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

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. 

I'm not sure if that is true in general, but especially when it comes to the lottery. There is a lot of casual spending going into the lottery system which isn't always predicated on gambling addiction (also as a side note, it is harder to develop an addiction to something that you don't have access to). I think there are two general trends which indicate that lottery spending is not baked in spending, but instead extra spending: Advertisement and High lotteries.

If this was baked in spending, advertising wouldn't be required, yet as others have mentioned, half of the ads you hear these days are for either the lottery or some online betting service. Clearly this advertising drives use, otherwise it likely wouldn't be so prevalent. 

The second refers to the phenomena of increased spending when we see the lottery reach a particularly high value. Spending on the lottery increases, which again demonstrates that spending is based on external factors and not just an individual's desire to gamble.

This actually brings me to a regulation that I wasn't previously considering: Banning or limiting advertisement for gambling/lotteries. I certainly think we should end spending on state lottery advertisement. Thinking about it, it just doesn't make sense. The state is spending money to advertise something that is essentially a tax?A direct tax would save the advertisement money and be able to be designed in a far more progressive way. As for overall advertisement regulation, I think we should ensure that there are far more qualifications around statements regarding potential winnings.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
JWeinCom said:

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.  

Don't think I said anything that would vaguely suggest I think gamblers should be fined or jailed.

Charging someone for manslaughter after killing someone under the influence of alcohol is not regulating alcohol, it's regulating homicide. You can still drink as much as you want, and you can still drink and drive. The thing that's being regulated is hitting someone or something with your car. The alcohol is only relevant in establishing fault, so it's not being regulated any more than any other factor that may cause an accident, for example driving when excessively tired. 

Punishing someone for manslaughter does very little to help those who have been harmed either directly or through the societal costs of helping to support the victim who may be unable to work or in need of state provided medical treatment, support those who would have been supported by the victims, higher taxes due to the need for emergency services, generally higher insurance rates, etc. There are civil lawsuits, but that only works if the driver had money/insurance that would cover it, and again doesn't regulate alcohol specifically. 

Penalties for drunk driving itself on the other hand, whether or not anyone is hit, is a specific regulation on how one may use alcohol. If we assume it is effective (https://www.responsibility.org/drunk-driving-fatalities-decreased-in-2017-accounting-for-an-all-time-low-proportion-of-traffic-fatalities which there is reason to believe) in causing less drunk drivers, then less people will be harmed by drunk drivers. The regulation actually protects those who may be harmed, and can shift the burden drunk driving causes in part to those who are responsible (through fines on drunk drivers). We can consider other regulations that would either prevent the harm of drunk driving or shift the burden to those responsible or those benefitting. 

Your argument seems based on the premise that regulation of individuals is inherently useless, which I don't accept. I brought up seatbelts as an example, because that's an area where regulation has had a massive impact. Seatbelt usage has gone tremendously from about 10% of people using them prior to regulation to about 90%. It's unlikely that none of that is attributable to regulation, especially as states with stricter seatbelt regulation sees greater seatbelt usage.

https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/life/cars-trucks/a-seat-belt-history-timeline/#:~:text=As%20recently%20as%20the%201980s,devices%20adopted%20by%20the%20public.

The idea that we can influence behavior by making something accessible is something that successful companies know well and utilize. When I worked retail, we always had to slide product to the front of peg hooks, because we know people would be less likely to buy it if they had to reach back for it. Amazon and other companies are so keen on enabling one click checkout because they know the fewer steps before $$$ the more likely the customer is to buy something. We know that when candy bars are right by the register people buy significantly more candy than if the same candy is in the candy aisle. https://consumer.healthday.com/vitamins-and-nutrition-information-27/food-and-nutrition-news-316/want-to-eat-healthier-avoid-stores-with-snacks-at-checkout-740721.html If the candy is in a place where you can't avoid it, more people buy it, even though they could have very easily grabbed it in the aisle. Hershey's has put candy bars in stores like Home Depot because more accessibility means more chocolate. So accessibility leads to more chocolate sales, and I don't see why it would lead to less gambling.

You might argue that those who are compulsive chocolate bar eaters are the ones who would have bought the candy bar no matter what, and the extra 17% are from people who are not addicted. But, that's also probably not true. One of the recommended ways to curb compulsive behaviors is to put a delay between the compulsion and the behavior. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/anxiety/obssessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd.htm Interrupting automatic or compulsive patterns is the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is recognized as one of the more effective types of therapy.

