2 ms·
> 1. The classic, "people will want to gamble, we may as well control the supply". Of course, anecdote, but the example they give — sounds like the guy never w
by JKCalhoun 1y ago
> 1. The classic, "people will want to gamble, we may as well control the supply".
Of course, anecdote, but the example they give — sounds like the guy never would have thought to gamble had there not been a slot machine on base. At the same time, he was so easily and thoroughly adsorbed into it, perhaps he was dry kindling — just waiting for any spark to come along.
- icegreentea2 1y agoYes agreed. The challenge with any risk mitigation (harm reduction) strategy like this is that it is super super implementation specific. I'd agree based on the description given in the article that the program as currently run is probably not being particularly successful at risk mitigation. That being said, without real numbers, it's super slippery to argue anything. One could argue that the on base gambling problem introduces (say) 3x the population into gambling. But then perhaps it decreases the of severe financial distress by 10x on an individual basis. That would be a net win. Then one might say that it lowers to risk of off-base unsavory behavior (getting into fights, owing money to local gangs/organized crimes, etc etc) by 1000x on an individualized basis. Perhaps that further tilts the field.