Obviously it's not just his problem. However, that would hold the same if it was to fuel his drinking habit, but we don't propose banning alcohol because of that, right?
But like, why don't we extend that to drugs and alcohol though? No commericial sale, but you can make it and share with friends and family.
After all, no communist should be siding with Coors or Phillip Morris.
Quite frankly all of it could be banned and it wouldn't affect me, so I don't have a personal stake. I'm just intrigued by how people square the differences between vices.
Allowing it, is, and this isn't conjecture, it's an observable fact, sucking money out of the working class (obviously worsening their living conditions in the process) and giving it to some of the worst predators that capitalism has to offer.
Saying that that should be allowed is callous disregard for the well being of the poor and something I'd expect from a liberal, not someone calling themselves a communist.
Allowing it, is, and this isn't conjecture, it's an observable fact, sucking money out of the working class (obviously worsening their living conditions in the process) and giving it to some of the worst predators that capitalism has to offer.
Again, can the same not be said of the alcohol and cigarette industries? I work with people in recovery at my job and people really go through some shit because of drugs.
trauma, abuse
It's part of what destroyed my parent's marriage and why they lost the house to the bank. When I was 10 my dad showed up for visitation and tried to get me in the car with him while he was drunk behind the wheel.
But for whatever reason, we don't see prohibition as the solution to that. So I'm asking why this is different and I'm getting precious few answers that don't arbitrarily moralize.
One: cigarettes should be banned
Two: I'm ambivalent about alcohol because it's been part of human culture basically since human culture has existed, it feels almost like cultural erasure to ban it- nonetheless alcoholism needs to be treated more seriously in this country, there is almost no treatment available and the barrier to purchase is non-existent.
Three: alcohol is clearly different because Smirnoff doesn't make deadly poisonous bad batches of vodka on the regular, and if you ban it outright ,then people making it in their bathtubs will.
Small scale, illegal but irrepressible sports betting between friends is less harmful, small scale, illegal but irrepressible alcohol production is incredibly dangerous.
First I want to apologize if I got a little rude in my previous comment—I was just getting off work so the issue of drugs and alcohol was front of mind. Ultimately I want to understand what you and everyone else is saying, and me getting snippy gets in the way of that and isn't good for anyone.
No arguments on the cigarettes!
I'm ambivalent about alcohol because it's been part of human culture basically since human culture has existed, it feels almost like cultural erasure to ban it
We could say the same for gambling too though, right? It's about as old and has similar cultural effects.
Fun fact, you can't actually make vodka or any distilled spirits in a bathtub, which I didn't know before I looked it up. You need some kind of still or still-like instrument to distill it, otherwise you just have a bunch gross tasting "wash" and that barrier to entry means very few people would end up doing it. Homebrew of beer, wine, mead, and other such "softer" alcohol is actually pretty safe all things considered, which I didn't really know either. All academic because I don't think it's a good idea at the end of the day, but I found it interesting at least.
I question the irrepressability of gambling being limited to the small scale. Unlike alcohol production which has a pretty big physical footprint, a pretty big gambling operation could just go through encrypted channels and stuff to keep it stealthy.
Also, I was thinking about currently still illegal gambling stuff like dogfighting or cockfighting. Isn't it possible that people could get pushed to more harmful types of gambling like that if it gets pushed underground?
We could say the same for gambling too though, right? It's about as old and has similar cultural effects.
Personal betting is thousands of years old. Gigantic billionaire dollar smart phone betting companies are extremely recent.
You will never convince people to quit betting their buddies 10 bucks over whose favorite team will score more points this weekend. You absolutely can, and if you as a government care about your citizens at all, must, stop DraftKings from taking all the rent money out of a poor family's bank account.
that barrier to entry means very few people would end up doing it.
Enough people would do it and distribute it, that it would drive up deaths and injuries significantly
I question the irrepressability of gambling being limited to the small scale. Unlike alcohol production which has a pretty big physical footprint, a pretty big gambling operation could just go through encrypted channels and stuff to keep it stealthy.
One: the barrier to entry would reduce the societal impact a lot
Two: you could still work to shut these places down, it would just be more work.
Also, I was thinking about currently still illegal gambling stuff like dogfighting or cockfighting. Isn't it possible that people could get pushed to more harmful types of gambling like that if it gets pushed underground?
