Yes because Prohibition worked so well before?

People do plenty of illegal things, but we still outlaw them to reduce the rate of people doing those things.

On the contrary, if we accept that people are mature enough to choose to drink, they certainly should be mature enough to spend $20 opening loot boxes. Fewer cases of cirrhosis, drunk driving accidents, and bar fights from loot boxes.

▲

raw_anon_1111 an hour ago | parent [-]

No we outlaw them to disproportionately put minorities in jail…

I would rather not give the government more power.

▲

lo_zamoyski 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

Too much thumos, not enough nous in this conversation...

1. Alcohol may be consumed in moderation for enjoyment with no frustrating effect on our rational faculties. Even the bad effects on health are often overblown. They tend to be chronic and rooted in habitual consumption. Save for people with a predisposition for alcoholism, people generally do not experience compulsive desires for alcohol.

2. Gambling isn't comparable to alcohol. It is intrinsically irrational and inherently exploitative. It is also an intrinsically social and economic phenomenon. It requires the intentional exploitation of one party by another to work.

3. Loot boxes are intentionally designed to manipulate people psychologically for profit. It habituates bad habits by virtue of its very design.

4. While alcohol can be used that way, it is not designed for that purpose nor is its historical pedigree rooted in such malice. I would also claim that its addictive potential is lower all things considered.

So they aren't comparable. It's not enough to say "both A and B can have harmful effects, therefore both A and B are 'the same' for all intents and purposes".

	▲	raw_anon_1111 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I am responding to the commenter who implied outlawing alcohol wouldn’t be a bad thing > We absolutely could do without alcohol too and it's certainly far more harmful than lootboxes by any metric.