Currently Online 
JWeinCom said:
But not everything is equally addictive. In Skinner's experiments, rats were presented with a machine that gave food pellets when they pressed a level. They varied how often the machine would release foods. Every time, once every x times, or completely randomly. When the reward was random, the rats would press the level far more, even after they had eaten the same amount of pellets as the rats who got a pellet every time. We're also really bad at dealing with probability. People tend to vastly overestimate the chance of unlikely events happening. Statistically, there is no rational reason to ever play something like powerball, but people do. Then of course there's the matter of how fast the consequences are. I can definitely destroy my health with twinkies, but that's going to require quite a bit of time, during which it is possible for some kind of intervention. On the other hand, I can overdose on opiods in a single day. So, that is much more dangerous and worth regulation. So, I don't think that the amount of people who will become addicted to something in a life-ruining way is inevitably going to be the same regardless of what they have access to. Certain things are just more addictive to others. We also have the issue that people are exceptionally bad at navigating the risks and rewards of gambling compared to other areas. And considering gravity of the potential harm and the speed of which it hits, then there's a much stronger case for regulating gambling compared to for example Mayor Mike's campaign against soda. That doesn't necessarily mean that gambling is serious enough to be regulated, but that depends where you want to draw the line. I don't believe you're a pure libertarian who thinks that anything adults consent to should be allowed for the government, so let's use some examples to draw the line. Assume we are in a society with only adults that meet our current standards for mental competence. Should heroin be legal? Should heroin be unregulated? Should the government be able to ticket people for not wearing seatbelts? Should the government be able to force car manufacturers to provide seatbelts? Should the government forbid predatory loan rates? |
Lets think this through. Online gambling isn't new just like any gambling. People that gamble will find a way to do it and also they will find a way to do it with no restrictions. Just because it legal doesn't suddenly mean every addicted gambler suddenly will come out of the closet and start to do it online. Trying to protect people from themselves leads into more problems then it solve most times. I rather put the effort into education along those lines when the people get burnt than waste a whole lot of time and effort looking for means to stop people from hurting themselves.
When we talk about regulation, I am more in the park of what type of regulations. I can definitely agree that regulation to prevent abuse and fraud by any establishment but not really about regulating minute details on each gamble. "Hey, you just spent 500 dollars, we are going to make you stop gambling for today". That kind of regulation is worthless.
Should Heroin be legal, Yes
Should Heroin be unregulated, Depends. If the action can involve or cause harm to others yes, if only the individual no.
SeatBelts is the same. If not wearing a seatbelt can be shown where it can cause issues for others who wear a seat belt or if the seat belt not worn can cause additional damage outside of the person than yes.
Basically, I would always side on giving people a chance to govern themselves as long as that does not cause harm or damage to someone else.
