4 ms·
It is stunning to me that gambling is legal. It preys upon people who are vulnerable to gambling addiction, most other people are not interested. Laws need to c
by silexia 2y ago
It is stunning to me that gambling is legal. It preys upon people who are vulnerable to gambling addiction, most other people are not interested. Laws need to change so that in America, even tribes are not allowed to promote this family and person destroying activity.
- Simon_O_Rourke 2y agoI would agree 100%, but would pessimistically assume that money talks.
- silexia 2y agoExactly right... hard to overcome the lobbying and propaganda power of billions of dollars in gambling profits.
- richrichardsson 2y agoHere in Croatia they passed a law last year that forbids traders to open on Sundays except for 16 weekends of their choosing. Betting shops and casinos are exempt!
- chimpanzee 2y agoWhy should tribal sovereignty be diminished yet again in order to benefit the American state and people? Edit: I see now that OP was specifically referring to restricting the promotion of gambling. Such restrictions seem reasonable where it doesn’t infringe on the sovereignty of the tribes.
- ndriscoll 2y agoAssuming we're talking about online gambling, and taking for granted that we ought to ban gambling, presumably sovereign tribes should have the same rules as betting sites from any other sovereign nation, which I think at least previously meant that it would be illegal and payment processors weren't allowed to facilitate it? Likewise it would make sense to ban any advertising of casinos off of tribal land.
- chimpanzee 2y agoGiven that GP called out the tribes specifically, I figured they were referring to the casinos on tribal land. Online gambling restrictions are sensible in that “online content/services” are a kind of import when accessed from within non-tribal US territory (To me at least, but IANAL).
- ndriscoll 2y agoThey did say they shouldn't be allowed to promote it (which I take to mean outside tribal land). A ban on advertising gambling in places where it's illegal seems reasonable to me. They could put a billboard right on the border like some states have with e.g. fireworks.
- chimpanzee 2y agoAh I did miss the narrowing to “promote it”. I have no issue with that either, as ads presented within the territory of the US, are again a kind of import. Might need to narrow the wording further though, since as you point out, billboards are advertising and could be erected solely on tribal land and should probably be protected for reasons of tribal sovereignty.
- silexia 2y agoNo group in America should have a legalized advantage over others solely based on race.
- chimpanzee 2y agoIt’s about their (partial) sovereignty, which was given back to the nations as recompense. It has nothing to do with race.
- silexia 2y agoI am native American (Choctaw) myself and it is all about race. Every tribe only allows those of provably pure blood to join.
- dgfitz 2y agoGambling and alcohol destroy lives, every day. You can get a 6-pack of beer and a lotto ticket at the corner store down the street. How did alcohol probation go? Why would gambling be different?
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> How did alcohol probation go? In the context of fighting alcoholism, it was very effective. I'm not sure what other metric would matter—you're never going to be able to ban alcohol consumption (or gambling) entirely. Presumably the point is harm reduction, not absolute abstinence. EDIT: I reworded the above; it's static now. I, however, also would like to ban gambling again. I've watched multiple people in my life have their lives consumed by gambling apps(!?!) and I don't ever see them straightening their lives out without assistance from the state.
- dgfitz 2y agoBefore sports gambling was legal on apps (in some states) I witnessed the same thing. That was the poor point I was trying to make about prohibition. Similar to the war on drugs I suppose.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoI think harm reduction is worthwhile. You're very correct that both responsible and irresponsible people will engage in the behavior regardless, but even if I were really into sports gambling (which I'm not really morally opposed to per se) I don't think being able to do it with strangers from my couch is worth the harm I observed. To be frank, the adults i referred to that are being sucked into this are very easily taken advantage of: illiterate, financially illiterate, and easily swindled by that One Big Win. That really does make my stomach turn. Even just making them trek across town to the casino would mark a noticeable increase in life quality. Watching them spend literally their last dollar on gambling every night truly makes me despair. In many ways I would prefer they spend it on alcohol. Just my two cents, of course.
- cellis 2y agoI guess you'll also need to ban the stock market and cryptocurrencies as well, especially options and memecoins.
- alephnerd 2y agoAt least for the stock market, the difference is the barrier to entry to being a "accredited investor" is significantly higher, and risk mitigation offerings exist. And gamification is regulated to a certain extent. Meanwhile gambling laws are a patchwork of legacy state, tribal, and federal laws.
- sneak 2y agoYou don’t need to be accredited to trade in securities (or derivatives!) in the US.
- alephnerd 2y agoOfc, but at scale you absolutely need to
- theogravity 2y agoIn the US, you can play the stock market with pennies. You just can't day trade if you have less than $25k worth of money / equity in your account. It won't stop anyone from playing with options.
- alephnerd 2y ago> It won't stop anyone from playing with options But not at the same scale that you could while gambling.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lokar 2y agoIf you “win” trading in the stock market no one kicks you off.
- aithrowawaycomm 2y agoThe primary reason American gambling has exploded in recent years is the Supreme Court, which decreed federal restrictions on sports gambling as unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_... So "laws" aren't really enough.
- gottorf 2y agoI don't know much about this, but based on your description, it sounds like nothing stops state laws from restricting gambling?
- gwd 2y agoThen you get a "prisoner's dilemma" situation: 1. No states allow gambling: Everything is normal 2. One state allows gambling and its neighbor doesn't: Gamblers in the non-gambling state use websites / travel to locations in the gambling state, spending massive amounts of money there. Both states experience the negative side effects of gambling, but the one that allows gambling gets a huge tax influx, and the one that forbids gambling loses tax revenue. 3. All states allow gambling: No state has a tax advantage, but all states have the negative externalities of gambling. Individual states probably don't have the authority, and certainly not the clout, to do much about their citizens going to the neighboring state to gamble. The federal government used to have the authority, and certainly does have the clout, to make a dent in inter-country gambling.
- wbl 2y ago4: states use the long arm statutes to go after sites offering bets to their residents.
- ndriscoll 2y agoThe federal government still has the authority to regulate/ban gambling transactions that cross state lines (including online). Needing to cross state lines also creates a large barrier for lots of people vs. having it on your phone.