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.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, neither do you. I'd like to see some studies.

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.

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.

Harmless doesn't exist and you can never reach it. If you want harmless have AI lock you in a bubble and feed you pulp and happy thoughts in your own bubble universe.

What you're looking for is the principle of least harm. Time and time again we've proven that banning drugs is not the least harmful option. It turns out that humans really love vice which causes even more harmful black markets. We have lots of articles and information about drugs and their effects on society, you were attempting to link it to entrepreneurship of which from what can be seen is a very tenuous link at best.

I agree with you, as you would notice if you saw my other comments in this thread. But I'm wondering about the harms to society that we don't fully understand yet, and how we can mitigate them.

Legalizing alcohol was for the best, because it eliminated the organized crime aspect. But it came with serious harms to society that we really haven't done a good job of mitigating. Alochol destroys so many lives and kills so many people each year.

I'm asking, how we can not make that mistake again. To be clear, whatever the harms of normalized cannabis use in society, it will be far less than alcohol.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

California has historically had some of the largest consumption of cannabis and the highest density of entrepreneurship.

"I'm just asking questions here guys"

No new ideas.

womp womp

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.

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.

You forgot games and scrolling HN.

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

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.

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.

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.

I don't think that's an either/or type of choice, do both

Why do you care what other people do with their private time?

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.