If interventions can be effective (which I think they clearly can be when you look at examples of regulatory successes), accessibility to a product or service increases usage (which seems pretty clear based on the efforts of companies to increase ease of access), and gambling is a significant problem that can have impact beyond the gambler (which I don't think you can honestly deny), then the question becomes to what extent are we willing to limit freedom to mitigate the problem.


Obviously context matters... Nobody is saying the government should regulate for shits and giggles. The point of asking about concrete examples was to figure out the contexts which justify or don't justify regulation, so we could see where online gambling would fall. But, we don't seem to be getting past the abstract to the point I'm actually interested in, so I'm going to check out here. Respond at your own risk, because I may or may not read the response or respond back. Not like saying this out of anger or anything, just don't want you wasting your time. 



sundin13 said:
JWeinCom said:

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. 

I'm not sure if that is true in general, but especially when it comes to the lottery. There is a lot of casual spending going into the lottery system which isn't always predicated on gambling addiction (also as a side note, it is harder to develop an addiction to something that you don't have access to). I think there are two general trends which indicate that lottery spending is not baked in spending, but instead extra spending: Advertisement and High lotteries.

If this was baked in spending, advertising wouldn't be required, yet as others have mentioned, half of the ads you hear these days are for either the lottery or some online betting service. Clearly this advertising drives use, otherwise it likely wouldn't be so prevalent. 

The second refers to the phenomena of increased spending when we see the lottery reach a particularly high value. Spending on the lottery increases, which again demonstrates that spending is based on external factors and not just an individual's desire to gamble.

This actually brings me to a regulation that I wasn't previously considering: Banning or limiting advertisement for gambling/lotteries. I certainly think we should end spending on state lottery advertisement. Thinking about it, it just doesn't make sense. The state is spending money to advertise something that is essentially a tax?A direct tax would save the advertisement money and be able to be designed in a far more progressive way. As for overall advertisement regulation, I think we should ensure that there are far more qualifications around statements regarding potential winnings.

Yeah, advertising is a huge part of my concern over this, especially with how targeted modern advertising is. The whole point of it is to target people with what would tempt them most. So, it's not just that gamblers will be able to gamble from their home, they'll also be frequently prompted to gamble. It's like if Budweiser could go into an alcoholic's house and offer them a beer.



JWeinCom said:

 

Don't think I said anything that would vaguely suggest I think gamblers should be fined or jailed.

Charging someone for manslaughter after killing someone under the influence of alcohol is not regulating alcohol, it's regulating homicide. You can still drink as much as you want, and you can still drink and drive. The thing that's being regulated is hitting someone or something with your car. The alcohol is only relevant in establishing fault, so it's not being regulated any more than any other factor that may cause an accident, for example driving when excessively tired. 

Punishing someone for manslaughter does very little to help those who have been harmed either directly or through the societal costs of helping to support the victim who may be unable to work or in need of state provided medical treatment, support those who would have been supported by the victims, higher taxes due to the need for emergency services, generally higher insurance rates, etc. There are civil lawsuits, but that only works if the driver had money/insurance that would cover it, and again doesn't regulate alcohol specifically. 

Penalties for drunk driving itself on the other hand, whether or not anyone is hit, is a specific regulation on how one may use alcohol. If we assume it is effective (https://www.responsibility.org/drunk-driving-fatalities-decreased-in-2017-accounting-for-an-all-time-low-proportion-of-traffic-fatalities which there is reason to believe) in causing less drunk drivers, then less people will be harmed by drunk drivers. The regulation actually protects those who may be harmed, and can shift the burden drunk driving causes in part to those who are responsible (through fines on drunk drivers). We can consider other regulations that would either prevent the harm of drunk driving or shift the burden to those responsible or those benefitting. 

Your argument seems based on the premise that regulation of individuals is inherently useless, which I don't accept. I brought up seatbelts as an example, because that's an area where regulation has had a massive impact. Seatbelt usage has gone tremendously from about 10% of people using them prior to regulation to about 90%. It's unlikely that none of that is attributable to regulation, especially as states with stricter seatbelt regulation sees greater seatbelt usage.

https://magazine.northeast.aaa.com/daily/life/cars-trucks/a-seat-belt-history-timeline/#:~:text=As%20recently%20as%20the%201980s,devices%20adopted%20by%20the%20public.

