4 ms·

All gambling should be state owned. It is a strict societal loss anyway, we can at least soften the overall blow. Losses can be redistributed and cover for the

All gambling should be state owned. It is a strict societal loss anyway, we can at least soften the overall blow. Losses can be redistributed and cover for the externalities of gambling. And we will be able to control the knob on how addictive we make them. For profit companies have the target to maximize their profit, so of course they will ramp up any method that can bring in more revenue.

pstuart 17d ago
Pretty much agree. But even then, the state should not be incentivizing its use (looking you, CA lottery and friends). Gambling is a drug, and should be recognized as such.
- ffsm8 17d ago
  Adrenaline is the drug, ain't it ... And gambling is just one way to leverage it. However once you realize that gambling is not the drug, and merely something that triggers your body to create a rush... Then can you really call it a drug? At least any more then any other of those activities? Eg Skydiving and basically any other extreme sports. And once you're there, you should really realize that it's not worth the sacrifice. This is a societal issue and should not be addressed with legislation. The only thing that can be safely regulated are things like disallowing marketing.
  - nrb 17d ago
    Dopamine, and many drugs trigger it in the same way as gambling.
  - toomuchtodo 17d ago
    We should try GLP-1s. It patches the brain's reward center. GLP-1 drugs may fight addiction across every major substance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47280797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47280797 - March 2026 GLP-1 medications get at the heart of addiction: study - https://medicine.washu.edu/news/glp-1-medications-get-at-the-heart-of-addiction-study/ https://medicine.washu.edu/news/glp-1-medications-get-at-the... - March 4th, 2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45907422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45907422 (citations) There is a fentanyl vaccine approaching human trials, but I don't believe its mechanism works close enough to the reward center. Maybe gene therapy is a long term fix as it relates to the reward center dysfunction, to be determined. HN Search: fentanyl vaccine - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=fentanyl%20vaccine&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Resetting the Brain’s Reward Pathway: Gene Therapy’s Breakthrough in Alcohol Addiction - https://scitechdaily.com/resetting-the-brains-reward-pathway-gene-therapys-breakthrough-in-alcohol-addiction/ https://scitechdaily.com/resetting-the-brains-reward-pathway... - August 20th, 2023
    - mrguyorama 17d ago
      I have recently found the following article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB Specifically the part where a variant of this protein seems directly implicated in the specific self upregulation that leads to changes in the brains reward pathways that seem to directly cause the sort of "Drug seeking" and other addiction seeking behaviors that are so harmful in addiction. I especially love the part where we tried inhibiting this protein expression with simple chemicals administered orally in rats and it significantly improved their addictions, and we did that in 2015, and we have not touched it since Gosh, wouldn't it just be the best if we had spent $4 trillion on bioscience instead of GPUs? I feel like we understand circuits pretty well by comparison.
      - mitxela 17d ago
        That's crazy that the whole reward system might just come down to one protein and how long you crave another reward is literally just the time until that protein decays.
  - deleted 17d ago
    [deleted]
  - elil17 17d ago
    Why wouldn't it be addressed with legislation? What is legislation for if not to solve societal issues? Also, gambling is empirically much more addictive and leads to worse outcomes than extreme sports - hence why many feel it needs to be limited.
    - cortesoft 17d ago
      How do we determine at what point something is “too addictive” to be allowed? There are many people who can gamble responsibly and enjoy it. I love playing poker, and play in a tournament every few years. Lots of people are compulsive gamblers, though, and lose it all. Do I have to give up my hobby because some people can’t handle it? What about drinking? I enjoy a happy hour once a month or so, and have a couple of drinks when I do. Others drink 10+ drinks a month. Do we ban it because of the people who can’t stop? (We know how well that works) I am not saying we do nothing, but I don’t think it is as easy as “just pass legislation”
      - fragmede 17d ago
