Government and vices

[MillennialModerate]

I’m sure these topics individually have been addressed one way or the other at numerous times but a refresh button never hurt, right? The topic was provoked by the Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to make sports betting illegal.

Why does the government which I guess is an extension of societies WILL - pick and choose which perceived vices to legislate and to whom and where they can take place?

You have gambling for instance which is legalized in some ways in the form of state lotteries but in the form of casinos is only legal in a select number of states and in the form of sports betting is only legal in Nevada.

You have alcohol which is obviously legal in all 50 states for those above the age of 21 but in the 1920’s was banned all together. In the 1970’s I believe some states wanted to lower the age for Vietnam veterans. On this I don’t understand why the age isn’t 18 for at least members of the military - you’re old enough to give your life for your country then you should be able to have a drink, ammi right ?!

You have prostitution which is illegal nationwide except for in Nevada, which is something that makes zero sense to me. Sex is legal (obviously), things like massages are legal (paying for physical touch) but two consenting adults aren’t allowed to trade money for sexual pleasure!? What do you call a date that ends in sex? There’s absolutely no reason why in a limited brothel setting that prostitution shouldn’t be made legal with regulation and significant taxing (cue the ‘government ing us in the wallet’ jokes).

There’s marijuana of course which the tide appears to be turning on - it’s clear that it’s not that harmful for the average adult. It’s clear that a majority of the American public favors its legalization,  you have state after state decriminalizing, allowing medical use and making it legal all together. The fact is if alcohol is legal, why not marijuana ? And to an even greater extent . If disgusting cigarettes are legal (for not just 21, but for 18) then why the hell not marijuana?)

It just doesn’t make any sense to me that the government picks and chooses which quote on quote vices are legal and which are illegal. Who can have them when and who can do them where - Adults should be able to (within reason) do what they want as long as it’s not hurting someone else (I guess I have a libertarian bend)

And don’t even get me started on the amount of tax revenues that could be generated from these types of activities. Tax revenues that could support and pay for education, health care, mass transit, first responders ... so on

[dead0man]

I agree.  The govt shouldn't be in the business of telling us who to worship, they shouldn't be in the business of telling us who to work for and they shouldn't be in the business of telling us how to have fun.  As long as you ain't hurtin' nobody that don't want to be hurt, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to do with your free time.

[darklordoftech]

I'm surprised that the government doesn't leave "vices" unregulated so that people are content and therefore distracted from whatever the government wants to do.

[WritOfCertiorari]

I'm surprised that the government doesn't leave "vices" unregulated so that people are content and therefore distracted from whatever the government wants to do.

Because the main thing government "wants to do" is tax and spend, and vices are a perfect excuse to do so.

[darklordoftech]

I'm surprised that the government doesn't leave "vices" unregulated so that people are content and therefore distracted from whatever the government wants to do.

Because the main thing government "wants to do" is tax and spend, and vices are a perfect excuse to do so.

You can't tax something that's illegal.

[WritOfCertiorari]

I'm surprised that the government doesn't leave "vices" unregulated so that people are content and therefore distracted from whatever the government wants to do.

Because the main thing government "wants to do" is tax and spend, and vices are a perfect excuse to do so.

You can't tax something that's illegal.

Are cigarettes, alcohol, and guns illegal? Yet all three are taxed.

[MarkD]

Our governments ban whatever they want, according to their WILL, unless and until the Supreme Court says we can't ban a particular conduct that the Court sympathizes with. State laws banning or regulating contraceptives have been struck down by the Court, laws banning or regulating abortion have been struck down, and laws banning "sodomy" have been struck down. These laws have not always made a lot of sense, but nonetheless they existed because of the sheer WILL of the respective state legislatures. There is not a constitutional rule that requires the laws to be logical, wise, or consistent.

[MillennialModerate]

There is not a constitutional rule that requires the laws to be logical, wise, or consistent.

That’s the crux of it all. But I still think ther should be an honest attempt to make the laws consistent because when things are consistent they are more fair. I personally think (within reason) the government has no place in deciding what’s moral and what’s not. As long as the act the individual is taking doesn’t hurt or inflict hardship on someone else or put the general public in an unreasonable position of risk then what business does the government have saying they can’t do it

[DC Al Fine]

I’m sure these topics individually have been addressed one way or the other at numerous times but a refresh button never hurt, right? The topic was provoked by the Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to make sports betting illegal.

Why does the government which I guess is an extension of societies WILL - pick and choose which perceived vices to legislate and to whom and where they can take place?

You have gambling for instance which is legalized in some ways in the form of state lotteries but in the form of casinos is only legal in a select number of states and in the form of sports betting is only legal in Nevada.

