5 ms·

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?

tim-projects 7mo ago
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU
snarfy 7mo ago
> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? That's not how addiction works.
- chrislh 7mo ago
  I highly (and regularly) recommend reading Gabor Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" It's an enlightening read on addiction that will make you more empathetic for addicts of all types: gambling, substances, shopping, whatever. Definitely worth a look if you find yourself asking "Why don't they just stop?" https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addiction/dp/155643880X https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addict...
- kelseyfrog 7mo ago
  If someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?
  - cjcenizal 7mo ago
    I understand moral arguments but also see how others might not. I think it might be more useful to view this from a societal perspective. Is it to society's benefit to ensure gamblers don't ruin their own lives? To answer that question, what's the cost to society when a gambler ruins their life? Lost savings means an impoverished individual and potentially an impoverished family and children. These draw support resources from the state and community, are more likely to turn to crime, and are less likely to develop into contributing members of society.
    - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
      Help me understand the difference between preying on gambling addicts vs preying on gullible old people to get them to buy $500 in apple store gift cards.
      - sd9 7mo ago
        Huh? I don’t think you should do either.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        Both are scummy but it's not clear how to regulate the latter without huge collateral damage whereas the former is quite straightforward (because there's effectively no societal benefit to begin with).
        gus_massa 7mo ago
        If we totaly forbid gift cards, which is the huge colleteral damage? If you want to send $500 to John, just write a check in USA or bank transfer in the rest of the world.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
  - santoshalper 7mo ago
    Only the moral obligation not to prey on the weak. Gambling addicts are sick. Taking advantage of a sick person makes you scummy.
  - sd9 7mo ago
    If you were friends with an alcoholic it would be pretty shitty to give them a bottle of vodka for their birthday. People are not machines, it’s not as simple as deciding whether to do something or not. You have stronger and weaker days. Temptation makes it harder to do what is in your best interests, even if you’ve decided on another day that you’d rather not partake. Getting concrete about gambling: lots of people decide not to gamble and just don’t. Lots of people decide they don’t care whether they gamble and they do. But there are also many people in the middle, who would rather not gamble, but find that they sometimes act against their own best interests, and their own past resolutions to not gamble. Bombarding these people with offers of free bets increases the likelihood that they will gamble on their weaker days. When I hear takes like yours, I feel very jealous. I would love to always act in my own best interests and according to some policy I predetermined. But that’s just not my experience of how life works.
    - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
      It seems like a gambling addiction is the same as not having the capacity to choose not to. Is that a misunderstanding?
      - sd9 7mo ago
        I think… sort of. I feel like you’re trying to force some sort of binary here, but I’m trying to say that you may choose not to gamble in general, on day X, but find that you do gamble later. In fact I would say that many gambling addicts have _chosen_ _not_ to gamble in some sense, but in another moment they do find that they choose to. There’s a temporal aspect to this. Advertising gambling to those people makes it less likely that they will follow through on their choices. Do you always do literally everything you choose with a clear head? Never procrastinate, get angry, feel sad, whatever? It’s really hard for me to see your perspective on this.
      - fn-mote 7mo ago
        People in Gambler’s Anonymous (GA) would definitely disagree with this characterization. The same way sober alcoholics would disagree with a similar statement about alcohol addiction.
  - cindyllm 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - AlexandrB 7mo ago
    Gambling is basically a scam (house always wins) and thus should not be a legal transaction you can make. What moral responsibility do we have to allow companies to scam people?
    - akramachamarei 7mo ago
      You're asking the wrong question. Why should the government intervene in a transaction between knowledgeable consenting parties?
      - array_key_first 7mo ago
        Because they're not knowledgeable or consenting. You don't know your odds, and the house makes sure of it. And if you're addicted, you don't really consent. Exhibit A: Tobacco. Prior to regulation, it was advertised widely and thought to be not that bad. Once we regulated knowledge and consent, use plummeted. For knowledge, we display pictures on the pack and carton of people in agony dying of lung cancer. We tell them the odds. For consent, we mitigate by saying "WARNING: nicotine is an addictive chemical. Nicotine can be more addictive than Heroine". The fallacy here is that markets are naturally free and government intervention makes markets less free. That's rarely the case. Often, intervention makes the market more free.
  - jbxntuehineoh 7mo ago
    new policy proposal: internment camps for libertarians
    - akramachamarei 7mo ago
      You won't take me alive! :P
jazzpush2 7mo ago
It was legal up til a few years ago. Take a guess why it's not now (or just read the news). | If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? If this is serious, lol. "Why are you addicted to X. Just stop, it's easy!"
bombcar 7mo ago
“Stop being poor.”
- akramachamarei 7mo ago
  Downvoting privileges can't come soon enough.
yearolinuxdsktp 7mo ago
> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? Because harm does not guarantee control. When it becomes compulsive, it’s not a simple cost-benefit choice anymore. People can know it’s hurting them and still feel driven to keep doing it. The dopamine rush of gambling means the brain can get stuck chasing relief, hope, or reward, despite also knowing that it is destructive. > If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility? Because it’s not that easy to prove responsibility in the face of powerful money lobbying and victim-blaming. Shame and stigma around addiction means people don’t come forward. Freedom argument comes in that not everyone who gambles is an addict, so restricting it takes freedom away. The same argument is used to push the personal responsibility angle. Ultimately I think the way the gambling orgs cover their ass is by advertising gambling addiction helplines and adding small disclaimers to call those lines if you have a problem: “that’s it, legislators, we are clearly giving them the tools to help themselves, and that shows us exercising responsibility. Bombarding gamblers with offers is simply marketing and creating engagement for our business, you can’t make that illegal.” Do they have moral responsibility to not exploit addicted gamblers? I would argue, yes, they do. But unless you prohibit all gambling marketing, how would you accomplish this moral responsibility even if the gambling company agreed it had it? It’s not like addicts identify themselves or that you can filter your marketing easily to people without problems. This is why the solutions have been on outlawing the whole thing, because it’s really hard to operate as a business without the societal cost.
sfn42 7mo ago
> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? Because they're stupid. Gamblers are idiots, gambling companies prey on the dumb. Anyone who understands the very basic math behind the games understands that it's pointless to play, you'll just lose more the more you play. That's the whole point. It's not even a secret, you can find the exact odds for each game. Poker is different as you're playing other players rather than the house but it's still a negative sum game as the house takes a cut so you have to be better than the others to play. And if you're a reasonably intelligent person you'll just bet a little and accept your losses and move on. Or not play at all. Idiots will do dumb stuff like bet way more than they can afford, then they won't have money to pay their mortgage, rent etc and so on. People call it an addiction but I'm pretty sure it's mostly just being really really stupid. Can't be addicted to gambling if you aren't dumb as a rock.