        We know how full 100% alcohol prohibition in 1920's worked in the USA, but what's missing is that it doesn't have to be a full 100% for it to benefit society. Laws restricting sales, like no selling alcohol past a certain hour, or on Sundays, still exist on the books in many places, and while I can't speak to how well they actually work, given that we'd just stock up on Saturdays anyway, there's also no Al Capone levels of violence in places with those restrictions. So let's not say "we know how that goes" hinting at 1920's prohibition, which was over a century ago now, and just leave it at that. For a counter example, I like driving fast. Really fast. Should I be banned from doing that because other people can't handle that responsibly? Society has looked at that and decided that, yes, no one should be allowed to do that on public streets. So I keep that behavior to the race track and sign an extra liability waiver in order to do so. Why should gambling or alcohol be treated different from that?
        tonyarkles 17d ago
        > Society has looked at that and decided that, yes, no one should be allowed to do that on public streets. So I keep that behavior to the race track and sign an extra liability waiver in order to do so. So can I still drink and gamble in private if I sign a waiver?
  - thenayr 17d ago
    [dead]
  - pstuart 17d ago
    I was playing fast and loose with the word, but you know what I meant. I'm all for individuals to choose their own paths and mistakes and don't want a true nanny state, so I'd be ok with banning advertising of those services, as well as independent audits to ensure that they are not letting minors in.
  - bothers 17d ago
    [dead]
- mitxela 17d ago
  Social media is also a drug. So is television.
  - cindyllm 16d ago
    [dead]
pfisch 17d ago
It should either be illegal or not. This idea that the state has a monopoly on getting money from doing a thing that you are saying is bad doesn't make sense. If it is bad and yet the government is allowed to use it to make money then is the government evil? Why does the government get to do it if we can't? It just makes the whole thing seem ridiculous and makes underground betting seem like I guess it isn't really that bad since the government is allowed to do it. The operators are just people fighting for their freedom to operate the same business the government operates.
- Zigurd 17d ago
  Harm reduction. In the US, state lotteries have reduced illegal gambling. Illegal gambling would increase under a total ban. Some markets fail. If the government can step in and provide a service that doesn't end in a failed market, that's not an imposition on anyone's freedom.
- chunky1994 17d ago
  Because any addictive thing is on a spectrum and you don't want the people with incentives to go all the way up the spectrum to be the operator of the harmful thing, a là the dose makes the poison. (See alcohol, cigarettes, any class of drugs etc.) Some things are just wholly harmful where no small amount provides any benefits, some are harmful in large doses, but not so harmful in small doses that they cannot provide other uses. Governments (ideally) don't exist to maximize profit so they are (generally) not incentivized to increase the addictions of their populace.
  - fragmede 17d ago
    Which is to say, total prohibition doesn't work, so they need to provide a some release, just not a total free for all.
- CDRdude 17d ago
  It reminds me of state-run liquor stores in some US states.
- NikolaNovak 17d ago
micromacrofoot 17d ago
State owned, no advertising, and your last year's tax return to prove income. As they are now, even state level gambling is used as a tax on the poor, because they're the people desperate enough to do it.
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]
ramesh31 17d ago
An advertising ban would solve 80% of the problem. This stuff has always been around for those who want it, and (arguably) in a free society should be. But shoving it down people's throats in every channel imaginable has to end.
- cm2012 17d ago
  As a professional advertiser: yes. Gambling ads should be illegal. Big issue is supreme court said states cant ban gambling ads due to first amendment.
  - tayo42 17d ago
    Cigarette ads have a ton of restrictions despite that first amendment existing
    - cm2012 17d ago
      Funnily enough cigarette ads were banned in 1970 before the Supreme Court regime that says you can't ban ads for a given legal product. If someone were to take the case to the Supreme Court, they could probably get cigarette ads un-banned.
      - queenkjuul 16d ago
        With a sufficient endowment to the Trump family, one can get anything they want from this supreme court
  - mitxela 17d ago
    Certain porn is illegal despite the first amendment existing - the court merely invented a "nuh uh" exception, called "obscenity".
    - cm2012 17d ago
      Current precedent is that states can ban almost anything they want, but if something is legal, you cant ban ads for it.
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]

pstuart 17d ago

Pretty much agree. But even then, the state should not be incentivizing its use (looking you, CA lottery and friends). Gambling is a drug, and should be recognized as such.