I doubt it.
First of all it was illegal half a decade ago.
Do you have reason to believe that dogfighting has dropped specifically in the last 6 years?
Per the ASPCA it's been on the decline since the 90s (when, remember, all this app casino shit that has been normalized enough in SIX YEARS that multiple posters in this communist instance are defending it, was illegal), but has been on the rise again "in recent years" due to the internet making it easier to organize, so if anything it's gotten more common along with sports betting.
Furthermore, in the Citations Needed ep they mentioned that gambling constantly desensitizes gamblers to the risk and they start making riskier, higher stakes bets over time. If anything, willingness to do riskier bets is going to make these people more likely to go to a dogfight, not less.
Obivously they didn't have megacorps back in the day, but developed, institutional betting has been around since Rome where it was commonplace for pretty much everyone to do it at arenas.
I looked more into moonshine and distillation, and I actually think the more dangerous part of it is the equipment itself rather than the methanol in foreshots. I'm still skeptical that more people would have alcohol-based negative health outcomes in a prohibition scenario compared to the current one. Apparently death and illness from alcohol dropped pretty significantly during prohibition.
That makes sense about the dogfighting, I really don't know much about it but was curious regardless.
It's you that is arbitrarily moralizing by putting a bunch of different things into a single idealist category and demanding they all be treated the same way. They are different issues that require different solutions. Demanding that we can't fix one thing unless we fix all things simultaneously in the same exact manner is a weird bit to do and kind of betrays a lack of knowledge of materialism and scientific socialism.
I don't think I'd say I'm demanding that they be fixed simultaneously. I'm saying that it's weird people don't hold these things to a similar standard and I find the reasoning behind it to be fairly spurious. I'd push back on "single idealist category" because I feel like it's pretty simple delineation. They're both activities that generally aren't good for you that people still partake in because they're fun. Dopamine hit in exchange for negative long term outcomes.
(Slightly edited this because I wasn't happy with how combative I was being)
Alcohol is a good that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is deeply entrenched in human history and culture. It's not going anywhere. It will exist under communism, although it will cease to exist as a commodity. Those who cannot use it responsibly and begin to exhibit anti-social tendencies with it should have mandatory rehabilitation.
Gambling, at an industry and not personal level, has no utility and is purely a system of cons to exploit the poor of their money and transfer wealth. It will not exist under communism except at a small scale between individuals. If there's no money anymore and labor vouchers are non-exchangeable and tied to the person then gambling will pretty much stop making any sense outside of moneyless bets for bragging privileges.
Tobacco/nicotine should be phased out as an industry as well, but this has to be treated with care due to the physical component of the addiction. Probably a gradual raising of the smoking age until it is eradicated in newer generations. Hobbyists and small scale tobacco growing/use should still be permitted at an individual level, but obviously the tobacco industry itself should be mostly wiped out.
Gambling is also something that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is also deeply entrenched in human history and culture. The oldest recorded gambling record or instrument is within spitting distance of the oldest recorded alcohol on a civilizational scale. Entire polities exist and have existed predicated on gambling.
People gamble for fun and often with zero money involved. Have you seen Twitch prop bets before? It's monopoly money but people still get into it and it's certainly not small scale between individuals.
I'm really having a hard time seeing a meaningful distinction or justification for banning one and not the other here that doesn't depend on individual mores.
Idealism is causing you to group all of "vices" together into a single idealistic category, which you believe should all be treated the same. This is platonism basically. Each individual "vice" will need to be treated differently based on the material ways in which it interacts with and effects human society. There's no point shoving them all in the same box and demanding they all be treated the same. They aren't people, they don't deserve equality.
People don't propose banning alcohol because a previous attempt to ban alcohol led to failure. The problem is that some people are extrapolating a single attempt to ban alcohol into some general law about how prohibition will always be doomed to failure. An easy counterexample is when the PRC banned opium. During the Century of Humiliation, huge swaths of the population were addicted to opium, so when the CPC seized power and proclaimed the People's Republic of China, they banned opium because they saw opium as a social vice wrought by Western imperialists. And when opium was banned, the percentage of the population that were addicted to opium plummeted to the point where opium addiction ceased to be a social vice.
