Still, legal prohibition would also seem to fall under the caveat of not judging and minding one's own affairs, a principle that could drive the argument that it is therefore impractical and wrong to apply legal force against them.
But arguments could be made that any or all of them also carry grave enough repercussions for society that they should be or remain illegal.
Both positions seem compelling.
However, I would still favor a pragmatic approach.
From that standpoint, prohibition has proven to be costly and impractical. Not to mention, it has also spawned unjust consequences, such as prisons crammed with people who probably don't belong there.
Conversely, legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, these activities could, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, carry benefits.
All of them could be great producers of tax revenue.
In the case of drugs and gambling, a portion of said revenue could be applied toward addiction treatment programs. It's especially compelling to consider that drug abuse and addiction would be far better handled as a public health issue, rather than a criminal matter. The latter mentality has driven the so-called "war on drugs," which has most certainly proven to be a dismal failure.
In the case of the world's oldest profession, prostitutes working in sanctioned brothels would be far safer from murders, assaults and other dangers they face working the streets. They also could be monitored with regular check-ups to help prevent the spread of disease.
In conclusion, I think an individual can, through self-determination and free choice, find robust spiritual growth and personal advancement by observing a code of conduct based in objective and absolute morals.
And in terms of the governance of general society according to secular law, morality defined as relative and subjective is the most fair and practical option.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
