Gambling mostly damages just the person gambling (and loosing) while drugs tend to damage not just the consumer but also people and the environment around them (violence, crime, homelessness, mental issues, robberies, feces and syringes everywhere, harassment etc).
Yeah but much less so than with hard drug addicts. When was the last time a roulette addict took a shit on your car or chasing people in the park? Or a roulette addict being even allowed in the casino having soiled himself?
Of course they could have externalities too, but their blast radius is mostly contained to their near circle of family instead of the entire society.
So to you there's no difference between someone voluntarily and consciously choosing to wear a diaper so he can continue doing an activity for longer without toilet breaks(some video gamers do that too), and someone who is soiled himself because his mind can't control the bowel movements due to being fried by hard drugs?
Yeh, they're technically both addicts, but gambling addicts tend to harass less people and cause less overall ER calls, petty crime, trash, feces in the neighborhoods, than hard drug addicts.
One is a much greater annoyance to general people on the street than the other. What actual arguments do you have to refute this other than just calling it splitting hairs?
We’ve never really had legal and regulated drug use other than mostly coffee and alcohol.
The same illegal drugs used by the lower echelons of society is the same as the ones used in higher echelons of society. You’d be hard pressed to find folks not using hard drugs in the Fortune 500 list.
The difference is the availability of drugs. Many rich people never struggle to find high quality drugs. That is not the same for everyone.
>You’d be hard pressed to find folks not using hard drugs in the Fortune 500 list.
Oh for sure, the big difference is that rich people can afford to go into the best private rehab whenever they cross the line, whereas working class people tend to end up broke, homeless and sick.