ffsm8 17d ago
Adrenaline is the drug, ain't it ... And gambling is just one way to leverage it. However once you realize that gambling is not the drug, and merely something that triggers your body to create a rush... Then can you really call it a drug? At least any more then any other of those activities? Eg Skydiving and basically any other extreme sports. And once you're there, you should really realize that it's not worth the sacrifice. This is a societal issue and should not be addressed with legislation. The only thing that can be safely regulated are things like disallowing marketing.
- nrb 17d ago
  Dopamine, and many drugs trigger it in the same way as gambling.
- toomuchtodo 17d ago
  We should try GLP-1s. It patches the brain's reward center. GLP-1 drugs may fight addiction across every major substance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47280797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47280797 - March 2026 GLP-1 medications get at the heart of addiction: study - https://medicine.washu.edu/news/glp-1-medications-get-at-the-heart-of-addiction-study/ https://medicine.washu.edu/news/glp-1-medications-get-at-the... - March 4th, 2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45907422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45907422 (citations) There is a fentanyl vaccine approaching human trials, but I don't believe its mechanism works close enough to the reward center. Maybe gene therapy is a long term fix as it relates to the reward center dysfunction, to be determined. HN Search: fentanyl vaccine - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=fentanyl%20vaccine&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Resetting the Brain’s Reward Pathway: Gene Therapy’s Breakthrough in Alcohol Addiction - https://scitechdaily.com/resetting-the-brains-reward-pathway-gene-therapys-breakthrough-in-alcohol-addiction/ https://scitechdaily.com/resetting-the-brains-reward-pathway... - August 20th, 2023
  - mrguyorama 17d ago
    I have recently found the following article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB Specifically the part where a variant of this protein seems directly implicated in the specific self upregulation that leads to changes in the brains reward pathways that seem to directly cause the sort of "Drug seeking" and other addiction seeking behaviors that are so harmful in addiction. I especially love the part where we tried inhibiting this protein expression with simple chemicals administered orally in rats and it significantly improved their addictions, and we did that in 2015, and we have not touched it since Gosh, wouldn't it just be the best if we had spent $4 trillion on bioscience instead of GPUs? I feel like we understand circuits pretty well by comparison.
    - mitxela 17d ago
      That's crazy that the whole reward system might just come down to one protein and how long you crave another reward is literally just the time until that protein decays.
- deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]
- elil17 17d ago
  Why wouldn't it be addressed with legislation? What is legislation for if not to solve societal issues? Also, gambling is empirically much more addictive and leads to worse outcomes than extreme sports - hence why many feel it needs to be limited.
  - cortesoft 17d ago
    How do we determine at what point something is “too addictive” to be allowed? There are many people who can gamble responsibly and enjoy it. I love playing poker, and play in a tournament every few years. Lots of people are compulsive gamblers, though, and lose it all. Do I have to give up my hobby because some people can’t handle it? What about drinking? I enjoy a happy hour once a month or so, and have a couple of drinks when I do. Others drink 10+ drinks a month. Do we ban it because of the people who can’t stop? (We know how well that works) I am not saying we do nothing, but I don’t think it is as easy as “just pass legislation”
    - fragmede 17d ago
      We know how full 100% alcohol prohibition in 1920's worked in the USA, but what's missing is that it doesn't have to be a full 100% for it to benefit society. Laws restricting sales, like no selling alcohol past a certain hour, or on Sundays, still exist on the books in many places, and while I can't speak to how well they actually work, given that we'd just stock up on Saturdays anyway, there's also no Al Capone levels of violence in places with those restrictions. So let's not say "we know how that goes" hinting at 1920's prohibition, which was over a century ago now, and just leave it at that. For a counter example, I like driving fast. Really fast. Should I be banned from doing that because other people can't handle that responsibly? Society has looked at that and decided that, yes, no one should be allowed to do that on public streets. So I keep that behavior to the race track and sign an extra liability waiver in order to do so. Why should gambling or alcohol be treated different from that?
      - tonyarkles 17d ago
        > Society has looked at that and decided that, yes, no one should be allowed to do that on public streets. So I keep that behavior to the race track and sign an extra liability waiver in order to do so. So can I still drink and gamble in private if I sign a waiver?
- thenayr 17d ago
  [dead]
- pstuart 17d ago
  I was playing fast and loose with the word, but you know what I meant. I'm all for individuals to choose their own paths and mistakes and don't want a true nanny state, so I'd be ok with banning advertising of those services, as well as independent audits to ensure that they are not letting minors in.
- bothers 17d ago
  [dead]
mitxela 17d ago
Social media is also a drug. So is television.
- cindyllm 16d ago
  [dead]

