Hacker News Reader

Comment by atahanacar | Hacker News Reader

Legalizing "vice" and protecting vulnerable people aren't mutually exclusive.

Some vices need not be legalized, many others need heavily regulation. We seem to be getting the worst of all worlds (especially here in Canada), poor regulation with legalization.

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.

The devil's in the details.

> 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.

This. I want to live in a society where I can have a beer on a Sunday afternoon but where developing alcoholism doesn't mean: losing a job, therefore losing my housing, therefore losing my relationships, therefore dying of exposure under a highway overpass.

Likely it isn't the alcoholism that causes that but the results of drinking all the time meaning you can't function. You can have a beer anytime you want in the US.

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.

Maybe last part is something that shouldn't happen. But before that. I think it is entirely reasonable outcome for non-functioning alcoholism. As society we shouldn't be forced accept to someone who is drunk all the time, and not capable to perform their work or interact with their friends and family is normal way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com