We have yet another example in a giant pile of examples of something leading to failure when the USians did it but leading to success when the Chinese did it. This is "China good US bad" trumping "prohibition will never work." Instead of clinging on the false idea that prohibition never works, we ought to analyze why the CPC was successful in eradicating opium addiction while the US failed in its attempt at banning alcohol.
I do think that the substances have important differences on top of the competency gap between countries.
One of these is made from one plant, often imported. The other can be made by anyone with a waterproof container and literally any plant.
The one that's easier to make is also ingrained in society as a way to form bonds with ones fellows by letting your guard down in a social environment, while the other basically removed you from society so the number and type of person who's going to resist the prohibition is very different.
Yes, there's that aspect as well. Alcohol is just a byproduct of a biological process. Banning alcohol is on par with banning plants or banning compost. Likewise, banning marijuana is a fool's errant because cannabis is a hardy plant that's easy to grow. It's like trying to ban an invasive species. Once you move to stuff like cocaine or heroin, it becomes easier to target them because they are synthetic products that have chemical precursors. You don't even have to ban the actual drug but instead target the precursors required to manufacture the drug. This would be ideal because it targets drug production instead of personal use.
And I just suddenly remembered that there are some people who say that Prohibition wasn't even done to curb alcoholism as a social vice but to prevent workers from organizing. The idea is that workers fraternize in bars and pubs after work, which would lead to a degree of class consciousness and organizing, so by banning alcohol, it was a way of destroying a third space for workers to fraternize with one another. Browsing the Wikipedia article on Prohibition shows that rich people were largely unaffected by Prohibition because they quickly hoarded large quantities of alcohol in preparation for Prohibition and had the means and land necessary to set up their own personal production of alcohol.
I'd never heard that angle before—outside of general "morals" stuff the only other lens I've seen was newly enfranchised women trying to stop their abusive husbands from getting ridiculously drunk all the time
America did have a large problem with alcoholism at the time and needed some sort of intervention. The problem is with how it was implemented, with the feds deliberately poisoning batches of alcohol to trace where it went and mobs gaining control of everything. There was a way to get help for the huge portion of society that were antisocial violent and abusive drunkards without throwing them in jails or driving them into the arms of the mob.
Obviously it's not just his problem. However, that would hold the same if it was to fuel his drinking habit, but we don't propose banning alcohol because of that, right?
Severe alcoholism with anti-social effects should be banned and rehabilitation for their addiction provided, just like with gambling addicts
Yeah that sounds good. People apparently want sports gambling to be wholly illegal in here, though
No, I want people to make small bets with their friends and family if they feel the need to gamble.
Which could hardly be banned anyways.
No communist should be siding with Draft Kings for God's sake
But like, why don't we extend that to drugs and alcohol though? No commericial sale, but you can make it and share with friends and family.
After all, no communist should be siding with Coors or Phillip Morris.
Quite frankly all of it could be banned and it wouldn't affect me, so I don't have a personal stake. I'm just intrigued by how people square the differences between vices.
Allowing it, is, and this isn't conjecture, it's an observable fact, sucking money out of the working class (obviously worsening their living conditions in the process) and giving it to some of the worst predators that capitalism has to offer.
Saying that that should be allowed is callous disregard for the well being of the poor and something I'd expect from a liberal, not someone calling themselves a communist.
Again, can the same not be said of the alcohol and cigarette industries? I work with people in recovery at my job and people really go through some shit because of drugs.
trauma, abuse
It's part of what destroyed my parent's marriage and why they lost the house to the bank. When I was 10 my dad showed up for visitation and tried to get me in the car with him while he was drunk behind the wheel.
But for whatever reason, we don't see prohibition as the solution to that. So I'm asking why this is different and I'm getting precious few answers that don't arbitrarily moralize.
One: cigarettes should be banned Two: I'm ambivalent about alcohol because it's been part of human culture basically since human culture has existed, it feels almost like cultural erasure to ban it- nonetheless alcoholism needs to be treated more seriously in this country, there is almost no treatment available and the barrier to purchase is non-existent.
Three: alcohol is clearly different because Smirnoff doesn't make deadly poisonous bad batches of vodka on the regular, and if you ban it outright ,then people making it in their bathtubs will.
