3 ms·

I'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 h

I'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.

hellojesus 3y ago
The exception I take with your assertion is that every single person that engages in gambling does so voluntarily. The casino isn't forcing them in. The casino isn't stealing money from them. All these folks are playing a game with odds easily researched. A casino advertising, highlighting wins, etc. doesn't change the rational's prior on the odds of winning. I am fully against regulating people's freedom to engage in commerce when that commerce isn't harming anyone else, and I don't consider advertising a third party externality.