The idea that we can influence behavior by making something accessible is something that successful companies know well and utilize. When I worked retail, we always had to slide product to the front of peg hooks, because we know people would be less likely to buy it if they had to reach back for it. Amazon and other companies are so keen on enabling one click checkout because they know the fewer steps before $$$ the more likely the customer is to buy something. We know that when candy bars are right by the register people buy significantly more candy than if the same candy is in the candy aisle. https://consumer.healthday.com/vitamins-and-nutrition-information-27/food-and-nutrition-news-316/want-to-eat-healthier-avoid-stores-with-snacks-at-checkout-740721.html If the candy is in a place where you can't avoid it, more people buy it, even though they could have very easily grabbed it in the aisle. Hershey's has put candy bars in stores like Home Depot because more accessibility means more chocolate. So accessibility leads to more chocolate sales, and I don't see why it would lead to less gambling.

You might argue that those who are compulsive chocolate bar eaters are the ones who would have bought the candy bar no matter what, and the extra 17% are from people who are not addicted. But, that's also probably not true. One of the recommended ways to curb compulsive behaviors is to put a delay between the compulsion and the behavior. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/anxiety/obssessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd.htm Interrupting automatic or compulsive patterns is the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is recognized as one of the more effective types of therapy.

If interventions can be effective (which I think they clearly can be when you look at examples of regulatory successes), accessibility to a product or service increases usage (which seems pretty clear based on the efforts of companies to increase ease of access), and gambling is a significant problem that can have impact beyond the gambler (which I don't think you can honestly deny), then the question becomes to what extent are we willing to limit freedom to mitigate the problem.


Obviously context matters... Nobody is saying the government should regulate for shits and giggles. The point of asking about concrete examples was to figure out the contexts which justify or don't justify regulation, so we could see where online gambling would fall. But, we don't seem to be getting past the abstract to the point I'm actually interested in, so I'm going to check out here. Respond at your own risk, because I may or may not read the response or respond back. Not like saying this out of anger or anything, just don't want you wasting your time. 

No problem, but checking out so early when the conversation really did not even get to the good parts, I am disappointed.  Anyway I pretty much laid out what I consider grounds for regulation.  Any restrictions on the action no.  So that means no restrictions on how many bets, wins and losses nothing along those micromanaged type of items.  Advertising I am fine with because that is not actually something part of the action but self promotion.  Its the same thing with beer commercials cannot show you drinking beer or even smoking commercials are gone. 

The thing is once you get people down the road who feel what they are doing is for your best interest is where I start to push back.  I rather you give me the info, educate the population and let people be able to govern themselves and make sound decisions then trying to enforce rules and laws that treat the individual like they are a child needing constant supervision.  If that was the case you only need to get one particular group in power and low and behold you are living under someone else morals or outlook and view of life.  Anyway, I am pretty much done with the subject since I am sure we will not see eye to eye on this one so its all good.



Mod Edit: Links always require a description of what is contained in them. That's especially important given the context of this particular link.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 16 April 2021

Around the Network
KingofTrolls said:

https://youtu.be/xpuTfCHSKWo?t=121

This is uncensored body cam footage from the recent shooting of Adam Toledo. 

For those who don't want to watch a child get murdered, here is the summary:

-Officer exits their patrol car and starts chasing Toledo

-Officer yells "Show me your fucking hands"

-Toledo puts his hands up

-Officer shoots

-Officer attempts to render aid while calling for an ambulance

-Toledo dies



sundin13 said:
KingofTrolls said:

https://youtu.be/xpuTfCHSKWo?t=121

This is uncensored body cam footage from the recent shooting of Adam Toledo. 

For those who don't want to watch a child get murdered, here is the summary:

-Officer exits their patrol car and starts chasing Toledo

-Officer yells "Show me your fucking hands"

-Toledo puts his hands up

-Officer shoots

-Officer attempts to render aid while calling for an ambulance

-Toledo dies

To add, Toledo and some other guy fired multiple shots towards a car driving by before cops arrived.

And Toledo has a gun in his hand behind his back before moving his hands and getting shot by the police. A split-second decision.

What people should be wondering is what the hell is wrong with the country when there's 13-year-old kids shooting guns in the middle of the night. Younger kids have been killed by stray bullets by gang members in the same city recently etc. 

Last edited by KiigelHeart - on 17 April 2021

KiigelHeart said:
sundin13 said:

This is uncensored body cam footage from the recent shooting of Adam Toledo. 

