4 ms·
This argument was used against alcohol in the early 1900s, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine. According to them, US alcohol prohibition was lobbied for,
by hackerlight 4y ago
This argument was used against alcohol in the early 1900s, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine.
According to them, US alcohol prohibition was lobbied for, in some part, by the left, because they saw it as exploitation. We saw how that turned out.
The same thing happened in Russia, where the Bolsheviks banned alcohol for a period, under the same justification.
If a policy is known to lead to bad outcomes, it is not a moral policy, no matter the theory behind it.
The left has started to realize this. That's why they now advocate for decriminalization, public health campaigns, and mental health support.
- gorgoiler 4y agoI agree with you, for what it’s worth, re: booze and drugs. Bartenders and dispensaries aren’t predators. Pimps and organ harvesters are.
- hackerlight 4y agoWhether a person/group is defined with the label "predator" is uninteresting. Because that is about definitions of words and categories, which has no consequence on policy. The right question is what policies help people, and what policies hurt people. Morally charged judgements cloud our thinking. I can easily argue that alcohol sales are predatory. They are often selling to alcoholics who are damaging their bodies. They contribute to drunk driving deaths and domestic violence. But there is no policy corollary or implication to me doing that.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoThere are only bartenders and dispensaries because it's legal. People made the same argument before for bootleggers and drug dealers.