Back in 2019 we covered the censorship that was hurting the sex toy industry. One of the offenders was Kickstarter, which later changed its ways and became more welcoming.
But it seems like the company has regressed. “Sexual pleasure” is now a banned concept for rewards, though Kickstarter says pleasure might be fine as long as the product is not designed for “insertion or penetration.” I want to know what’s going on over at Kickstarter HQ but I fear nobody is having fun.
[Link: Kickstarter’s new rules | https://www.kickstarter.com/rules | Kickstarter]
Prohibition worked. It had the annoying unintended consequence is some people ignored it and became criminals, but alcohol consumption clearly dropped when it was in effect.
You are correct, technically Prohibition worked, but its one of those “at what cost” scenarios. The absolute explosion in organized crime that came with it along with the associated cost of enforcement for fighting alcohol consumption makes the argument for a different approach.
I won’t downvote you because what you said is true, its just that the negative association of the explosion of crime and government overreach into peoples’ lives gives people a kneejerk reaction to the statement.
People often don’t think of WHY the prohibition movement was so popular that it could get an amendment passed, but alcoholism at that time was so much more severe than we can even fathom today. Their approach was wrong, but they had legitimate grievance.
And yet the illegal alcohol market boomed and it gave massive rise to organized crime and government corruption to allow it. It doesn’t “work” in any practical sense, it just concentrates the problem and makes it even harder to control.
Okay, real question, if prohibition on drugs doesn’t matter, why all the hubbub about states legalizing weed years back? “Prohibition doesn’t work, anyway,” so who cares?
They probably think the US prohibition didn’t work because they just didn’t try hard enough
Prohibition worked. It had the annoying unintended consequence is some people ignored it and became criminals, but alcohol consumption clearly dropped when it was in effect.
You are correct, technically Prohibition worked, but its one of those “at what cost” scenarios. The absolute explosion in organized crime that came with it along with the associated cost of enforcement for fighting alcohol consumption makes the argument for a different approach.
I won’t downvote you because what you said is true, its just that the negative association of the explosion of crime and government overreach into peoples’ lives gives people a kneejerk reaction to the statement.
People often don’t think of WHY the prohibition movement was so popular that it could get an amendment passed, but alcoholism at that time was so much more severe than we can even fathom today. Their approach was wrong, but they had legitimate grievance.
And yet the illegal alcohol market boomed and it gave massive rise to organized crime and government corruption to allow it. It doesn’t “work” in any practical sense, it just concentrates the problem and makes it even harder to control.
It completely works if you ignore all of the times it didn’t work.
It only didn’t work if you demand absolute perfection, which is unreasonable. I’m going to stand by it worked.
I already addressed the unintended consequences.
Just like the “War On Drugs” worked; Drugs won!
yay drugs!
Okay, real question, if prohibition on drugs doesn’t matter, why all the hubbub about states legalizing weed years back? “Prohibition doesn’t work, anyway,” so who cares?
I think the hubbub was because the states were legalizing something illegal at the federal level and that wasn’t a precedent that had been set yet.
The only point of interest is that the states and the federal disagree?