pfisch 17d ago

It should either be illegal or not. This idea that the state has a monopoly on getting money from doing a thing that you are saying is bad doesn't make sense. If it is bad and yet the government is allowed to use it to make money then is the government evil? Why does the government get to do it if we can't? It just makes the whole thing seem ridiculous and makes underground betting seem like I guess it isn't really that bad since the government is allowed to do it. The operators are just people fighting for their freedom to operate the same business the government operates.

Zigurd 17d ago
Harm reduction. In the US, state lotteries have reduced illegal gambling. Illegal gambling would increase under a total ban. Some markets fail. If the government can step in and provide a service that doesn't end in a failed market, that's not an imposition on anyone's freedom.
chunky1994 17d ago
Because any addictive thing is on a spectrum and you don't want the people with incentives to go all the way up the spectrum to be the operator of the harmful thing, a là the dose makes the poison. (See alcohol, cigarettes, any class of drugs etc.) Some things are just wholly harmful where no small amount provides any benefits, some are harmful in large doses, but not so harmful in small doses that they cannot provide other uses. Governments (ideally) don't exist to maximize profit so they are (generally) not incentivized to increase the addictions of their populace.
- fragmede 17d ago
  Which is to say, total prohibition doesn't work, so they need to provide a some release, just not a total free for all.
CDRdude 17d ago
It reminds me of state-run liquor stores in some US states.
NikolaNovak 17d ago

micromacrofoot 17d ago

State owned, no advertising, and your last year's tax return to prove income. As they are now, even state level gambling is used as a tax on the poor, because they're the people desperate enough to do it.

deleted 17d ago

[deleted]

ramesh31 17d ago

An advertising ban would solve 80% of the problem. This stuff has always been around for those who want it, and (arguably) in a free society should be. But shoving it down people's throats in every channel imaginable has to end.

cm2012 17d ago
As a professional advertiser: yes. Gambling ads should be illegal. Big issue is supreme court said states cant ban gambling ads due to first amendment.
- tayo42 17d ago
  Cigarette ads have a ton of restrictions despite that first amendment existing
  - cm2012 17d ago
    Funnily enough cigarette ads were banned in 1970 before the Supreme Court regime that says you can't ban ads for a given legal product. If someone were to take the case to the Supreme Court, they could probably get cigarette ads un-banned.
    - queenkjuul 16d ago
      With a sufficient endowment to the Trump family, one can get anything they want from this supreme court
- mitxela 17d ago
  Certain porn is illegal despite the first amendment existing - the court merely invented a "nuh uh" exception, called "obscenity".
  - cm2012 17d ago
    Current precedent is that states can ban almost anything they want, but if something is legal, you cant ban ads for it.

deleted 17d ago

[deleted]