I thought something similar myself, but what I don't understand is this:
If the powers that be just want to keep us happy to paper over the shittiness that their regime brings, why are they so adamant about banning drug use? If I were in charge, I'd see that as a cheap way to buy the population happiness of the kind that makes them not want to rebel.
In fact, in the Brave New World world, that's exactly what they do -- give everyone drugs so they're happy enough not to challenge the SQ.
In Brave New World, everyone uses drugs to get happy, the drug itself is relatively safe and doesn't hurt productivity, and everyone thinks it's perfectly normal to use drugs.
In the actual world, only a subset of the population uses drugs frequently, only a subset of available drugs can be used without serious side effects (we haven't invented the perfect Soma yet), and there is a lot of moralizing about drug use. Under these circumstances, nothing the government does will make everyone happy, so the government optimizes for the happiness of the voters who matter the most: conservative parents who get all worried about their kids doing ecstasy.
If the powers that be just want to keep us happy to paper over the shittiness that their regime brings, why are they so adamant about banning drug use? If I were in charge, I'd see that as a cheap way to buy the population happiness of the kind that makes them not want to rebel.
In fact, in the Brave New World world, that's exactly what they do -- give everyone drugs so they're happy enough not to challenge the SQ.
So what gives?