https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2024%2Fjan%2F26%2Fmissouri-republican-dueling-statehouse
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/26/missouri-republican-dueling-statehouse
Show
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2024%2Fjan%2F26%2Fmissouri-republican-dueling-statehouse
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/26/missouri-republican-dueling-statehouse
I would argue that the prohibition of vices is ineffective. There are plenty of drugs without upside including alcohol. No history of prohibition was ever anything but a giant waste of money that created organized crime. Gambling is so simple that you'd get casinos popping up everywhere. There's also a secret, sinister third one about sex.
Would society be better off without it? Sure. Would the prevalence increase with legality? Sure (maybe because I think it was just for senators or something?). Would I be torn up if Missouri decided it was a dumb idea? No. My point? It would be funny if it happened - doubly so if it was just for congresspeople.
I would argue that the prohibition of dueling has been highly effectively, given how the practice is virtually extinct today.
The prohibition of dueling in particular is highly effective because dueling is no longer seen as an aristocratic practice but rather as a barbarity of the past. Today, nobody gains any honor from winning a duel. When William Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in their duel 200 years ago, it ended his political career, because by then dueling had already lost its prestige.