4 ms·

This is something I'm debating myself right now. We have a proposition on the California ballot in November to legalize online gambling. On the one hand, if a

This is something I'm debating myself right now. We have a proposition on the California ballot in November to legalize online gambling. On the one hand, if adults want to gamble, why should the government stop them? Sure, tax the hell out of it to account for the externalities of it, like increased crime and an increased need for social services when people bankrupt themselves, but don't outright ban it. On the other hand, is it worth the externalities? We ban drunk driving because of the extreme harm you can cause others. We ban smoking in a lot of places for the same reason. Is the harm to society of easily accessible online gambling worth allowing consenting adults to consent?

kstrauser 4y ago
As a side note, in California it’s much harder to get rid of a bad proposition once it’s enacted than a bad law. Vote against propositions unless you’re certain that you support them forever.
- jedberg 4y ago
  My default on all propositions is always No for this exact reason. It's a change to the constitution of the State. I feel like that should have a higher threshold than "eh, sounds good".
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    Absolutely. And I do still vote for some propositions if I think they’re a great idea, but with a much higher bar than for other decisions: If a proposition is a good idea and the people turn it down, they can try again next year. If a proposition is a bad idea and the people vote it in, we’re stuck with it. The cost for saying “no” and being wrong is much smaller.
    - derekp7 4y ago
      Can a new proposition override (or cancel out) an older one? Are they similar to Constitutional amendments (such as 21's canceling out 18'th) or are California props more sticky?
      - jedberg 4y ago
        Yeah they can override old ones. That's pretty much the only way to change the old ones -- pass a new one that overrides it. The legislature can't override constitutional amendments.
  - areyousure 4y ago
    In case anyone is curious, there are multiple different kinds of California ballot propositions. Some are constitutional amendments; some are statutes; some (like the subject[s] of this particular comment thread) are a combination of both. There are also bond measures and veto referendums, which for the purposes of this classification are probably more like statutes than amendments. (Furthermore, the ballot propositions can be citizen-initiated, legislatively-referred, or mandatory.) On the ballot for 2022 in California is 1 constitutional amendment, 2 combined amendments/statutes, 3 statutes, and 1 veto referendum.
vasco 4y ago
The problem with casinos is that it's easy to make one that is not fair (fraudulent odds). To prevent that, you need some sort of auditing system. And to do that you need to issue limited licenses. What this causes is that in most of the world, those licenses end up in the hands of really trustworthy characters that would never hurt a fly. If it wasn't for that problem, I'd just be pro making casinos as straightforward to operate as opening an e-commerce shop. I have no qualms with adults gambling their money away, my problem is with mafiosos getting it all.
- LanceH 4y ago
  No reason to have limited licenses. A state run clearing house for all money going in and money going out. Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is, the state can get their cut, and people can know which places are legit. In the meantime, this will prompt illegal casinos to offer either better deal (better odds) or worse deal (extended credit) than can be had at legal casinos. The situation right now is there is no reason for an illegal book to offer a better deal, and the worse deal is already illegal, so nothing would change by making it legal.
  - vasco 4y ago
    > No reason to have limited licenses. A state run clearing house for all money going in and money going out. Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is In many countries loteries advertise how much money was spent in tickets, and obviously they advertise the prize pool and the odds. As you can tell people still play, publishing the results does nothing. But that doesn't mean you should allow a free for all of fraudulent games. You see, most gamblers want to lose their money fairly.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    >Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is, the state can get their cut, and people can know which places are legit. Trivially exploited. The cool dude 85 casino will lie about all of its odds and make up the money-in, money-out difference when big whale cool dude 86 comes into town and soaks the casino for a few tens of millions on a private game of go fish.
ameister14 4y ago
I don't see gambling as having the same kind of direct harms to others as drunk driving or second hand smoke. If I gamble and I lose all my money and go bankrupt, that still doesn't necessarily harm others or even massively increase their risk of harm. Can't say the same for the other two actions.
- suzumer 4y ago
  It harms those who are dependent on your income, such as your family.
  - gwbrooks 4y ago
    That's reasonable. But it's also reasonable to ask what the government's responsibility is in protecting those people.
    - jedberg 4y ago
      As a society we've already decided it is the job of the government to at least care for children and other adults who aren't capable through both direct aid and forcing adults to take care of them (child support being the most obvious example). I'd say it falls into a similar realm -- protecting those who can't protect themselves.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    Not everyone has people dependent on their income. Is it without harm? No, but it's not the same as putting random innocent people at risk. Even with that, the harm you're talking about is not direct - they lose income, but with drunk driving and smoking people directly die.
- dexwiz 4y ago
  A ton of people I know have a cousin or a brother in law that have been slowing draining bank accounts on DraftKings for years. Their spouses and children only find out once there is no money to pay bills. In one case a set of retired parents went back to work parttime to help support their grandchildren after their adult son wasted all their money and then lost their house. No its not the gore-splattered event of a drunk driving car accident, but it still tears apart families.
ProAm 4y ago
Being in a state that legalized marijuana, the tangential rise in crime and homeless is significant and was unexpected. The activity of legalizing one small thing (weed) isn't bad but the broader scope of societal degradation makes me wish we had not legalized it. For all intents and purposes it was legal before, just wasn't big business. I think online gambling is in the same area socially.
- amrocha 4y ago
  You can't just see two things that happened at around the same time and assume one caused the other
  - ProAm 4y ago
    Of course not. And I did not do any sort of study. Mere observation and communication with other locals. I believe it however (just the start of the current problems, not the sole source of them)
    - amrocha 4y ago
      So you admit that you're probably wrong, that you have done no research, but because someone else agrees with you you choose to believe it anyway? Well I appreciate the honesty at least
      - ProAm 4y ago
        No, this is why I do not get into a lot of discussions on HN, where its an argument about semantics with people who are more or less in tech (which you can behaviorally be generalized into a few groups of people). I merely made a point about discussions Ive had over several years with people who have lived in the area for decades, with observations Ive made after living in the affected area for several decades and responding to the question about if it's a good idea to put a casino into everyone's pocket (the original post). The world runs by peoples experiences and not studies, you're lucky if you get people to see both, but by and large society is dumb, leaders are dumb (in a different manner) and none of it matters as for big ships turn slowly and cash rules the world. Online gaming will pass because it brings in cash to everyone who has a hand on the rudder.

