By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cyran said:
JWeinCom said:

That's posted by an organization whose purpose is to encourage gambling, so gotta take that with a grain of salt. The studies they cite seem to be from reputable institutions, but I'd like to see the full studies, because data can be cherry picked.

The studies seem to indicate that online gaming itself is not more addictive than something such as casino gaming, which seems pretty logical. Being able to control the entire environment would definitely be an advantage in getting people to gamble. So, that's a good point as to why online gaming might not lead to major problems.

But the question is in scale. The study found 1-5% of people did in fact gamble "excessively". That's a fairly significant portion and unlike those who gamble excessively at casinos, but unlike the casino goers, there's little to stand in the way of excessive gambling. 

The study they quote to address that issue user Pokerstars as an example, but I think Poker is not a great comparison. Poker is a game where you play against other players, and success is largely skill based. Because of this, it naturally limits the amount that people who are not good at poker are going to play. If you perceive your loss as simply bad luck and next time you might have good luck, then you're more likely to keep playing, compared to if you you view your loss as a result of other players being better than you, and you're probably going to lose in the future as well.

Of course, it's possible that online gaming isn't a major issue and there's no justification for any extreme regulation, but those studies don't convince me.

Sport betting was also included in study as mention in the dataset(university of Hamburg. Bwin provided access to 4,000 online casino players and 40,000 sports bettors.).  Tracking down these PHD studies online is a pain because a lot of time they under some Harvard database that not easy to find or available for none students etc.  Even the study mention in your article they not providing a link to original study.

Here a link talking about the study from a less bias source when it comes to gambling

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-psychology-of-online-gambling-versus-going-to-a-casino/374107/

EDIT: also for the 1-5% what was found to compulsively online gamble the study said that being able to gamble online was not a trigging event meaning they was  addictively gamble before they could gamble online.  People like that will find a way to gamble legal or not legal till they get help.  If anything maybe collecting of data could help identify these people quicker to get them help.

I couldn't find the studies either, so it's hard to say how useful they are.

Even if the online gambling is not triggering, then still giving addictive gamblers access 24/7 is potentially problematic.

It's a good point that the online interface can be used to identify problem gamblers. That's an argument I'm largely in favor of when it comes to most drugs and possibly prostitution. But, I'm not arguing for a strict ban on online gambling. I'm open to the possibility of online gambling being legal with regulations to limit the potential abuse. But as far as I know, that's not the case in NY.



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Machiavellian said:

Naw, we already have plenty of ways to gamble.  Its really no different from anything done in excess.  The people that go overboard with it usually find something else to destroy their lives.  Basically any particular thing people find either addictive or entertaining can be abused, at some point the government cannot be everyone nanny for everything, but they can give people assistance when they fall.

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

On principle, I believe that we should regulate gambling as much as possible. In practice, I haven't done quite enough reading on the subject to know what it looks like.

That said, I do want to address the ending bit here because it is something that I hate. Specifically, it is something that I often see when speaking about the lottery: The money from the lottery is going towards education! Fuck that though. What this essentially is, is a regressive tax on hope. It heavily taxes the hope of those of low income to have a better life. We know that those who spend the highest portion of their earnings on the lottery are those who can least afford it, so why exactly are we enabling that? For education? No, we could pay for education through progressive tax increases if we wanted to, we would just rather take the money from the poor... 



JWeinCom said:
Cyran said:

Sport betting was also included in study as mention in the dataset(university of Hamburg. Bwin provided access to 4,000 online casino players and 40,000 sports bettors.).  Tracking down these PHD studies online is a pain because a lot of time they under some Harvard database that not easy to find or available for none students etc.  Even the study mention in your article they not providing a link to original study.

Here a link talking about the study from a less bias source when it comes to gambling

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-psychology-of-online-gambling-versus-going-to-a-casino/374107/

EDIT: also for the 1-5% what was found to compulsively online gamble the study said that being able to gamble online was not a trigging event meaning they was  addictively gamble before they could gamble online.  People like that will find a way to gamble legal or not legal till they get help.  If anything maybe collecting of data could help identify these people quicker to get them help.

I couldn't find the studies either, so it's hard to say how useful they are.

Even if the online gambling is not triggering, then still giving addictive gamblers access 24/7 is potentially problematic.