tim-projects 7mo ago

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU

snarfy 7mo ago

> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? That's not how addiction works.

chrislh 7mo ago
I highly (and regularly) recommend reading Gabor Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" It's an enlightening read on addiction that will make you more empathetic for addicts of all types: gambling, substances, shopping, whatever. Definitely worth a look if you find yourself asking "Why don't they just stop?" https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addiction/dp/155643880X https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addict...
kelseyfrog 7mo ago
If someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?
- cjcenizal 7mo ago
  I understand moral arguments but also see how others might not. I think it might be more useful to view this from a societal perspective. Is it to society's benefit to ensure gamblers don't ruin their own lives? To answer that question, what's the cost to society when a gambler ruins their life? Lost savings means an impoverished individual and potentially an impoverished family and children. These draw support resources from the state and community, are more likely to turn to crime, and are less likely to develop into contributing members of society.
  - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
    Help me understand the difference between preying on gambling addicts vs preying on gullible old people to get them to buy $500 in apple store gift cards.
    - sd9 7mo ago
      Huh? I don’t think you should do either.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      Both are scummy but it's not clear how to regulate the latter without huge collateral damage whereas the former is quite straightforward (because there's effectively no societal benefit to begin with).
      - gus_massa 7mo ago
        If we totaly forbid gift cards, which is the huge colleteral damage? If you want to send $500 to John, just write a check in USA or bank transfer in the rest of the world.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
- santoshalper 7mo ago
  Only the moral obligation not to prey on the weak. Gambling addicts are sick. Taking advantage of a sick person makes you scummy.
- sd9 7mo ago
  If you were friends with an alcoholic it would be pretty shitty to give them a bottle of vodka for their birthday. People are not machines, it’s not as simple as deciding whether to do something or not. You have stronger and weaker days. Temptation makes it harder to do what is in your best interests, even if you’ve decided on another day that you’d rather not partake. Getting concrete about gambling: lots of people decide not to gamble and just don’t. Lots of people decide they don’t care whether they gamble and they do. But there are also many people in the middle, who would rather not gamble, but find that they sometimes act against their own best interests, and their own past resolutions to not gamble. Bombarding these people with offers of free bets increases the likelihood that they will gamble on their weaker days. When I hear takes like yours, I feel very jealous. I would love to always act in my own best interests and according to some policy I predetermined. But that’s just not my experience of how life works.
  - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
    It seems like a gambling addiction is the same as not having the capacity to choose not to. Is that a misunderstanding?
    - sd9 7mo ago
      I think… sort of. I feel like you’re trying to force some sort of binary here, but I’m trying to say that you may choose not to gamble in general, on day X, but find that you do gamble later. In fact I would say that many gambling addicts have _chosen_ _not_ to gamble in some sense, but in another moment they do find that they choose to. There’s a temporal aspect to this. Advertising gambling to those people makes it less likely that they will follow through on their choices. Do you always do literally everything you choose with a clear head? Never procrastinate, get angry, feel sad, whatever? It’s really hard for me to see your perspective on this.
    - fn-mote 7mo ago
      People in Gambler’s Anonymous (GA) would definitely disagree with this characterization. The same way sober alcoholics would disagree with a similar statement about alcohol addiction.
- cindyllm 7mo ago
  [dead]
- AlexandrB 7mo ago
  Gambling is basically a scam (house always wins) and thus should not be a legal transaction you can make. What moral responsibility do we have to allow companies to scam people?
  - akramachamarei 7mo ago
    You're asking the wrong question. Why should the government intervene in a transaction between knowledgeable consenting parties?
    - array_key_first 7mo ago
      Because they're not knowledgeable or consenting. You don't know your odds, and the house makes sure of it. And if you're addicted, you don't really consent. Exhibit A: Tobacco. Prior to regulation, it was advertised widely and thought to be not that bad. Once we regulated knowledge and consent, use plummeted. For knowledge, we display pictures on the pack and carton of people in agony dying of lung cancer. We tell them the odds. For consent, we mitigate by saying "WARNING: nicotine is an addictive chemical. Nicotine can be more addictive than Heroine". The fallacy here is that markets are naturally free and government intervention makes markets less free. That's rarely the case. Often, intervention makes the market more free.
- jbxntuehineoh 7mo ago
  new policy proposal: internment camps for libertarians
  - akramachamarei 7mo ago
    You won't take me alive! :P

