American Vice in the Internet Age

Americans want limits – not bans – on vice

This week, I’m delighted to be able to feature a guest post from Eitan Hersh and Lucia Morisse-Corsetti on the topic of marijuana, gambling, and pornography. It’s an incredibly important topic given how much more accessible and addictive these activities have become in the age of OnlyFans, Internet pornography and online sports betting. Eitan is Professor of Political Science at Tufts University and the author of Politics is for Power, a favorite book of mine. Lucia is a student at Tufts University studying Political Science and Economics.

Earlier this week, I participated in a panel on “Male Vice in an Internet Age,” a conversation that focused on the challenges of Internet pornography and online sports betting. I was joined by Richard Reeves from the American Institute for Boys and Men, Charles Lehman of the Manhattan Institute and my colleague Christine Emba. You can check out our conversation here.

— Dan

---

American Vice in the Internet Age

By Eitan Hersh and Lucia Morisse-Corsetti

In the fall of 2024, we were in a 100-person class at Tufts University on the topic of American conservatism. One of us was the professor of that class, the other was a student. Students were very engaged throughout the course, but it was a 55-year-old article by Irving Kristol about the regulation of pornography that inspired a particularly memorable conversation. “Pornography,” Kristol argued, “should be illegal and available to anyone who wants it so badly as to make a pretty strenuous effort to get it.”

After the lecture, in office hours, the two of us reflected on the classroom discussion. We were both surprised by how many students seemed to support stricter rules limiting access to online pornography, especially considering how often the class appeared divided on other social issues. In short, the sentiment of the class was that the kind of online pornography that is widely viewed by teens and young adults is corrosive to their humanity and destructive to relationships. Somehow, it needs to be dialed back.

That discussion led us to collaborate on a study focused on public consumption of pornography and two other increasingly common “vices:” recreational marijuana and online sports betting. For all three, we had specific questions. Do the people who are closest to these vices want more or less permissive regulations? Do young adults, like the students in our class, want heavier restrictions on these vices or to keep the doors wide open?

On all three of these vices, the American states are engaged in a dizzying number of regulatory approaches. Policymakers are trying to figure out how to balance their eagerness for tax revenue without alienating the growing constituencies engaged in these activities. There is also perhaps real concern for deleterious use and moral obligations to the general public’s well-being. Some states have imposed strict age verification rules for access to pornography, while others have little to no regulation at all. Some have limited access to marijuana for medicinal uses, while others allow recreational usage through a variety of consumption methods. Some have granted widespread access to legal sports betting; in other states, online sports betting is illegal.

This past July, we conducted two independent surveys of policy attitudes. One of the surveys was fielded by the Survey Center on American Life. The other was fielded by Harvard/Harris Poll. You can read an academic essay detailing all of our findings, but here are four key takeaways from our research:

The General Public Wants Restrictions

In general, the public falls somewhere between a maximally permissive and maximally restrictive position regarding access to vices. On marijuana, nearly six in ten Americans oppose a national ban on recreational marijuana sales, but nearly as many (62 percent) want at least some restrictions, such as confining recreational marijuana to low-THC products. While only a quarter of the public believes online betting should be illegal, Americans overwhelmingly favor restrictions instead of a total ban: about two-thirds want limits on the number of bets or the dollar amount of bets that are permitted. For pornography, support for age verification is even more overwhelming, with 78 percent in favor. Most Americans either want an outright ban on online pornography or want some restrictions on access.

Interestingly, in many states, like where we are in Massachusetts, the current law is far more permissive than what people want. Massachusetts-based respondents overwhelmingly want age verification for porn sites and limits on sports betting, like Americans in many other states. State policy like ours is out of step with public preferences.

There is a Weak Relationship Between Policy and Personal Engagement

Most of the action on vice regulation is occurring at the state level. Americans in different parts of the country have different legal access to online pornography, marijuana, and online sports betting. In some states, for instance, you cannot go to a local dispensary to purchase a THC-infused beverage or dessert, as the law allows here in Massachusetts. In others, pornography websites have pulled their services in response to age verification laws, creating an effective ban.

And yet, Americans’ engagement in vices does not vary that much depending on the state policy environment. One’s own participation in sports betting and marijuana use is not notably different in permissive and restrictive states. Similarly, the likelihood of having a social relation (i.e., parent, child, sibling, friend, romantic partner) who is a heavy user doesn’t differ much across states.

State boundaries are porous. Relationships to these vices are often mediated by the Internet, on which state regulations can be circumvented. It is likely for these reasons that state-by-state differences in policies do not seem to correspond to state-by-state differences in experiences with vice.

Heavy Users Do Not Want Limits, But Their Family Members Do

Our research shows that individuals who engage most with these vices (such as those who watch pornography, consume marijuana, or online gamble several times a week) are less likely to want the law to impose external controls on their use, despite its potential harms. As a rule, the more a person engages with a vice, the more they favor permissive laws. If you are not a user yourself, but you have a romantic partner or a child who you think has a problem with sports betting or with pornography, then you tend to support more restrictions on access.

But this pattern does not hold for marijuana. Even for respondents who have a child or romantic partner who they think uses marijuana regularly, even problematically, there is no desire for more restrictions than the typical American. Perhaps these respondents feel that the downsides of restrictions, such as increased risk of dangerous products, contact with illegal dealers, and the risk of prosecution, are more salient than the harms of legalization.

Young People Aren’t Different from Everyone Else

Young people in general may have more social exposure to sports betting, pornography, and marijuana. But their attitudes are not noticeably different from those of other Americans––which is to say, they, too, want some restrictions. Young adults mostly want access to recreational marijuana but support restrictions on potency. They mostly want legal online sports betting to have limits. And they widely support age verification for accessing pornography.

The classroom conversation that inspired this research showcased a roomful of college students who wanted limits on access to vice. It turns out they are not unusual. They are like most people who have also seen a world of change brought upon by lucrative industries, revenue-seeking lawmakers, and addictive Internet technologies conspiring to create a whirlwind of addictive stimulation. While young people might have different exposure to these vices than older Americans, it doesn’t change the fact that they, like most Americans, just want to find a middle ground.