13 ms·

Why make it illegal or regulate it? So what if half of men have gambled on sports? How many people throw away money on casino games, lotteries, raffles, loot bo

Why make it illegal or regulate it? So what if half of men have gambled on sports? How many people throw away money on casino games, lotteries, raffles, loot boxes, et cetera? It's not my business how they throw away their money.

mc3301 1y ago
It's kinda bad for society if a bunch of, let's say, middle class men become economically lower-class men while the upper-class owners of such gambling establishments rake it in. We as a society should get to decide what "freedoms" and what "constraints" make for a better society as a whole, don't we?
IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
Its for the same reason you don't give a license to someone with a DUI. They are a harm to others. People with gambling addictions don't just hurt themselves - they hurt families, friends, and also the society at large as they come to be dependent on the safety net for substeance. I think you dont need to make it illegal to keep it in check. A simple rule saying: IF a person spends more than 20% of the overall W2 or 1099 income on gambling, then the gambling house is liable for every 95 cents of every subsequent dollar paid out. We transfer liability for selling alcohol to irresponsible bartenders - casinos should also take the heat for the malaise they inflict. You'd see very quickly how things get real.
- azemetre 1y ago
  Could you explain more what you mean? Like after 20% of someone's W2, the gambling house pays out 95/100 times? Trying to understand how this regulation works, I'm intrigued by the idea of progressive levels of taxation against industries but I don't know if this is what you're arguing.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
    No, its a shift in liability. Simply put, if a gambler shows up in court with a W2 and payouts to a gambling house, they get summary judgement against the house. This works well because once codified ("no gambler shall owe more than 20% of their annual income to any gambling house, individually or in the aggregate") it triggers an unrecorded liability on the gambling house's clientele. In other words, the stock becomes radioactive , unless the gambling house has strong controls around client onboarding and monitoring. Auditors are never going to sign off on financials that have a huge liability unless it is proven there are strict controls in place to not let degenerate gambling continue. The same principle could be applied to universities as well. Basically, you have to shift the risk to the party abusing the system (in this case, not the system, but the addiction).
aprilthird2021 1y ago
All of those should be banned. It IS OUR BUSINESS how shitty we allow society to be.
droopyEyelids 1y ago
Vices like gambling are not about one person’s money— they create addiction, crime, and family harm that spill over into society at large.
rayiner 1y ago
It is, because we live in a society, have a social safety net that you and I pay for, and our kids go to school with their kids. It’s your responsibility as someone fortunate enough to be graced with intelligence and impulse control to help those who weren’t, and you’re not doing that by encouraging them to do whatever they want.
- garciasn 1y ago
  Wait; are you saying that as a society we should regulate EVERYTHING people spend money on regardless of their method of doing so? Because, as everyone knows, EVERYTHING is addictive in one way or another. I don't personally agree with gambling, as I just don't understand how someone could possibly enjoy it; but, I sure as fuck believe that every human being can spend their hard-earned money however they see fit. Churches, retailers, bars, strip clubs, restaurants, etc. All of these allow people to spend their hard-earned money in questionable ways and many folks go WAY overboard w/them. But, my guess is, you don't really want to regulate all of those; just the ones you disagree with.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    solid points but why do we “regulate” anything? why is prostitution illegal? hard drugs (well best drugs you can get from your Doc if you are rich but say street-drugs)? we should either stop all the nonsense all together and if we are already “OK” with regulating something, gambling should be close to the top of what we regulate
    - garciasn 1y ago
      Because people love controlling other people and making excuses as to why.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > I sure as fuck believe that every human being can spend their hard-earned money however they see fit. Why? Do these people not live in society next to you? Don’t you subsidize their healthcare, the education of their kids, etc? > But, my guess is, you don't really want to regulate all of those; just the ones you disagree with. The only one of those I wouldn’t regulate is churches, and that’s because study after study shows that people who participate in organized religion are happier and healthier, and communities with healthy churches do better in social metrics than ones that don’t. E.g. Mormons live 5-10 years longer than white Americans generally: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves.... (I suspect New England Congregationalists have similarly superlative outcomes, but I don’t have the data.) Imagine how much lower our healthcare costs would be if you could take the social magic Mormons do and apply it to the whole country. Maybe we don’t have to ban coffee. But is the alternative really for society to suffer the negative externalities of every individual choice with no power to regulate those choices?
watwut 1y ago
Cause they become gamblers and then everyone else has to deal with the problem. Notably, their wifes are responsible for paying half those debts and their kids suffer. Gambler causes hell including financial one for everyone. Also, because their gambling asses smart wifes divorced get lonely and somehow it becomes contribution to male loneliness epidemic and then we have right wing using them as argument to stop "no fault divorce" and restrict women so they have no choice.

mc3301 1y ago

It's kinda bad for society if a bunch of, let's say, middle class men become economically lower-class men while the upper-class owners of such gambling establishments rake it in. We as a society should get to decide what "freedoms" and what "constraints" make for a better society as a whole, don't we?

IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago

Its for the same reason you don't give a license to someone with a DUI. They are a harm to others. People with gambling addictions don't just hurt themselves - they hurt families, friends, and also the society at large as they come to be dependent on the safety net for substeance. I think you dont need to make it illegal to keep it in check. A simple rule saying: IF a person spends more than 20% of the overall W2 or 1099 income on gambling, then the gambling house is liable for every 95 cents of every subsequent dollar paid out. We transfer liability for selling alcohol to irresponsible bartenders - casinos should also take the heat for the malaise they inflict. You'd see very quickly how things get real.

azemetre 1y ago
Could you explain more what you mean? Like after 20% of someone's W2, the gambling house pays out 95/100 times? Trying to understand how this regulation works, I'm intrigued by the idea of progressive levels of taxation against industries but I don't know if this is what you're arguing.
- IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
  No, its a shift in liability. Simply put, if a gambler shows up in court with a W2 and payouts to a gambling house, they get summary judgement against the house. This works well because once codified ("no gambler shall owe more than 20% of their annual income to any gambling house, individually or in the aggregate") it triggers an unrecorded liability on the gambling house's clientele. In other words, the stock becomes radioactive , unless the gambling house has strong controls around client onboarding and monitoring. Auditors are never going to sign off on financials that have a huge liability unless it is proven there are strict controls in place to not let degenerate gambling continue. The same principle could be applied to universities as well. Basically, you have to shift the risk to the party abusing the system (in this case, not the system, but the addiction).

aprilthird2021 1y ago

All of those should be banned. It IS OUR BUSINESS how shitty we allow society to be.

droopyEyelids 1y ago

Vices like gambling are not about one person’s money— they create addiction, crime, and family harm that spill over into society at large.

rayiner 1y ago

It is, because we live in a society, have a social safety net that you and I pay for, and our kids go to school with their kids. It’s your responsibility as someone fortunate enough to be graced with intelligence and impulse control to help those who weren’t, and you’re not doing that by encouraging them to do whatever they want.

garciasn 1y ago
Wait; are you saying that as a society we should regulate EVERYTHING people spend money on regardless of their method of doing so? Because, as everyone knows, EVERYTHING is addictive in one way or another. I don't personally agree with gambling, as I just don't understand how someone could possibly enjoy it; but, I sure as fuck believe that every human being can spend their hard-earned money however they see fit. Churches, retailers, bars, strip clubs, restaurants, etc. All of these allow people to spend their hard-earned money in questionable ways and many folks go WAY overboard w/them. But, my guess is, you don't really want to regulate all of those; just the ones you disagree with.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  solid points but why do we “regulate” anything? why is prostitution illegal? hard drugs (well best drugs you can get from your Doc if you are rich but say street-drugs)? we should either stop all the nonsense all together and if we are already “OK” with regulating something, gambling should be close to the top of what we regulate
  - garciasn 1y ago
    Because people love controlling other people and making excuses as to why.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > I sure as fuck believe that every human being can spend their hard-earned money however they see fit. Why? Do these people not live in society next to you? Don’t you subsidize their healthcare, the education of their kids, etc? > But, my guess is, you don't really want to regulate all of those; just the ones you disagree with. The only one of those I wouldn’t regulate is churches, and that’s because study after study shows that people who participate in organized religion are happier and healthier, and communities with healthy churches do better in social metrics than ones that don’t. E.g. Mormons live 5-10 years longer than white Americans generally: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves.... (I suspect New England Congregationalists have similarly superlative outcomes, but I don’t have the data.) Imagine how much lower our healthcare costs would be if you could take the social magic Mormons do and apply it to the whole country. Maybe we don’t have to ban coffee. But is the alternative really for society to suffer the negative externalities of every individual choice with no power to regulate those choices?

watwut 1y ago

Cause they become gamblers and then everyone else has to deal with the problem. Notably, their wifes are responsible for paying half those debts and their kids suffer. Gambler causes hell including financial one for everyone. Also, because their gambling asses smart wifes divorced get lonely and somehow it becomes contribution to male loneliness epidemic and then we have right wing using them as argument to stop "no fault divorce" and restrict women so they have no choice.