The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right & Vice Laws

I covered the RR’s policies on prostitution and porn in earlier posts.  Much of the same thinking applies to their opposition to gambling, recreational drug use (including marijuana), and to a lesser extent, tobacco and alcohol.

Judging from their emphases and apparent priorities, the RR doesn’t care much about tobacco.  Tax money is already being spent in campaigns to discourage smoking, especially amount the youth.  The RR does put effort into opposing the legalization of recreational drug use and drug abuse, including marijuana, fearing that legalization will encourage the use of mind-altering substances and make it more difficult to encourage or force people to get help to stop using them.  Not only does the RR consider the drugs as destructive physically, but it also cites their mind/mood-altering properties as a danger, especially to adolescents and children, and as something that will encourage fornication and other risky/immoral behaviors.  The RR is against tolerance of underage drinking for the same reasons.

But then there’s gambling.

Hey, what problems has gambling ever caused?  Neighborhoods are always improved by gambling establishments, right?

Being a resident of Alta California, I remember when gambling propositions were on the ballot, and the “No” ads tried to scare the voters by saying that the propositions would turn California’s nice suburban neighborhoods into clones of miserable Las Vegas.  Oddly enough, the those ads were sponsored by the folks in Vegas, who apparently wanted to hog the “misery” all for themselves.  The “Yes” crowd – mainly recognized tribal groups who portrayed themselves as poverty-stricken folks who would lead all tribal people into a glorious self-sufficient future if there was a “Yes” vote, vehemently denied the comparison to Vegas.  Now, those same tribes have billboards that tout their casinos as “the shortcut to Vegas”.  And other tribes are saying they are being left out.

Oh, and the lottery in California was going to solve all of our education problems.  Only, it hasn’t.  Schools are still holding fundraisers, parents and teachers are still spending their own money directly on supplies, in addition to the many thousands of dollars per student that are being filtered through the state and Federal governments.

Anyway, the RR tries to prevent the spread of gambling because it is addictive and people will spend money on gambling they should be spending on other things, and with gambling often comes a host of other less desirable things.

I tend to feel that, even though I do not gamble, people should be free to gamble if they so choose, but then again I think those same people (and anybody else for that matter) shouldn’t expect taxpayers to support them when they’re destitute because they weren’t prudent and disciplined in their finances.

Getting back to the drugs…

Hey, everyone knows that marijuana, hallucinogens, heroin, cocaine, etc. expand your mind and never, ever have bad side effects or consequences, right?  None of us know anyone whose life has been diminished by the recreational use of these substances, right?  Teens have never done anything stupid while drunk, right?

The RR also opposes needle give-aways/exchanges, citing such programs as an encouragement to continue drug use, believing that such encouragement is a negative that outweighs the possible prevention of disease infection from consistently using clean needles.

I’m personally tempted to accept the libertarian position on drug laws.  My biggest reservations, though, are linked to the fact that we’re not living in a libertarian society, and so I could picture drugged-out people having a “right” to stay on the job even though they are a danger to others, and all sort of other complications, courtesy of folks like the ACLU.

Again, the RR cites laws as discouraging behavior - that even if the behavior remains widespread, it isn’t as prevalent as it would be if it were legal.  We invade privacy all of the time with restrictions and regulations, including laws governing how you raise children, doctor prescriptions, etc.  So, the RR maintains that laws restricting drug use are good and useful.

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are opposed to the spread of legalized gambling in our society because this behavior frequently leads to addictions, the destruction of families, and the abuse of children. We oppose the legalization of addictive drugs and support strong law enforcement efforts against this societal scourge. We believe it is self-destructive and destructive of our culture, for individuals to become addicted to such behaviors as gambling, alcohol, smoking, pornography, or the use of drugs.

One thing I noticed about this statement - there are plenty of addictive drugs that are already legal, including alcohol.  But I think I get that the TVC was trying to say.  Speaking of alcohol - there are teetotalers and drinkers in the RR.  A disapproval of drunk driving, public drunkeness, and underage drinking are what unifies the RR in this area.

Anyway, the RR genuinely believes we'd all be better off if these vices were (remained) illegal or restricted.  It isn't that they don't want you to have fun - it is that the RR sees these bevaviors as destructive.  It is one of the main things that distinguishes conservative-leaning libertarians from the RR.  Those libertarians may agree that the vices are harmful, but they see the vice laws as doing more harm than good.