5 ms·
You opt into gambling, you don't opt into having your water polluted Teenagers shouldn't be gambling, their parents should be responsible for that, but some do
by veave 3y ago
You opt into gambling, you don't opt into having your water polluted
Teenagers shouldn't be gambling, their parents should be responsible for that, but some don't want to rear their children.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TimPC 3y agoSure but when teenagers shouldn't be actually gambling we have age restrictions in casinos and levy fines/revoke licenses if they violate those restrictions. Meanwhile, we allow this thing that pretty much everyone agrees is gambling, right down to being able to cash out winnings at a profit and we want to say "only your parents can stop you". How about putting loot boxes behind an 18+ restriction, and requiring id checks like casinos do? Is that not nanny state for actually gambling but is nanny state for thing almost identical to gambling?
- scarface_74 3y agoHow well is that working with underage drinking and smoking?
- TimPC 3y agoNot as well as it could be but certainly better than doing nothing at all. It does create a barrier that otherwise doesn't exist and that barrier does reduce underage drinking and smoking compared to what it otherwise would be even if it doesn't zero it the way we'd ideally hope it would.
- scarface_74 3y agoI can’t say how easy it is for an underage person to get cigarettes. But I do know how easy it is for them to get weed. I can’t imagine any teenager who wants to smoke or drink being stymied by the law Do you also think governments forcing schools to teach abstinence is diminishing kids from having sex?
- TimPC 3y agoTeaching abstinence doesn't create an actual barrier/obstacle to sex so it's not a fair comparison. I think abstinence only education is stupid and we should teach what's needed to prevent pregnancy rather than doing some sort of moral grandstanding that ruins lives.
- scarface_74 3y agoWeed is still illegal in my state. I have never known anyone who struggled to get weed who wanted it at any age.
- TimPC 3y agoIronically, it would probably be harder for minors to get weed if weed were legal. The fact that it's already illegal leads to people not caring if they sell to minors. They don't give drug dealers additional time in jail for selling to minors for example. If weed were legal for 18+ and you had a strong ID requirement for sale it would be harder for minors to get weed. You have a far smaller illegal market when you have a regulated legal market.
- scarface_74 3y agoIs that really true though? https://www.kunc.org/news/2019-08-14/seven-years-after-legalization-colorado-battles-an-illegal-marijuana-market https://www.kunc.org/news/2019-08-14/seven-years-after-legal...
- blargey 3y agoBoth underage drinking and smoking rates have gone down precipitously over the past few decades, so quite well? https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/trends-in-tobacco-use-among-youth.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast... https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance116/figures19.htm#f11 https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance116/figu...
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd now they are smoking more weed… https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/12/07/teen-cannabis-abuse-has-increased-245-over-20-years-study-finds#:~:text=Getty%20Images)-,Research%20led%20by%20Oregon%20Health%20%26%20Science%20University%20reveals%20adolescent%20cannabis,among%20teens%20has%20steadily%20declined https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/12/07/teen-cannabis-abuse-has-inc.... Win?
- ceejayoz 3y agoThat tradeoff is very much a win, yes. Far less damaging to the lungs/liver, especially as the article says much of the increase is via "edible products". Far less addictive than alcohol/tobacco. Far less impairing than alcohol for driving. etc.
- nostromo 3y agoSmoking and drinking have been illegal for minors that entire time; this data does not show that prohibition itself has been effective (or ineffective).
- brenns10 3y agoChildren don't have the luxury of choosing their parents. Having guardrails to increase the odds of success for a child with imperfect parents? I'd say that's a good idea.
- hellojesus 3y agoBut the guardrails disallow everyone else from engaging in voluntary transactions with no third party harm. That's the real issue. Reduce everyone's freedoms to save a few from themselves.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoThere is definitely third party harm here. Why do casinos put slot machines in groups and make big wins flashy events? To make big wins appear more likely than they are. The whales are walking adverts for the games, and so are enticing other people to whale themselves to keep up.
- hellojesus 3y agoBut everyone that plays those games is voluntarily doing so. Every single person can do the same research you and I have about the psycologocial impacts of their design. Not a single person other than me is harmed by my decision to gamble.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoI'll break it down even further since apparently I wasn't explicit enough: If you gamble, either you win or you lose. You will most likely lose. If you win however, the casino will promote said win, therefore creating the impression that winning is more likely than it actually is, meaning that you're promoting gambling, which is harming people. If you lose, you generate profits for the casino, who will funnel some of said profits into advertising and lobbying, which will promote gambling, which is harming people. You can't claim you're not harming people while giving money to people who will use it to cause harm.
- Analemma_ 3y agoYou're free to move somewhere else with clean water, why do you want to get a nanny state involved? If that "solution" sounds sketchy to you, note that that's how you sound to everyone else here.
- animal_spirits 3y agoNo one is "free" to move anywhere. Moving is not free in any sense or term. There are enormous costs to moving anywhere. There is no cost to "not" gambling however. This is a poor analogy regardless
- Analemma_ 3y agoIf you're not willing to pay the transaction costs of moving to a different place with clean water, then you clearly don't actually value it very much. Why should the government get involved?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- carlosjobim 3y agoYou're probably not speaking for anybody else than yourself here, none of us are. When people start moving away from the nanny state in sufficient numbers, the nanny state will also hinder people from escaping. Look at the Soviet Union, China, etc. Australia did that during the covid pandemic, they literally banned citizens from leaving the country.
- anthk 3y agoThat's a pandemic, not comparable to a dictatorship. If you don't understand this, I hope you don't ever get some place where accountability is required. Because if you tought like that in a company and putting in practice your careless behaviour and lack of maturity, the boss would fire you in the spot.