It's a good point that the online interface can be used to identify problem gamblers. That's an argument I'm largely in favor of when it comes to most drugs and possibly prostitution. But, I'm not arguing for a strict ban on online gambling. I'm open to the possibility of online gambling being legal with regulations to limit the potential abuse. But as far as I know, that's not the case in NY.

I am 100% for strict regulation to ensure a company providing online gambling not be able to abuse there customers for profit. 

Regulation design to stop someone from potentially harming them selves through gambling I much more hesitant with because I not sure it effective and a lot of time regulations design to protect people from them selves end up harming more people then helping.

As a general rule any kind of addiction need to be treated outside the criminals justice system if there any chance of helping them get over there addiction.

Specifically to gambling I not convince there will be a increase in addiction by limiting how many bets they can place online or those kinds of regulation that focus on the user and not the provider.  I think people that get addictive to gamble going to find a way to do as often as possible weather it online or not. Other wise fixing addiction would be much easier if all you had to do is make it inconvenient to have that addiction.

If you know of any study that specific show online gambling increase rates of addiction am open to reconsidering but I did not find any such study my self when I looked.



sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

On principle, I believe that we should regulate gambling as much as possible. In practice, I haven't done quite enough reading on the subject to know what it looks like.

That said, I do want to address the ending bit here because it is something that I hate. Specifically, it is something that I often see when speaking about the lottery: The money from the lottery is going towards education! Fuck that though. What this essentially is, is a regressive tax on hope. It heavily taxes the hope of those of low income to have a better life. We know that those who spend the highest portion of their earnings on the lottery are those who can least afford it, so why exactly are we enabling that? For education? No, we could pay for education through progressive tax increases if we wanted to, we would just rather take the money from the poor... 

Yeah. The money from the lottery going towards education would be good in theory if those with more money were the ones gambling, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

To play devil's advocate though, the justification would be that if people weren't gambling with the state lottery system, they'd gamble elsewhere. Better to recapture some portion of that income than none of it. 

Cyran said:
JWeinCom said:

I couldn't find the studies either, so it's hard to say how useful they are.

Even if the online gambling is not triggering, then still giving addictive gamblers access 24/7 is potentially problematic.

It's a good point that the online interface can be used to identify problem gamblers. That's an argument I'm largely in favor of when it comes to most drugs and possibly prostitution. But, I'm not arguing for a strict ban on online gambling. I'm open to the possibility of online gambling being legal with regulations to limit the potential abuse. But as far as I know, that's not the case in NY.

I am 100% for strict regulation to ensure a company providing online gambling not be able to abuse there customers for profit. 

Regulation design to stop someone from potentially harming them selves through gambling I much more hesitant with because I not sure it effective and a lot of time regulations design to protect people from them selves end up harming more people then helping.

As a general rule any kind of addiction need to be treated outside the criminals justice system if there any chance of helping them get over there addiction.

Specifically to gambling I not convince there will be a increase in addiction by limiting how many bets they can place online or those kinds of regulation that focus on the user and not the provider.  I think people that get addictive to gamble going to find a way to do as often as possible weather it online or not. Other wise fixing addiction would be much easier if all you had to do is make it inconvenient to have that addiction.

If you know of any study that specific show online gambling increase rates of addiction am open to reconsidering but I did not find any such study my self when I looked.

Obviously, if the industry would be regulated in such a way that it was not abusive, I'd be fine with that. 

But there's an inherent conflict of interest. Those running casinos, virtual or otherwise, are looking to make as much money as possible. If we are simply trusting them to not take advantage, that's the fox guarding the henhouse. In theory legalized gambling is supposed to prevent that, but I'm really skeptical of the government's ability to do so, particularly as state governments are also very interested in getting revenue. The stuff in New York with legalized online gaming and marijuana (the latter of which I'm a big fan of) isn't for altruistic reasons.

There aren't really studies I could find. I think we would probably come to a similar conclusion if the data were clear, but since it's not, we're going on intuition. Going on what we have, I think it's likely that legalized online gaming will lead to higher rates of gambling among addicts at the very least, if not more gambling outright. 

It seems pretty common sense to me. I struggle with my weight. If there were a Five Guys in my apartment, I'm sure I'd be over 1000 pounds by now. Not like the presence of Five Guys in my apartment was the root of the problem, but it'd definitely make it worse. 



If you listen to radio over the air and live in NY be prepared for the massive amount of money Draft Kings and the like will be throwing at advertising. They opened it up this year in Indiana and it feels like every other commercial on the radio is now for Sports Gambling (it isn't but it feels like it is). Can't lose bets being advertised. "If one of the teams scores a 3 pointer turn your $1 into $100".