kstrauser 4y ago

As a side note, in California it’s much harder to get rid of a bad proposition once it’s enacted than a bad law. Vote against propositions unless you’re certain that you support them forever.

jedberg 4y ago
My default on all propositions is always No for this exact reason. It's a change to the constitution of the State. I feel like that should have a higher threshold than "eh, sounds good".
- kstrauser 4y ago
  Absolutely. And I do still vote for some propositions if I think they’re a great idea, but with a much higher bar than for other decisions: If a proposition is a good idea and the people turn it down, they can try again next year. If a proposition is a bad idea and the people vote it in, we’re stuck with it. The cost for saying “no” and being wrong is much smaller.
  - derekp7 4y ago
    Can a new proposition override (or cancel out) an older one? Are they similar to Constitutional amendments (such as 21's canceling out 18'th) or are California props more sticky?
    - jedberg 4y ago
      Yeah they can override old ones. That's pretty much the only way to change the old ones -- pass a new one that overrides it. The legislature can't override constitutional amendments.
- areyousure 4y ago
  In case anyone is curious, there are multiple different kinds of California ballot propositions. Some are constitutional amendments; some are statutes; some (like the subject[s] of this particular comment thread) are a combination of both. There are also bond measures and veto referendums, which for the purposes of this classification are probably more like statutes than amendments. (Furthermore, the ballot propositions can be citizen-initiated, legislatively-referred, or mandatory.) On the ballot for 2022 in California is 1 constitutional amendment, 2 combined amendments/statutes, 3 statutes, and 1 veto referendum.

vasco 4y ago

The problem with casinos is that it's easy to make one that is not fair (fraudulent odds). To prevent that, you need some sort of auditing system. And to do that you need to issue limited licenses. What this causes is that in most of the world, those licenses end up in the hands of really trustworthy characters that would never hurt a fly. If it wasn't for that problem, I'd just be pro making casinos as straightforward to operate as opening an e-commerce shop. I have no qualms with adults gambling their money away, my problem is with mafiosos getting it all.

