[bbor]

I’m pretty happy with our “no murdering” setup, even though it makes some people happy (in the moment).

IMO there’s plenty of room for hardline stances. Who cares if gambling goes to the black market? There’s a black market for every serious crime - doesn’t mean we should just okay it. And I’m not sure the USA’s halfhearted only-for-the-poor prohibition is proof that the concept of banning things is broken; if it proves anything unrelated to capitalism, it proves that you need societal buy-in and continued, consistent government pressure.

[vladms]

I think the problem is more the banning does not address the root cause and will not increase societal buy-in, hence will waste a lot of energy without a result.

Alcohol consumption is currently dropping in many (not all places) in Europe (some ref: https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/08/21/dry-january-where...), without any bans, so compared to the prohibition episode I would claim that it would be better to insist on finding and implementing "efficient stances".

[CodeGroyper]

So what? It's pretty hard to tackle the root causes of anything and we are plenty happy with solutions that stop bad habits in other ways. Should we have the FDA just ban harmful substances or do we need to educate everyone about everything eatable? Surely education would be better, but it's just not feasible and creating a world in which you have to dodge yet another scam seems bad to me.