I would say that similar to your "poker requiring skill" that sports betting requires analytical skill if you are going to be good at it. You need a familiarity with the teams strengths and weaknesses and how those will offset each other to predict the likely winner. You are of course not competing against other bettors but it takes some skill. I would never bet on sports myself. I'm in the camp that sports are fun to play but not as fun to watch. I personally wish that 80% of the money we spend on college / pro sports instead was spent on teachers and scientists.

But yeah after hearing all these ads every commercial break I selfishly wish the advertising for sports betting was at least regulated like they do for cigarettes (Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1970 banning TV and radio ads).



Around the Network
The_Yoda said:

If you listen to radio over the air and live in NY be prepared for the massive amount of money Draft Kings and the like will be throwing at advertising. They opened it up this year in Indiana and it feels like every other commercial on the radio is now for Sports Gambling (it isn't but it feels like it is). Can't lose bets being advertised. "If one of the teams scores a 3 pointer turn your $1 into $100".

I would say that similar to your "poker requiring skill" that sports betting requires analytical skill if you are going to be good at it. You need a familiarity with the teams strengths and weaknesses and how those will offset each other to predict the likely winner. You are of course not competing against other bettors but it takes some skill. I would never bet on sports myself. I'm in the camp that sports are fun to play but not as fun to watch. I personally wish that 80% of the money we spend on college / pro sports instead was spent on teachers and scientists.

But yeah after hearing all these ads every commercial break I selfishly wish the advertising for sports betting was at least regulated like they do for cigarettes (Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1970 banning TV and radio ads).

Depends on the type of sports betting. For strictly betting on games/spreads, it's you vs the house.

For draft kings and such, it's more skill based, and actually the people who are doing the best on these sites tend to be people who were big into online Poker. But I think the skill impact in poker is much more relevant, to the point where bad players will be very unlikely to win with any consistency and will quickly become discouraged. And, I think poker players who lose are far more likely to realize that they suck than people losing on draft kings.

Basically, you gamble because you think you're going to win. Poker players are far more likely to catch on to the fact that they suck imo. 



JWeinCom said:
Machiavellian said:

Lets put it this way.  I really do not need the government to police everything I do.  You can overeat and cause all kinds of health problems, should the government regulate that.  You can over drink on any particular thing, should the government regulate that.  You can game until you die, should the government monitor your gaming and police that.  Where does personal responsibility ends and government intervention begin.  I am all for regulation when the action has an effect that causes more than one person issues but if that action causes only the person an issue and its their responsibility to manage it, then I am not for government intervention.  There does come a point where I do not need to be babysitted by ever action I take that can cause some measure of harm by the government.  

Just like there are places to help people with overeating, drinking, gaming and any other type of action that can cause issues for people who cannot managed their daily lives, the same goes for gambling which I might add there are plenty of services already there.  

Humans will always find something to get addicted to especially for people who are more susceptible to addition.  Its not like we woke up today and gambling or any other type of activity suddenly hit the scene.  Online gambling is no different then wall street gambling on stocks and other financial items.  Its the same thing, people take risk like this all the time and some get paid and most others get burned.

If I would agree with anything is age.  Just like Drinking, Smoking or any of these types of activities, age should be regulated but I believe that is already the case.  We already tried to over regulate drinking and smoking and the only thing it did was move it underground.  Best to keep it above the surface so it can be monitored.  

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. 

https://www.phd-insights.com/learn-user-research/why-is-email-addictive#:~:text=In%20Skinner's%20classic%20studies%2C%20rats,after%20they%20pressed%20a%20lever.&text=Skinner%20observed%20that%20lab%20mice,other%20times%20nothing%20at%20all.

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.

https://www.cogencyteam.com/news/2018/02/why-are-humans-bad-at-calculating-risk/#:~:text=According%20to%20Paul%20Slovic%2C%20Ph,or%20risky%20commonplace%20events%20are.

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.



Machiavellian said:
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. 

https://www.phd-insights.com/learn-user-research/why-is-email-addictive#:~:text=In%20Skinner's%20classic%20studies%2C%20rats,after%20they%20pressed%20a%20lever.&text=Skinner%20observed%20that%20lab%20mice,other%20times%20nothing%20at%20all.

