• RION [she/her]
      ·
      2 个月前

      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

      • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 个月前

        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.

        • RION [she/her]
          ·
          2 个月前

          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.

          • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
            ·
            2 个月前

            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.