Small scale, illegal but irrepressible sports betting between friends is less harmful, small scale, illegal but irrepressible alcohol production is incredibly dangerous.
First I want to apologize if I got a little rude in my previous comment—I was just getting off work so the issue of drugs and alcohol was front of mind. Ultimately I want to understand what you and everyone else is saying, and me getting snippy gets in the way of that and isn't good for anyone.
No arguments on the cigarettes!
We could say the same for gambling too though, right? It's about as old and has similar cultural effects.
Fun fact, you can't actually make vodka or any distilled spirits in a bathtub, which I didn't know before I looked it up. You need some kind of still or still-like instrument to distill it, otherwise you just have a bunch gross tasting "wash" and that barrier to entry means very few people would end up doing it. Homebrew of beer, wine, mead, and other such "softer" alcohol is actually pretty safe all things considered, which I didn't really know either. All academic because I don't think it's a good idea at the end of the day, but I found it interesting at least.
I question the irrepressability of gambling being limited to the small scale. Unlike alcohol production which has a pretty big physical footprint, a pretty big gambling operation could just go through encrypted channels and stuff to keep it stealthy.
Also, I was thinking about currently still illegal gambling stuff like dogfighting or cockfighting. Isn't it possible that people could get pushed to more harmful types of gambling like that if it gets pushed underground?
Personal betting is thousands of years old. Gigantic billionaire dollar smart phone betting companies are extremely recent.
You will never convince people to quit betting their buddies 10 bucks over whose favorite team will score more points this weekend. You absolutely can, and if you as a government care about your citizens at all, must, stop DraftKings from taking all the rent money out of a poor family's bank account.
Enough people would do it and distribute it, that it would drive up deaths and injuries significantly
One: the barrier to entry would reduce the societal impact a lot
Two: you could still work to shut these places down, it would just be more work.
I doubt it.
First of all it was illegal half a decade ago.
Do you have reason to believe that dogfighting has dropped specifically in the last 6 years?
Per the ASPCA it's been on the decline since the 90s (when, remember, all this app casino shit that has been normalized enough in SIX YEARS that multiple posters in this communist instance are defending it, was illegal), but has been on the rise again "in recent years" due to the internet making it easier to organize, so if anything it's gotten more common along with sports betting.
Furthermore, in the Citations Needed ep they mentioned that gambling constantly desensitizes gamblers to the risk and they start making riskier, higher stakes bets over time. If anything, willingness to do riskier bets is going to make these people more likely to go to a dogfight, not less.
Obivously they didn't have megacorps back in the day, but developed, institutional betting has been around since Rome where it was commonplace for pretty much everyone to do it at arenas.
I looked more into moonshine and distillation, and I actually think the more dangerous part of it is the equipment itself rather than the methanol in foreshots. I'm still skeptical that more people would have alcohol-based negative health outcomes in a prohibition scenario compared to the current one. Apparently death and illness from alcohol dropped pretty significantly during prohibition.
That makes sense about the dogfighting, I really don't know much about it but was curious regardless.
It's you that is arbitrarily moralizing by putting a bunch of different things into a single idealist category and demanding they all be treated the same way. They are different issues that require different solutions. Demanding that we can't fix one thing unless we fix all things simultaneously in the same exact manner is a weird bit to do and kind of betrays a lack of knowledge of materialism and scientific socialism.
I don't think I'd say I'm demanding that they be fixed simultaneously. I'm saying that it's weird people don't hold these things to a similar standard and I find the reasoning behind it to be fairly spurious. I'd push back on "single idealist category" because I feel like it's pretty simple delineation. They're both activities that generally aren't good for you that people still partake in because they're fun. Dopamine hit in exchange for negative long term outcomes.
(Slightly edited this because I wasn't happy with how combative I was being)
the gambling "industry" should be destroyed with the hammer of the state
Okay swag, but if that's how it's gonna be then shouldn't alcohol and cigarettes/vapes go right along with it? I sure wouldn't miss them
Alcohol is a good that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is deeply entrenched in human history and culture. It's not going anywhere. It will exist under communism, although it will cease to exist as a commodity. Those who cannot use it responsibly and begin to exhibit anti-social tendencies with it should have mandatory rehabilitation.