jazzpush2 7mo ago

It was legal up til a few years ago. Take a guess why it's not now (or just read the news). | If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? If this is serious, lol. "Why are you addicted to X. Just stop, it's easy!"

bombcar 7mo ago

“Stop being poor.”

akramachamarei 7mo ago
Downvoting privileges can't come soon enough.

yearolinuxdsktp 7mo ago

> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? Because harm does not guarantee control. When it becomes compulsive, it’s not a simple cost-benefit choice anymore. People can know it’s hurting them and still feel driven to keep doing it. The dopamine rush of gambling means the brain can get stuck chasing relief, hope, or reward, despite also knowing that it is destructive. > If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility? Because it’s not that easy to prove responsibility in the face of powerful money lobbying and victim-blaming. Shame and stigma around addiction means people don’t come forward. Freedom argument comes in that not everyone who gambles is an addict, so restricting it takes freedom away. The same argument is used to push the personal responsibility angle. Ultimately I think the way the gambling orgs cover their ass is by advertising gambling addiction helplines and adding small disclaimers to call those lines if you have a problem: “that’s it, legislators, we are clearly giving them the tools to help themselves, and that shows us exercising responsibility. Bombarding gamblers with offers is simply marketing and creating engagement for our business, you can’t make that illegal.” Do they have moral responsibility to not exploit addicted gamblers? I would argue, yes, they do. But unless you prohibit all gambling marketing, how would you accomplish this moral responsibility even if the gambling company agreed it had it? It’s not like addicts identify themselves or that you can filter your marketing easily to people without problems. This is why the solutions have been on outlawing the whole thing, because it’s really hard to operate as a business without the societal cost.

sfn42 7mo ago

> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? Because they're stupid. Gamblers are idiots, gambling companies prey on the dumb. Anyone who understands the very basic math behind the games understands that it's pointless to play, you'll just lose more the more you play. That's the whole point. It's not even a secret, you can find the exact odds for each game. Poker is different as you're playing other players rather than the house but it's still a negative sum game as the house takes a cut so you have to be better than the others to play. And if you're a reasonably intelligent person you'll just bet a little and accept your losses and move on. Or not play at all. Idiots will do dumb stuff like bet way more than they can afford, then they won't have money to pay their mortgage, rent etc and so on. People call it an addiction but I'm pretty sure it's mostly just being really really stupid. Can't be addicted to gambling if you aren't dumb as a rock.