3 ms·

So is alcohol - there are plenty of people who gamble responsibly and get enjoyment out of it. Taking away the entire thing rather than simply making sensible r

So is alcohol - there are plenty of people who gamble responsibly and get enjoyment out of it. Taking away the entire thing rather than simply making sensible regulation and dealing with scumbag behavior by corporate bookies is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not to mention extremely moralistic. And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist.

tombert 2y ago
Sure, but if people, for example, started to declare bankruptcy due to gambling addiction, doesn't that mean that taxpayers like you and I are effectively subsidizing these gambling institutions? That goes beyond moralism; most people don't want to pay higher taxes. I think that it's good that we have a safety-net for people who get into impossible levels of debt, but that does mean that we have an interest in figuring out ways to minimize how often bankruptcy is actually invoked.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Scratchers/lotto tickets are legal in most US states so I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here. This isn’t a new problem and the state has been profiting off of it for a while. The alternatives are a lot worse. You can’t legislate away vices.
umvi 2y ago
> And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist. I don't think that's exactly true. Laws introduce varying degrees of friction for citizens to do something. It's like entrepreneurship. If there are a bunch of laws in place making it hard to start a business, fewer people will start businesses. Some people will still create illegal businesses on the black market, but lots of law abiding citizens will just stop creating businesses because there's too much friction to bother.
- everforward 2y ago
  That fails to acknowledge that a) the black market tends to be dramatically less safe b) it drives addicts underground where it's hard to identify and help them and c) the addicts this is meant to help will be disproportionately willing to participate in this new, much worse black market. Bookies scale very well, a small number of them could serve whatever clientele is still interested. It'll probably turn out similarly to drugs. Prohibition keeps your average citizen away, and makes the market much worse for anyone left in it.
  - Vegemeister 2y ago
    Keeping the average citizen away is a dramatic improvement. The pre-legalized-gambling era is in living memory, and we know what it was like.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >b) it drives addicts underground where it's hard to identify and help them I'm not sure about B, it's pretty easy to identify an addict. The problem I have with sports gambling is the massive commercialization and advertising. We don't tolerate it for cigarettes, and gambling addictions are much worse than cigarette addictions in terms of financial harm. Gamblers know where to go, but the purpose of all the advertising is attract new gamblers, preferably the compulsive kind. Another harm is what it does to the integrity of sports. There are famous cases like the 1919 White Sox and Pete Rose. The people who took part were banned for life for a reason.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
snapcaster 2y ago
What do you mean prohibition never works? Are you really going to claim legalizing sports betting a few years ago DIDNT increase gambling in the US? This doesn't strike me as a good faith comment just a platitude
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > What do you mean prohibition never works? exactly how it reads? can you point to any historical examples where it has? > Are you really going to claim legalizing sports betting a few years ago DIDNT increase gambling in the US No? Did not claim that at all? > This doesn't strike me as a good faith comment yours does strike me that way either; although mine definitely was in good faith.
  - yunwal 2y ago
    > although mine definitely was in good faith If it was in good faith, why didn't you bother addressing the point? How was gambling prohibition "not working"?
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      There has never been a gambling prohibition as far as I’m aware - so I won’t address an imaginary argument. Hope that helps. However, an astute reader would realize that there have been multiple other attempts at prohibiting “vices” that have failed in spectacular fashion. I trust you can do your own research here and don’t need to belabor that point. On gambling prohibitions though - one local one I can think of is the CA gambling market. California has decided most forms of online gambling are “illegal,” (except the ones that have successfully lobbied for it), yet it is not enforced at all, only on corporate sites, which creates a massive black market that actually causes far more exposure to harm to consumers than legalization would. This isn’t a novel argument, it’s been debated for 20+ years and the results are pretty clear. I understand however people don’t seek nuance in these arguments and if your stance is “GAMBLING == BAD” I really don’t have much else to say here.

tombert 2y ago

Sure, but if people, for example, started to declare bankruptcy due to gambling addiction, doesn't that mean that taxpayers like you and I are effectively subsidizing these gambling institutions? That goes beyond moralism; most people don't want to pay higher taxes. I think that it's good that we have a safety-net for people who get into impossible levels of debt, but that does mean that we have an interest in figuring out ways to minimize how often bankruptcy is actually invoked.

JohnMakin 2y ago
Scratchers/lotto tickets are legal in most US states so I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here. This isn’t a new problem and the state has been profiting off of it for a while. The alternatives are a lot worse. You can’t legislate away vices.

umvi 2y ago

> And, in the end, prohibition never works - bookies still and always will exist. I don't think that's exactly true. Laws introduce varying degrees of friction for citizens to do something. It's like entrepreneurship. If there are a bunch of laws in place making it hard to start a business, fewer people will start businesses. Some people will still create illegal businesses on the black market, but lots of law abiding citizens will just stop creating businesses because there's too much friction to bother.

everforward 2y ago
That fails to acknowledge that a) the black market tends to be dramatically less safe b) it drives addicts underground where it's hard to identify and help them and c) the addicts this is meant to help will be disproportionately willing to participate in this new, much worse black market. Bookies scale very well, a small number of them could serve whatever clientele is still interested. It'll probably turn out similarly to drugs. Prohibition keeps your average citizen away, and makes the market much worse for anyone left in it.
- Vegemeister 2y ago
  Keeping the average citizen away is a dramatic improvement. The pre-legalized-gambling era is in living memory, and we know what it was like.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >b) it drives addicts underground where it's hard to identify and help them I'm not sure about B, it's pretty easy to identify an addict. The problem I have with sports gambling is the massive commercialization and advertising. We don't tolerate it for cigarettes, and gambling addictions are much worse than cigarette addictions in terms of financial harm. Gamblers know where to go, but the purpose of all the advertising is attract new gamblers, preferably the compulsive kind. Another harm is what it does to the integrity of sports. There are famous cases like the 1919 White Sox and Pete Rose. The people who took part were banned for life for a reason.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

snapcaster 2y ago

What do you mean prohibition never works? Are you really going to claim legalizing sports betting a few years ago DIDNT increase gambling in the US? This doesn't strike me as a good faith comment just a platitude

JohnMakin 2y ago
> What do you mean prohibition never works? exactly how it reads? can you point to any historical examples where it has? > Are you really going to claim legalizing sports betting a few years ago DIDNT increase gambling in the US No? Did not claim that at all? > This doesn't strike me as a good faith comment yours does strike me that way either; although mine definitely was in good faith.
- yunwal 2y ago
  > although mine definitely was in good faith If it was in good faith, why didn't you bother addressing the point? How was gambling prohibition "not working"?
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    There has never been a gambling prohibition as far as I’m aware - so I won’t address an imaginary argument. Hope that helps. However, an astute reader would realize that there have been multiple other attempts at prohibiting “vices” that have failed in spectacular fashion. I trust you can do your own research here and don’t need to belabor that point. On gambling prohibitions though - one local one I can think of is the CA gambling market. California has decided most forms of online gambling are “illegal,” (except the ones that have successfully lobbied for it), yet it is not enforced at all, only on corporate sites, which creates a massive black market that actually causes far more exposure to harm to consumers than legalization would. This isn’t a novel argument, it’s been debated for 20+ years and the results are pretty clear. I understand however people don’t seek nuance in these arguments and if your stance is “GAMBLING == BAD” I really don’t have much else to say here.