5 ms·

America Has Gone Too Far in Legalizing Vice

21 points by fortran77 4y ago

BizarreByte 4y ago
In a world where the quest is infinite money it's not surprising harmful industries are being enabled at the expense of the population. Governments are shirking their responsibility, or succumbing to corruption, and throwing vulnerable people to the wolves.
- atahanacar 4y ago
  Legalizing "vice" and protecting vulnerable people aren't mutually exclusive.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    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.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      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.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      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.
  - BizarreByte 4y ago
    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.
    - grammarnazzzi 4y ago
      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.
- fullshark 4y ago
  Not sure it's intentional or not but the "ruling class" has decided to eliminate a lot of the avenues for social mobility, in part because falling down is so terrifying to them, and in exchange is offering vice and economic dependency to a permanent underclass.
  - BizarreByte 4y ago
    What better way to make the masses content right? Weed alone is amazing at making people ambitionless and unmotivated, ensuring they remain happy in otherwise garbage situations. 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?
    - fullshark 4y ago
      Not just weed, but pornography and video game addiction is real as well and can be considered vices, severely curtailing ambition and motivation. A large % of men are just uninterested in social mobility or having a meaningful relationship/children, just in the next dopamine hit from wherever they can get it.
      - BizarreByte 4y ago
        I mean I don’t want a relationship or children, but I had to fight my way out of the poverty I grew up in and I continue to work to maintain and improve my position. Seeing what I have it legitimately scares me to think where I’d be had I gotten into some vices back when I was young. You’re right in pointing out those things though, it doesn’t have to be a drug to be damaging.
atahanacar 4y ago
>Shouldn’t responsible, independent adults be able to make decisions for themselves about how they spend their money or use their body? This seems appealing, and there certainly are well-informed adults who gamble and use marijuana judiciously. But focusing on these ideal cases and basing our laws on them disregards millions of people who suffer because of their addictions 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- roflyear 4y ago
  Well, one causes harm and the other doesn't, so they are different situations. 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.
- flandish 4y ago
  Society already has laws against murder, child endangerment, theft, abuse… 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.
dsugarman 4y ago
With freedom comes responsibility. "People can't be trusted to be responsible so we shouldn't be free to do as we please" is absurd to me
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fullshark 4y ago
  What if they abdicate their responsibility, and they have people depending on them, especially children?
- roflyear 4y ago
  You're arguing against government in general, not that I don't agree with you. Do you believe people are generally good or that they need to be policed to prevent them from harming each other?
lapcat 4y ago
Making vices illegal never stopped them, it only fed the prison-industrial complex. And ironically, drug convicts are still doing drugs in prison, often with prison guards as conspirators.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- farmaway 4y ago
  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. 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.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    I find this reply bizarre. The linked article starts with "America has gone too far", but now the suggestion is offered that we could turn America into an authoritarian police state in order to stop drugs, which would be an absurd tradeoff. Talk about going too far: that's staring into the abyss. It should go without saying that the idea is a nonstarter and abhorrent to the majority of Americans. It's an implicit yet important assumption of this discussion and context that broadly maintaining and protecting our freedoms and way of life is beyond question.
    - farmaway 4y ago
      You're putting words in my mouth. I don't suggest that America follow China or Singapore's example to the letter, only that the statement "making vices illegal never stopped them" is wrong. There is a huge middle ground between the government hanging drug traffickers versus handing out heroin injection kits.
      - 4y ago
LargeWu 4y ago
I can tell you they certainly went too far the other way in criminalizing it. How many lives have been destroyed because of the War on Drugs?
taeric 4y ago
And too much of the criminalization of vice focused on punishment as a deterrent. Which does little too help out prevent, and instead pushes it to the margins where folks are least capable of doing anything about it. 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.
drewcoo 4y ago
[flagged]
Apreche 4y ago
We already know the answer for this. Making vice illegal doesn't work. It also shouldn't be a crime to do something that only hurts yourself. 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.
- BizarreByte 4y ago
  > It also shouldn't be a crime to do something that only hurts yourself. Vices never ever stop at the user, they always end up hurting those around them.
WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
The author of the piece (Matthew Loftus) is a doctor and Christian columnist [1]. Skimming headlines of pieces he wrote, I'm inclined to believe he is thoughtful and writes in good faith. However, this piece seems fairly representative of orthodox Christian views. Because of that, I feel the byline (in the Atlantic article) should have included his resume. [1] https://comment.org/contributors/matthew-loftus/ https://comment.org/contributors/matthew-loftus/
thinkyfish 4y ago
Making vice illegal simply encourages "fake virtue". If you needed the vice to be illegal to stop you, you weren't virtuous in the first place. But you can pretend as long as you are "innocent". Innocence is not Purity.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
GoodJokes 4y ago
[dead]
WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
I feel the author is comparing different classes of addicts. 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" ref: https://archive.is/98drT https://archive.is/98drT
fortran77 4y ago
And of course, the "legealize everything" techno-libertarians on HN flagged this piece because to these people (who no doubt love "free speech") opposing viewpoints are dangerous.