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.

https://www.cogencyteam.com/news/2018/02/why-are-humans-bad-at-calculating-risk/#:~:text=According%20to%20Paul%20Slovic%2C%20Ph,or%20risky%20commonplace%20events%20are.

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.

There's much merit in the argument that people will gamble no matter what. Particularly with compulsive behaviors, the more and more difficult the steps between the compulsion and fulfilling it, the less likely the person is to engage in the compulsive behaviors. Pretty sure a recovering alcoholic will be far more likely to recover if there isn't any beer in the fridge.

If your argument is that people who want to gamble are going to do so anyway, then that argument also works against setting any kind of age limits on anything. If a gambler's gonna gamble no matter what, then a 14 year old who wants to smoke is gonna get their cigarettes. Unless making it more difficult will prevent people from doing it, I don't see why a kid shouldn't be able to buy a pack in CVS.

I don't think you'd really argue that fatalities in car crashes and heroin usage can not potentially cause harms to anyone besides those actually injecting heroin or killed in a crash. The point was to figure out what degree of potential harm warrants regulation. So, considering whatever damage you imagine may be caused to others by not wearing seatbelt, using heroin, or not requiring seatbelts or other safety features in cars, should the government regulate these areas?



JWeinCom said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

There's much merit in the argument that people will gamble no matter what. Particularly with compulsive behaviors, the more and more difficult the steps between the compulsion and fulfilling it, the less likely the person is to engage in the compulsive behaviors. Pretty sure a recovering alcoholic will be far more likely to recover if there isn't any beer in the fridge.

If your argument is that people who want to gamble are going to do so anyway, then that argument also works against setting any kind of age limits on anything. If a gambler's gonna gamble no matter what, then a 14 year old who wants to smoke is gonna get their cigarettes. Unless making it more difficult will prevent people from doing it, I don't see why a kid shouldn't be able to buy a pack in CVS.

I don't think you'd really argue that fatalities in car crashes and heroin usage can not potentially cause harms to anyone besides those actually injecting heroin or killed in a crash. The point was to figure out what degree of potential harm warrants regulation. So, considering whatever damage you imagine may be caused to others by not wearing seatbelt, using heroin, or not requiring seatbelts or other safety features in cars, should the government regulate these areas?

True, age limit really does not stop any kid from gambling as I have experience this on multiple occasions.  Kids will always find a way to do what they should not whether its smoking, drinking, gambling or sex.  The thing is it will lower the amount who only want to experiment but not to fuss about going the extra mile to do so.  Its pretty much the same for any particular activity that can be abused.  I know when growing up, my best friend and I was driving our parents cars before we had driver license, smoking and drinking way before 21.  Fking everything that moved because we could. 

I am more of the mind of how Amsterdam do it.  Why criminalize drugs and put people in prison for usage just like making seats belts or heroine usage a crime and put people behind bars.  I consider gambling the same way, rules to setup safe and effective gambling where people are not scammed I am all for.  Rules trying to prevent people from doing something and govern how they do it I am totally against.  When you make something taboo you give way more power to it then if it was free to anyone and your knowledge and common sense is what leads you to avoid things you cannot control.

So for me should the government regulate these areas, context would be the key.  Case in point.  You can drink alcohol all you want but when you get behind a vehicle lose control and kill someone, you should be tried for manslaughter.  The way I see it, you have the right to drink as much as you want but when you do an action that causes harm to others even property then that is where the government and laws step in.  As an adult, you should be given the freedom to govern yourself its when your actions effect others is when the government needs to step in.

So many people in jail today over substance abuse where that is definitely not the solution and neither would it be for gambling.  Making such things a crime or fines or any type of punishment along those lines I am not in favor of.  



sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

On principle, I believe that we should regulate gambling as much as possible. In practice, I haven't done quite enough reading on the subject to know what it looks like.

That said, I do want to address the ending bit here because it is something that I hate. Specifically, it is something that I often see when speaking about the lottery: The money from the lottery is going towards education! Fuck that though. What this essentially is, is a regressive tax on hope. It heavily taxes the hope of those of low income to have a better life. We know that those who spend the highest portion of their earnings on the lottery are those who can least afford it, so why exactly are we enabling that? For education? No, we could pay for education through progressive tax increases if we wanted to, we would just rather take the money from the poor... 

Basically its a sin tax where the government can say, we do not like this but lets go ahead and not leave money on the table and get our cut.  There is no real ethics in the matter and its more in line of getting our cut of money that would usually go somewhere else or underground.