3 ms·

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 bankru

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.
jedberg 4y ago
It's more of a cost to society. Once they lose all their money, what happens? They either turn to crime or rely on social services. In both cases society pays more than the would have otherwise.

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.

jedberg 4y ago

It's more of a cost to society. Once they lose all their money, what happens? They either turn to crime or rely on social services. In both cases society pays more than the would have otherwise.