You have alcohol which is obviously legal in all 50 states for those above the age of 21 but in the 1920’s was banned all together. In the 1970’s I believe some states wanted to lower the age for Vietnam veterans. On this I don’t understand why the age isn’t 18 for at least members of the military - you’re old enough to give your life for your country then you should be able to have a drink, ammi right ?!

You have prostitution which is illegal nationwide except for in Nevada, which is something that makes zero sense to me. Sex is legal (obviously), things like massages are legal (paying for physical touch) but two consenting adults aren’t allowed to trade money for sexual pleasure!? What do you call a date that ends in sex? There’s absolutely no reason why in a limited brothel setting that prostitution shouldn’t be made legal with regulation and significant taxing (cue the ‘government ing us in the wallet’ jokes).

There’s marijuana of course which the tide appears to be turning on - it’s clear that it’s not that harmful for the average adult. It’s clear that a majority of the American public favors its legalization,  you have state after state decriminalizing, allowing medical use and making it legal all together. The fact is if alcohol is legal, why not marijuana ? And to an even greater extent . If disgusting cigarettes are legal (for not just 21, but for 18) then why the hell not marijuana?)

It just doesn’t make any sense to me that the government picks and chooses which quote on quote vices are legal and which are illegal. Who can have them when and who can do them where - Adults should be able to (within reason) do what they want as long as it’s not hurting someone else (I guess I have a libertarian bend)

And don’t even get me started on the amount of tax revenues that could be generated from these types of activities. Tax revenues that could support and pay for education, health care, mass transit, first responders ... so on

It's been a couple weeks and no one has taken the pro-regulation side, so I'll take a crack at it. Please forgive me for not breaking up your post and addressing each paragraph individually. I'm on mobile and formatting is a pain.

1) Do you believe in seatbelt laws? How about economic regulation? Assuming you aren't a pure libertarian (dead0man might object to this reasoning hehe) you accept that the state has a legitimate role in preventing consenting adults from doing things, even if they are only harming themselves. The principle really isn't at issue here. The real question is which vices should be regulated and how strictly.

2) Re Alcohol vs cannabis vs tobacco: One thing I think a lot of people miss when making this argument is the role of culture. The importance of a vice in a culture can make a big impact on how government approaches it. If a vice is a major part of a culture, a lot of problems are caused by suppressing it. Saudi prohibition is a lot less problematic than American prohibition. In that vein, alcohol and tobacco are a much larger part of American culture, so they ought to be regulated less. Marijuana is getting there but historically it wasn't.

3) You talk about prostitution as if it's like working at Burger King. It isn't. Sex is a very unique activity, in its risks, it's rewards and it's impact on the psyche. It ought to be regulated and/or prohibited. Also I will note that there is a nasty exploitative aspect in countries with more liberal prostitution laws like the Netherlands and Germany. Lots of 2nd and 3rd world immigrants being brought in for prostitution, often trafficked and the police don't do enough about it.

4) Even to the extent I think vices should be legal, government profiting off them gives me the creeps. In my province the state even owns all the alcohol and cannabis stores. The government should not have it's incentives aligned with the further immiseration of its alcoholics etc. The state shouldn't be a bookie, dealer or pimp. This alsoleads to an upward redistribution of wealth, as in Georgia where the poor buy lotto tickets which fund scholarships mostly for children of the upper middle class.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes the tax revenue thing is pretty grim when you think about it. Already we're seeing budgets increasingly reliant on tobacco taxes, which perversely means that the government had less incentive to reduce tobacco consumption even when they have it as an ostensible goal.

The thing is it's important not misrepresent the pro 'regulate the vices" crowd (even if you disagree with them - I oppose the Nordic model, drug prohibition etc) because you run the risk of being disingenuous. For the most part, most people who want to ban such things are believers of individual rights and don't want to ruin people's fun for the sheer pleasure of it, they just interpret the word "without harming others" in a broader sense.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes the tax revenue thing is pretty grim when you think about it. Already we're seeing budgets increasingly reliant on tobacco taxes, which perversely means that the government had less incentive to reduce tobacco consumption even when they have it as an ostensible goal.

The thing is it's important not misrepresent the pro 'regulate the vices" crowd (even if you disagree with them - I oppose the Nordic model, drug prohibition etc) because you run the risk of being disingenuous. For the most part, most people who want to ban such things are believers of individual rights and don't want to ruin people's fun for the sheer pleasure of it, they just interpret the word "without harming others" in a broader sense.

Yes that's a very good point Crabcake. An addict neglecting their children and spending all their money on _____ is a good example of this. If the product produces enough of this the state ought to regulate or even ban it.