21 points by fortran77 4y ago

In a world where the quest is infinite money it's not surprising harmful industries are being enabled at the expense of the population. Governments are shirking their responsibility, or succumbing to corruption, and throwing vulnerable people to the wolves.

atahanacar 4y ago
Legalizing "vice" and protecting vulnerable people aren't mutually exclusive.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  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.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    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.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    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.
- BizarreByte 4y ago
  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.
  - grammarnazzzi 4y ago
    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.
fullshark 4y ago
Not sure it's intentional or not but the "ruling class" has decided to eliminate a lot of the avenues for social mobility, in part because falling down is so terrifying to them, and in exchange is offering vice and economic dependency to a permanent underclass.
- BizarreByte 4y ago
  What better way to make the masses content right? Weed alone is amazing at making people ambitionless and unmotivated, ensuring they remain happy in otherwise garbage situations. 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?
  - fullshark 4y ago
    Not just weed, but pornography and video game addiction is real as well and can be considered vices, severely curtailing ambition and motivation. A large % of men are just uninterested in social mobility or having a meaningful relationship/children, just in the next dopamine hit from wherever they can get it.
    - BizarreByte 4y ago
      I mean I don’t want a relationship or children, but I had to fight my way out of the poverty I grew up in and I continue to work to maintain and improve my position. Seeing what I have it legitimately scares me to think where I’d be had I gotten into some vices back when I was young. You’re right in pointing out those things though, it doesn’t have to be a drug to be damaging.

atahanacar 4y ago

>Shouldn’t responsible, independent adults be able to make decisions for themselves about how they spend their money or use their body? This seems appealing, and there certainly are well-informed adults who gamble and use marijuana judiciously. But focusing on these ideal cases and basing our laws on them disregards millions of people who suffer because of their addictions 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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
roflyear 4y ago
Well, one causes harm and the other doesn't, so they are different situations. 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.
flandish 4y ago
Society already has laws against murder, child endangerment, theft, abuse… 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.

dsugarman 4y ago

With freedom comes responsibility. "People can't be trusted to be responsible so we shouldn't be free to do as we please" is absurd to me

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fullshark 4y ago
What if they abdicate their responsibility, and they have people depending on them, especially children?
roflyear 4y ago
You're arguing against government in general, not that I don't agree with you. Do you believe people are generally good or that they need to be policed to prevent them from harming each other?

lapcat 4y ago

Making vices illegal never stopped them, it only fed the prison-industrial complex. And ironically, drug convicts are still doing drugs in prison, often with prison guards as conspirators.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
farmaway 4y ago
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. 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.
- lapcat 4y ago
  I find this reply bizarre. The linked article starts with "America has gone too far", but now the suggestion is offered that we could turn America into an authoritarian police state in order to stop drugs, which would be an absurd tradeoff. Talk about going too far: that's staring into the abyss. It should go without saying that the idea is a nonstarter and abhorrent to the majority of Americans. It's an implicit yet important assumption of this discussion and context that broadly maintaining and protecting our freedoms and way of life is beyond question.
  - farmaway 4y ago
    You're putting words in my mouth. I don't suggest that America follow China or Singapore's example to the letter, only that the statement "making vices illegal never stopped them" is wrong. There is a huge middle ground between the government hanging drug traffickers versus handing out heroin injection kits.
    - 4y ago

LargeWu 4y ago

I can tell you they certainly went too far the other way in criminalizing it. How many lives have been destroyed because of the War on Drugs?

taeric 4y ago

And too much of the criminalization of vice focused on punishment as a deterrent. Which does little too help out prevent, and instead pushes it to the margins where folks are least capable of doing anything about it. 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.

drewcoo 4y ago

[flagged]

Apreche 4y ago

We already know the answer for this. Making vice illegal doesn't work. It also shouldn't be a crime to do something that only hurts yourself. 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.

BizarreByte 4y ago
> It also shouldn't be a crime to do something that only hurts yourself. Vices never ever stop at the user, they always end up hurting those around them.

WarOnPrivacy 4y ago

The author of the piece (Matthew Loftus) is a doctor and Christian columnist [1]. Skimming headlines of pieces he wrote, I'm inclined to believe he is thoughtful and writes in good faith. However, this piece seems fairly representative of orthodox Christian views. Because of that, I feel the byline (in the Atlantic article) should have included his resume. [1] https://comment.org/contributors/matthew-loftus/ https://comment.org/contributors/matthew-loftus/

thinkyfish 4y ago

Making vice illegal simply encourages "fake virtue". If you needed the vice to be illegal to stop you, you weren't virtuous in the first place. But you can pretend as long as you are "innocent". Innocence is not Purity.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

GoodJokes 4y ago

[dead]

WarOnPrivacy 4y ago

I feel the author is comparing different classes of addicts. 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" ref: https://archive.is/98drT https://archive.is/98drT

fortran77 4y ago

And of course, the "legealize everything" techno-libertarians on HN flagged this piece because to these people (who no doubt love "free speech") opposing viewpoints are dangerous.