America Has Gone Too Far in Legalizing Vice
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
And what is the solution? Punishing responsible adults for the irresponsibility of the others? This is the exact same argument that was used (and still being used in some parts of the world) by anti-LGBT people.
But, in the case of gambling it seems like there is some middle ground. You shouldn't permit companies to program kids to gamble through videogame mechanics for example, and companies should have some regulations bc otherwise it goes from predatory to extremely predatory, but doesn't seem like it should be illegal.
Unfortunately it's a tough thing and hard to even have a conversation about.
Making the use and possession of “druuuugggsss” illegal only further feeds the prison pipeline and is not what a nation state should be doing anyway.
What humans do in their own time to their own bodies should not be looked upon by a government as any sort of illegal at all.
Of course to “help” is the severe lack of mental health and general healthcare, a set of “spooky” marketing tactics decades long, and a for profit industry loving tired, exhausted, scared of prison (and each other) labor.
In terms of what corporations do: fuck every last one of them, regulate them to the top and put in prison the boards, shareholders, and supporters of those corporations who market to children/etc using the very same laws we already have regarding endangerment, etc.
The problem is that when convenient corporations are treated like they have morals and “good humans” behind them and when convenient they are treated like simple numbers on a spreadsheet… at fault for nothing.
I'm kinda done with subsidizing other people rotten choices.
People are fine with walmart employees being on welfare and ridicule the human for poor choices but don’t ridicule the very same walmart for choosing stockholder ROI over proper wages to employees. You (and I) are subsidizing every corporation that profits while having any one of its wage earning labor force on government programs.
Either we should be arresting walmart, demanding more of the corporation or giving everyone security in housing, food, healthcare…
If you want to avoid having people gamble more than they would like, there is a simple way: have them set a limit (of their choosing) that they can change at any point, to take effect 1 week from now. Yes you need to coordinate the gambling across different companies, but gambling is already legally limited.
This argument has similarities to the pre-2010s old saw of "China can't censor the Internet, it's too open and decentralized and routes around censorship." It turns out that a determined state with a well-funded police apparatus can accomplish quite a lot, for good or ill.
No, I'm just wishing that you never wrote your words. Your reply had the feel of pure pedantry. Yes, you can take my short statement totally out of context—which was a discussion of an American problem—and superficially nitpick it if you like, comparing to China or whatever, but what's the point? What have we gained thereby? You get to win some internet brownie points by saying, "Well actually..."
In America, alcohol prohibition failed. I am aware that in some other countries around the world, the government does some nasty things to you if you drink, and thus there's a lot less drinking there. But we wouldn't stand for that here. Alcohol isn't against our religion, it is our religion.
> The first sentence simply isn't true. Vigorous law enforcement can substantially curtail illegal drug trafficking, for example. Singapore does not have a fentanyl abuse problem. They also hang drug traffickers.
An acknowledgment that “sensible prohibition” such as controlling the sale of alcohol to minors can be effective? Unless you consider hanging 18 years olds who have a few drinks “sensible prohibition”.
Governments are shirking their responsibility, or succumbing to corruption, and throwing vulnerable people to the wolves.
I don't want to live in a world where we dump people with addiction issues on the street, but certainly giving them welfare or something enables them after a certain point as well. Hard issue.
At the end of the day we’d be better off without most vices. Most vulnerable people aren’t going to be able to function when drugs, gambling and the like are a free for all regardless of supports given to them.
> At the end of the day we’d be better off without most vices
Who decides what's a vice and what isn't?
> others need heavily regulation
Who decides what gets regulated and how heavily?
It's usually the people with the most to gain personaly who vie to become one of the deciders. They approach such decisions as opportunities rather than tough, morally burdensome responsibilities. And it's the machiavellians and narcissists that work the hardest for it.
People online say “that never happens”, but I see it all the time in real life.
Why improve society when you can drug people up instead?
You’re right in pointing out those things though, it doesn’t have to be a drug to be damaging.
So what is the proposal? Regulation of advertisement is fine. Makes sense, even. Legal does not have to be uncontrolled. As such, pitching that extreme as where we are going is a scare tactic.
What does work is banning advertising for vice. We should start by banning gambling and alcohol ads, and then eventually work our way up to banning car ads.
Vices never ever stop at the user, they always end up hurting those around them.
Legislators crave lotteries because it fuels their addiction for taxing the poor. As this addiction was fed, legislators reliably showed signs of untrustworthiness and other negative behaviors we associate with addiction.
"Legislators merely substitute general revenue funds with lottery dollars so the schools don’t really gain any additional funding"