LanceH 4y ago
No reason to have limited licenses. A state run clearing house for all money going in and money going out. Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is, the state can get their cut, and people can know which places are legit. In the meantime, this will prompt illegal casinos to offer either better deal (better odds) or worse deal (extended credit) than can be had at legal casinos. The situation right now is there is no reason for an illegal book to offer a better deal, and the worse deal is already illegal, so nothing would change by making it legal.
- vasco 4y ago
  > No reason to have limited licenses. A state run clearing house for all money going in and money going out. Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is In many countries loteries advertise how much money was spent in tickets, and obviously they advertise the prize pool and the odds. As you can tell people still play, publishing the results does nothing. But that doesn't mean you should allow a free for all of fraudulent games. You see, most gamblers want to lose their money fairly.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is, the state can get their cut, and people can know which places are legit. Trivially exploited. The cool dude 85 casino will lie about all of its odds and make up the money-in, money-out difference when big whale cool dude 86 comes into town and soaks the casino for a few tens of millions on a private game of go fish.

ameister14 4y ago

I don't see gambling as having the same kind of direct harms to others as drunk driving or second hand smoke. If I gamble and I lose all my money and go bankrupt, that still doesn't necessarily harm others or even massively increase their risk of harm. Can't say the same for the other two actions.

suzumer 4y ago
It harms those who are dependent on your income, such as your family.
- gwbrooks 4y ago
  That's reasonable. But it's also reasonable to ask what the government's responsibility is in protecting those people.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    As a society we've already decided it is the job of the government to at least care for children and other adults who aren't capable through both direct aid and forcing adults to take care of them (child support being the most obvious example). I'd say it falls into a similar realm -- protecting those who can't protect themselves.
- ameister14 4y ago
  Not everyone has people dependent on their income. Is it without harm? No, but it's not the same as putting random innocent people at risk. Even with that, the harm you're talking about is not direct - they lose income, but with drunk driving and smoking people directly die.
dexwiz 4y ago
A ton of people I know have a cousin or a brother in law that have been slowing draining bank accounts on DraftKings for years. Their spouses and children only find out once there is no money to pay bills. In one case a set of retired parents went back to work parttime to help support their grandchildren after their adult son wasted all their money and then lost their house. No its not the gore-splattered event of a drunk driving car accident, but it still tears apart families.

ProAm 4y ago

Being in a state that legalized marijuana, the tangential rise in crime and homeless is significant and was unexpected. The activity of legalizing one small thing (weed) isn't bad but the broader scope of societal degradation makes me wish we had not legalized it. For all intents and purposes it was legal before, just wasn't big business. I think online gambling is in the same area socially.

amrocha 4y ago
You can't just see two things that happened at around the same time and assume one caused the other
- ProAm 4y ago
  Of course not. And I did not do any sort of study. Mere observation and communication with other locals. I believe it however (just the start of the current problems, not the sole source of them)
  - amrocha 4y ago
    So you admit that you're probably wrong, that you have done no research, but because someone else agrees with you you choose to believe it anyway? Well I appreciate the honesty at least
    - ProAm 4y ago
      No, this is why I do not get into a lot of discussions on HN, where its an argument about semantics with people who are more or less in tech (which you can behaviorally be generalized into a few groups of people). I merely made a point about discussions Ive had over several years with people who have lived in the area for decades, with observations Ive made after living in the affected area for several decades and responding to the question about if it's a good idea to put a casino into everyone's pocket (the original post). The world runs by peoples experiences and not studies, you're lucky if you get people to see both, but by and large society is dumb, leaders are dumb (in a different manner) and none of it matters as for big ships turn slowly and cash rules the world. Online gaming will pass because it brings in cash to everyone who has a hand on the rudder.