurship.
bzzzt 3y ago
I don't partake either, but you'd have to offset the loss in tax revenue to the gains for people with PTSD or chronic pain who get better quality of life and may be able to work more and need less healthcare services. Working at maximum stress levels all the time is also suboptimal. Moderation is the key.
- slashdev 3y ago
  There's nothing wrong with that. Just within limits. As you say, moderation is key.
vincnetas 3y ago
Is there a limit when there's enough taxes/revenue/jobs? I would like one, i would like to live life for life not for job. Job is a mean to live not a reason for it. Because if there is no limit jobs will always expand to fill the all the time a person has.
pixl97 3y ago
Lol, wtf. Humans do not exist as entities to serve businesses for the grand goal of entrepreneurship. I tend to believe people that think this way have their own work addictions that are just as harmful as addictions to substances. Furthermore your 'decrease in entrepreneurship' should be suffixed with 'where I am'. And when you put 'where I am' suddenly you'll run into a bunch of much more likely culprits such as 'administrative burden and bureaucracy', 'IP and copyright laws/legal complications', 'successful large businesses paying knowledge workers and keeping them out of the self market', 'tax burdens for self employed workers' Drugs is going to be so far down that list in most places that it's not a serious consideration.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, neither do you. I'd like to see some studies.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Then Google it, there is plenty of research, otherwise you're JAQing off users that are pre-biased against drugs. Not a single serious study I see in the list (and these are across multiple countries) has hedonism anywhere on list of the most pertinent problems. The Congressional Budget Office writes plenty about this and throws out statements like the following >Some economists are becoming concerned about diminished competition among firms—especially those firms involved in Internet-based commerce—and its harm to entrepreneurship, and about the impact of noncompete clauses Information technology has drastically changed the business landscape in such a way that it no longer looks or acts like the pre-internet world. Furthermore global marketplaces like Amazon allow entrepreneurs to exist outside of the countries doing the counting.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      Maybe, that's true. But this isn't an article about those problems, it's an article about legalizing drugs. I don't think it's true that it is harmless to society, and I don't think we fully understand what the ramifications will be.
stetrain 3y ago
I don't partake in cannabis, or much alcohol (ie one social drink once a week). The reasons I haven't tried entrepreneurship are much more about financial risks. Rent is expensive. Homeownership is barely attainable anywhere near an economically active metro area even with a decent tech income. Healthcare is expensive and unpredictable. Insurance is expensive without an employer subsidy and insurance pool. I think a great argument for better social safety nets and decreased housing costs is a lower barrier to entrepreneurship. If the policy answer for every question on paying for living is "Just get a good job with a good salary and benefits from MegaCorp" that isn't really conducive to striking out on your own.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Also, in the West (most likely the US you're talking about), businesses can and do quickly respond if your business plan starts working and either swallow your customer base whole, or regulate you out of existence. A larger business with access to financial capital markets doesn't need to out compete you on merit. They can bundle your service for free until you collapse then raise prices later. Just look at how many 'killed by Google' projects seem to work like this.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    Yes, the tendency of successful businesses in a market to acquire upstarts has an effect as well. The positive outcome for many startups that take investment money is to be acquired in such a move to pay back those investors. The negative outcome is that you get crushed without being acquired.
shepherdjerred 3y ago
You're getting a lot of flak. You never said that everyone should always work, or that everyone should be an entrepreneur. My question is: what's the "ideal" amount of entrepreneurship? Why is it the amount you chose? It's very philosophical and there really isn't a right answer. More to the point: if it weren't cannabis, alcohol, television, social media then it would be something else. Most people don't _want_ their lives to be driven by work. They want a paycheck and to live their life. Some people develop proper addictions, but that's (in my uninformed opinion) due to the stress of their lives. It's a _lot_ of work to find a higher meaning in life, and many (most?) people instead choose to seek momentary pleasure/sedate themselves. Those who have an addiction or rely on substances aren't any "better" than those who abstain. Everyone is doing their best while trying to get by.
timeon 3y ago
You forgot games and scrolling HN.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
Hypothesis: Cannabis is a major part of the entrepreneurial drive/mood for many people. It isn’t just a drain. It’s a spark, too.
elevaet 3y ago
Anecdata: I've noticed a huge range in the way people are affected by chronic weed smoking. It seems like most people tend to become more content with their current situation and happy to enjoy the moment. This seems make most people less motivated, maybe because they have less problem with how things are. But there are outliers: I've met a few folks over the years who are voracious weed smokers, and have an outrageously productive output. I'm not sure if it's because people are simply wired different, or if these latter camp just figured out how to use weed really well.

foobarian 3y ago

You know what, let's ban it all! What could possibly go wrong. /s

slashdev 3y ago
I'm not advocating for that, it was clearly a disaster. But I wonder if it's beneficial to discourage those things more through education, taxes, etc.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  Maybe instead of taxing it to reduce its use, we can try making life better all around so people aren't incentivized to use it? Making other things more fun/accessible would decrease the time/availability for that behavior.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    I don't think that's an either/or type of choice, do both
- lp4vn 3y ago
  What about discouraging wealth inequality and the lack of social support for the population in general? This would be a horrifying interference of the state in the dynamic of society, right? But somehow for some people the state legislating about the behaviour of the average Joe to make sure he continues to be a well behaved cog is absolutely appropriate.
- rvnx 3y ago
  In South Park, the real danger of cannabis is well explained: it may turn you into a couch potato, causing you to miss out on life instead of engaging in productive activities. And South Park is the most realistic depiction of the clown world we are living in.
- rwmj 3y ago
  Why do you care what other people do with their private time?

