3 ms·

Is there any non-religion based effort to combat modern society's (seeming) shift toward excess like drugs and gambling?

Apreche 3y ago
The best way to do it is to ban advertising. Banning ads for tobacco has been effective. We don’t need to criminalize vice. Just don’t allow advertising for vice.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  While we're at it, ban it for prescription medications, too.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  It's tough, though. Right now we see lots of alcohol advertising in the form of "Buy Heineken...0% ;) ;)" and in the case of tobacco we see shell companies like Mission Winnow set up to covertly advertise Marlboro during sporting events. There's also an increasing trend of guerrilla marketing for these brands, like popular posts on social media taking the form "Formula 1 cars never looked so good as they did in the old Marlboro liveries" which attract tonnes of comments like "this post makes me want to smoke."
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  Dry January seems to be doing some good too. That is a charity independent from any religion afaict. I know multiple people who didn't start drinking again when February arrived. They weren't alcoholics, at least not in the classical sense, or that wouldn't have worked. But it almost certainly benefitted their health.
cassianoleal 3y ago
Your comment seems to suggest that religion can be used to combat excesses. In my experience, the only times when religion works in that way is when itself substitutes the previous excesses. Normally the person becomes someone completely different, seemingly lobotomised, and ends up giving away all their time, energy and many times money to the church or whatever organisation is behind it. I'd hardly call that combatting excess. YMMV.
- fdgjgbdfhgb 3y ago
  I didn't interpret the parent comment as saying that religion can be used to/is effective at combating excess, but that the only existing efforts to combat this kind of excess come from religious groups (i.e. there aren't any secular groups lobbying against gambling). I don't know if that is true and I don't necessarily agree with the comment btw.
  - cafard 3y ago
    Aren't there secular groups lobbying against gambling? I am afraid that governments lost the moral high ground a long time ago, when they started up lotteries (commonly with worse odds than the old numbers game).
- Loughla 3y ago
  Sorry, I should've been more clear. That was not my meaning. I meant that every organization I've seen in that space has a religious aspect to it that has always rubbed me the wrong way. There should be non-affiliated options.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    I see. Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure I've seen any either!
User23 3y ago
How could there be? The current secular moral paradigm’s foundation is “consenting adults.” There’s no basis for opposing adults willingly betting or doing recreational drugs in that paradigm. All of the major moral paradigms that do provide a foundation for such a ban are religious.
al_borland 3y ago
There is the logical financial argument. Statistics, and countless examples, show people who go down either of these roads end up worse off. For those who want a comfortable life, they should be avoided. For those who already have an uncomfortable life and see a gambling win as a way out, they are falling victim to the lies, and ignoring that a gambling loss will put them in an even worse spot. And with drugs, is a temporary escape that leaves them worse on financially. I don’t know there is an “effort” going on to this effect, but it’s what I always heard growing up. “The house always wins,” and stuff to that effect.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  There are (rare) situations where gambling is logical. It hinges around the obvservation that not all dollars are equal. It's basically the opposite of insurance, and most people consider insurance to be rational despite the fact that the "house always wins". A small regular payment that you can afford is preferable to an irregular large one that you can't, even if the small regular payments add up to more than the irregular large ones. The opposite effect can occur. Imagine if you owe the mafia $X but you only have $X/2. They'll break your legs if you don't give them $X. If you gamble and win you can pay off the mafia. If you don't gamble you'll be in basically the same situation as if you gamble and lose. So it's rational to gamble. The existence of rational reasons to gamble is problematic. It's very easy to convince yourself that you are in one of those situations even if you aren't.

Apreche 3y ago

The best way to do it is to ban advertising. Banning ads for tobacco has been effective. We don’t need to criminalize vice. Just don’t allow advertising for vice.

ceejayoz 3y ago
While we're at it, ban it for prescription medications, too.
AlecSchueler 3y ago
It's tough, though. Right now we see lots of alcohol advertising in the form of "Buy Heineken...0% ;) ;)" and in the case of tobacco we see shell companies like Mission Winnow set up to covertly advertise Marlboro during sporting events. There's also an increasing trend of guerrilla marketing for these brands, like popular posts on social media taking the form "Formula 1 cars never looked so good as they did in the old Marlboro liveries" which attract tonnes of comments like "this post makes me want to smoke."
galangalalgol 3y ago
Dry January seems to be doing some good too. That is a charity independent from any religion afaict. I know multiple people who didn't start drinking again when February arrived. They weren't alcoholics, at least not in the classical sense, or that wouldn't have worked. But it almost certainly benefitted their health.

cassianoleal 3y ago

Your comment seems to suggest that religion can be used to combat excesses. In my experience, the only times when religion works in that way is when itself substitutes the previous excesses. Normally the person becomes someone completely different, seemingly lobotomised, and ends up giving away all their time, energy and many times money to the church or whatever organisation is behind it. I'd hardly call that combatting excess. YMMV.

fdgjgbdfhgb 3y ago
I didn't interpret the parent comment as saying that religion can be used to/is effective at combating excess, but that the only existing efforts to combat this kind of excess come from religious groups (i.e. there aren't any secular groups lobbying against gambling). I don't know if that is true and I don't necessarily agree with the comment btw.
- cafard 3y ago
  Aren't there secular groups lobbying against gambling? I am afraid that governments lost the moral high ground a long time ago, when they started up lotteries (commonly with worse odds than the old numbers game).
Loughla 3y ago
Sorry, I should've been more clear. That was not my meaning. I meant that every organization I've seen in that space has a religious aspect to it that has always rubbed me the wrong way. There should be non-affiliated options.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  I see. Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure I've seen any either!

User23 3y ago

How could there be? The current secular moral paradigm’s foundation is “consenting adults.” There’s no basis for opposing adults willingly betting or doing recreational drugs in that paradigm. All of the major moral paradigms that do provide a foundation for such a ban are religious.

al_borland 3y ago

There is the logical financial argument. Statistics, and countless examples, show people who go down either of these roads end up worse off. For those who want a comfortable life, they should be avoided. For those who already have an uncomfortable life and see a gambling win as a way out, they are falling victim to the lies, and ignoring that a gambling loss will put them in an even worse spot. And with drugs, is a temporary escape that leaves them worse on financially. I don’t know there is an “effort” going on to this effect, but it’s what I always heard growing up. “The house always wins,” and stuff to that effect.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
There are (rare) situations where gambling is logical. It hinges around the obvservation that not all dollars are equal. It's basically the opposite of insurance, and most people consider insurance to be rational despite the fact that the "house always wins". A small regular payment that you can afford is preferable to an irregular large one that you can't, even if the small regular payments add up to more than the irregular large ones. The opposite effect can occur. Imagine if you owe the mafia $X but you only have $X/2. They'll break your legs if you don't give them $X. If you gamble and win you can pay off the mafia. If you don't gamble you'll be in basically the same situation as if you gamble and lose. So it's rational to gamble. The existence of rational reasons to gamble is problematic. It's very easy to convince yourself that you are in one of those situations even if you aren't.