Gambling, at an industry and not personal level, has no utility and is purely a system of cons to exploit the poor of their money and transfer wealth. It will not exist under communism except at a small scale between individuals. If there's no money anymore and labor vouchers are non-exchangeable and tied to the person then gambling will pretty much stop making any sense outside of moneyless bets for bragging privileges.
Tobacco/nicotine should be phased out as an industry as well, but this has to be treated with care due to the physical component of the addiction. Probably a gradual raising of the smoking age until it is eradicated in newer generations. Hobbyists and small scale tobacco growing/use should still be permitted at an individual level, but obviously the tobacco industry itself should be mostly wiped out.
Gambling is also something that lots of people enjoy and use responsibly, and is also deeply entrenched in human history and culture. The oldest recorded gambling record or instrument is within spitting distance of the oldest recorded alcohol on a civilizational scale. Entire polities exist and have existed predicated on gambling.
People gamble for fun and often with zero money involved. Have you seen Twitch prop bets before? It's monopoly money but people still get into it and it's certainly not small scale between individuals.
I'm really having a hard time seeing a meaningful distinction or justification for banning one and not the other here that doesn't depend on individual mores.
Idealism is causing you to group all of "vices" together into a single idealistic category, which you believe should all be treated the same. This is platonism basically. Each individual "vice" will need to be treated differently based on the material ways in which it interacts with and effects human society. There's no point shoving them all in the same box and demanding they all be treated the same. They aren't people, they don't deserve equality.
People don't propose banning alcohol because a previous attempt to ban alcohol led to failure. The problem is that some people are extrapolating a single attempt to ban alcohol into some general law about how prohibition will always be doomed to failure. An easy counterexample is when the PRC banned opium. During the Century of Humiliation, huge swaths of the population were addicted to opium, so when the CPC seized power and proclaimed the People's Republic of China, they banned opium because they saw opium as a social vice wrought by Western imperialists. And when opium was banned, the percentage of the population that were addicted to opium plummeted to the point where opium addiction ceased to be a social vice.
We have yet another example in a giant pile of examples of something leading to failure when the USians did it but leading to success when the Chinese did it. This is "China good US bad" trumping "prohibition will never work." Instead of clinging on the false idea that prohibition never works, we ought to analyze why the CPC was successful in eradicating opium addiction while the US failed in its attempt at banning alcohol.
I do think that the substances have important differences on top of the competency gap between countries.
One of these is made from one plant, often imported. The other can be made by anyone with a waterproof container and literally any plant.
The one that's easier to make is also ingrained in society as a way to form bonds with ones fellows by letting your guard down in a social environment, while the other basically removed you from society so the number and type of person who's going to resist the prohibition is very different.
Yes, there's that aspect as well. Alcohol is just a byproduct of a biological process. Banning alcohol is on par with banning plants or banning compost. Likewise, banning marijuana is a fool's errant because cannabis is a hardy plant that's easy to grow. It's like trying to ban an invasive species. Once you move to stuff like cocaine or heroin, it becomes easier to target them because they are synthetic products that have chemical precursors. You don't even have to ban the actual drug but instead target the precursors required to manufacture the drug. This would be ideal because it targets drug production instead of personal use.
And I just suddenly remembered that there are some people who say that Prohibition wasn't even done to curb alcoholism as a social vice but to prevent workers from organizing. The idea is that workers fraternize in bars and pubs after work, which would lead to a degree of class consciousness and organizing, so by banning alcohol, it was a way of destroying a third space for workers to fraternize with one another. Browsing the Wikipedia article on Prohibition shows that rich people were largely unaffected by Prohibition because they quickly hoarded large quantities of alcohol in preparation for Prohibition and had the means and land necessary to set up their own personal production of alcohol.
I'd never heard that angle before—outside of general "morals" stuff the only other lens I've seen was newly enfranchised women trying to stop their abusive husbands from getting ridiculously drunk all the time
America did have a large problem with alcoholism at the time and needed some sort of intervention. The problem is with how it was implemented, with the feds deliberately poisoning batches of alcohol to trace where it went and mobs gaining control of everything. There was a way to get help for the huge portion of society that were antisocial violent and abusive drunkards without throwing them in jails or driving them into the arms of the mob.
Yeah I was reading more and apparently prohibition did have some good effects with reducing illness and death from alcohol
ok now i'm completely, idealistically invested in prohibition