sigspec 3y ago

"I'm just asking questions here guys" No new ideas. womp womp

helpfulContrib 3y ago

[dead]

rlili 3y ago

Wealth inequality, caused by worker exploitation (which drives cannabis/alcohol/television/etc up) is a lot worse for society.

this15testing 3y ago

not everyone wants to work every waking moment of their life, and that's ok.

slashdev 3y ago
I'm not saying everybody should be an entrepreneur, far from it, but a decrease in entrepreneurship at a societal level hurts everyone. You can see that too, right?
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  California has historically had some of the largest consumption of cannabis and the highest density of entrepreneurship.

bzzzt 3y ago

I don't partake either, but you'd have to offset the loss in tax revenue to the gains for people with PTSD or chronic pain who get better quality of life and may be able to work more and need less healthcare services. Working at maximum stress levels all the time is also suboptimal. Moderation is the key.

slashdev 3y ago
There's nothing wrong with that. Just within limits. As you say, moderation is key.

vincnetas 3y ago

Is there a limit when there's enough taxes/revenue/jobs? I would like one, i would like to live life for life not for job. Job is a mean to live not a reason for it. Because if there is no limit jobs will always expand to fill the all the time a person has.

pixl97 3y ago

Lol, wtf. Humans do not exist as entities to serve businesses for the grand goal of entrepreneurship. I tend to believe people that think this way have their own work addictions that are just as harmful as addictions to substances. Furthermore your 'decrease in entrepreneurship' should be suffixed with 'where I am'. And when you put 'where I am' suddenly you'll run into a bunch of much more likely culprits such as 'administrative burden and bureaucracy', 'IP and copyright laws/legal complications', 'successful large businesses paying knowledge workers and keeping them out of the self market', 'tax burdens for self employed workers' Drugs is going to be so far down that list in most places that it's not a serious consideration.

slashdev 3y ago
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, neither do you. I'd like to see some studies.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Then Google it, there is plenty of research, otherwise you're JAQing off users that are pre-biased against drugs. Not a single serious study I see in the list (and these are across multiple countries) has hedonism anywhere on list of the most pertinent problems. The Congressional Budget Office writes plenty about this and throws out statements like the following >Some economists are becoming concerned about diminished competition among firms—especially those firms involved in Internet-based commerce—and its harm to entrepreneurship, and about the impact of noncompete clauses Information technology has drastically changed the business landscape in such a way that it no longer looks or acts like the pre-internet world. Furthermore global marketplaces like Amazon allow entrepreneurs to exist outside of the countries doing the counting.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    Maybe, that's true. But this isn't an article about those problems, it's an article about legalizing drugs. I don't think it's true that it is harmless to society, and I don't think we fully understand what the ramifications will be.

stetrain 3y ago

I don't partake in cannabis, or much alcohol (ie one social drink once a week). The reasons I haven't tried entrepreneurship are much more about financial risks. Rent is expensive. Homeownership is barely attainable anywhere near an economically active metro area even with a decent tech income. Healthcare is expensive and unpredictable. Insurance is expensive without an employer subsidy and insurance pool. I think a great argument for better social safety nets and decreased housing costs is a lower barrier to entrepreneurship. If the policy answer for every question on paying for living is "Just get a good job with a good salary and benefits from MegaCorp" that isn't really conducive to striking out on your own.

pixl97 3y ago
Also, in the West (most likely the US you're talking about), businesses can and do quickly respond if your business plan starts working and either swallow your customer base whole, or regulate you out of existence. A larger business with access to financial capital markets doesn't need to out compete you on merit. They can bundle your service for free until you collapse then raise prices later. Just look at how many 'killed by Google' projects seem to work like this.
- stetrain 3y ago
  Yes, the tendency of successful businesses in a market to acquire upstarts has an effect as well. The positive outcome for many startups that take investment money is to be acquired in such a move to pay back those investors. The negative outcome is that you get crushed without being acquired.

shepherdjerred 3y ago

You're getting a lot of flak. You never said that everyone should always work, or that everyone should be an entrepreneur. My question is: what's the "ideal" amount of entrepreneurship? Why is it the amount you chose? It's very philosophical and there really isn't a right answer. More to the point: if it weren't cannabis, alcohol, television, social media then it would be something else. Most people don't _want_ their lives to be driven by work. They want a paycheck and to live their life. Some people develop proper addictions, but that's (in my uninformed opinion) due to the stress of their lives. It's a _lot_ of work to find a higher meaning in life, and many (most?) people instead choose to seek momentary pleasure/sedate themselves. Those who have an addiction or rely on substances aren't any "better" than those who abstain. Everyone is doing their best while trying to get by.

timeon 3y ago

You forgot games and scrolling HN.

dr_dshiv 3y ago

Hypothesis: Cannabis is a major part of the entrepreneurial drive/mood for many people. It isn’t just a drain. It’s a spark, too.

elevaet 3y ago

Anecdata: I've noticed a huge range in the way people are affected by chronic weed smoking. It seems like most people tend to become more content with their current situation and happy to enjoy the moment. This seems make most people less motivated, maybe because they have less problem with how things are. But there are outliers: I've met a few folks over the years who are voracious weed smokers, and have an outrageously productive output. I'm not sure if it's because people are simply wired different, or if these latter camp just figured out how to use weed really well.