3 ms·
We can replace the X in "X should be legal because criminalizing it will just drive X underground" with (heroin / crack / glue sniffing / child porn / whatever)
by Cupertino95014 4y ago
We can replace the X in "X should be legal because criminalizing it will just drive X underground" with (heroin / crack / glue sniffing / child porn / whatever).
Not all of those substitutions work. It seems to be a difficult thing to process, for some people, that outlawing things does reduce their usage, and some of those things are really harmful.
Conversely, at least some of the people who are now gambling on sports really would not have done so, when they still had to know a bookie. No, they wouldn't fuel the Mafia instead; they just wouldn't gamble.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aaplok 4y agoLegalisation is a very broad notion. What to legalise? Usage/consumption? Small business re-selling? Large private industry? Arguments for it cover an equally large range. The argument about legalising consumption for public health reasons probably focuses more on reducing harmful consumption rather than all consumption. The article cites several strategies used by the sports gambling industry (eg QR codes) that encourage addiction, and harm. You don't need to make all gambling illegal to crack down on that kind of stuff. Ultimately the question is one of control. Complete market deregulation is arguably the worse possibility here. With illegal activity the government can control through repression, and via a public monopoly they control the quality of the product and the chain of distribution.