For those who don't want to watch a child get murdered, here is the summary:

-Officer exits their patrol car and starts chasing Toledo

-Officer yells "Show me your fucking hands"

-Toledo puts his hands up

-Officer shoots

-Officer attempts to render aid while calling for an ambulance

-Toledo dies

To add, Toledo and some other guy fired multiple shots towards a car driving by before cops arrived.

And Toledo has a gun in his hand behind his back before moving his hands and getting shot by the police. A split-second decision.

What people should be wondering is what the hell is wrong with the country when there's 13-year-old kids shooting guns in the middle of the night. Younger kids have been killed by stray bullets by gang members in the same city recently etc. 

How do you know he had a gun.  The question would be did you see a gun.  Just because there was a gun at the scene does not mean it was his.  The reason I say this is because there is a point in the video where after the cop shoot the kid, the video cuts out, then he is next to the kid.  In that brief time, well lets just say that anything could happen.  I would be interested to see if his prints are on the gun because we have video of police planting a gun at a scene which was I believe in SC where they shot this one guy in the back.  Planted a gun, called it in but did not know someone was in the bushes videoing the whole thing.  Anyway, its a high stressful situation no matter how you look at it.

As to why at 13 year old would have a gun, come on its America, everyone has a gun.  Any kid can get their hands on a gun if given enough opportunity.  Its the whole reason why people advocate for guns instead of gun control because getting a gun is nothing.  The question is not that a 13 year old kid has a gun shooting at night, its that the culture of the US makes it so easy for immature kids, teens and adults to get guns easily.



Machiavellian said:
KiigelHeart said:

To add, Toledo and some other guy fired multiple shots towards a car driving by before cops arrived.

And Toledo has a gun in his hand behind his back before moving his hands and getting shot by the police. A split-second decision.

What people should be wondering is what the hell is wrong with the country when there's 13-year-old kids shooting guns in the middle of the night. Younger kids have been killed by stray bullets by gang members in the same city recently etc. 

How do you know he had a gun.  The question would be did you see a gun.  Just because there was a gun at the scene does not mean it was his.  The reason I say this is because there is a point in the video where after the cop shoot the kid, the video cuts out, then he is next to the kid.  In that brief time, well lets just say that anything could happen.  I would be interested to see if his prints are on the gun because we have video of police planting a gun at a scene which was I believe in SC where they shot this one guy in the back.  Planted a gun, called it in but did not know someone was in the bushes videoing the whole thing.  Anyway, its a high stressful situation no matter how you look at it.

As to why at 13 year old would have a gun, come on its America, everyone has a gun.  Any kid can get their hands on a gun if given enough opportunity.  Its the whole reason why people advocate for guns instead of gun control because getting a gun is nothing.  The question is not that a 13 year old kid has a gun shooting at night, its that the culture of the US makes it so easy for immature kids, teens and adults to get guns easily.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyvrsVchxs&t=55s

A news clip which looks like the kid pulled a gun from his pocket, possibly to ditch it so cops wouldn't see it. But apparently they did and thought he'll turn around to use it. High stressful situation indeed, a kid died and now the officer has to live with it. 

And yes, the culture of the US, that's where I was going. Though I still think there's plenty wrong with kids shooting guns at streets. Numbers of kids killing people is insane too, let alone violent crime rates in general. 



KiigelHeart said:
Machiavellian said:

How do you know he had a gun.  The question would be did you see a gun.  Just because there was a gun at the scene does not mean it was his.  The reason I say this is because there is a point in the video where after the cop shoot the kid, the video cuts out, then he is next to the kid.  In that brief time, well lets just say that anything could happen.  I would be interested to see if his prints are on the gun because we have video of police planting a gun at a scene which was I believe in SC where they shot this one guy in the back.  Planted a gun, called it in but did not know someone was in the bushes videoing the whole thing.  Anyway, its a high stressful situation no matter how you look at it.

As to why at 13 year old would have a gun, come on its America, everyone has a gun.  Any kid can get their hands on a gun if given enough opportunity.  Its the whole reason why people advocate for guns instead of gun control because getting a gun is nothing.  The question is not that a 13 year old kid has a gun shooting at night, its that the culture of the US makes it so easy for immature kids, teens and adults to get guns easily.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyvrsVchxs&t=55s

A news clip which looks like the kid pulled a gun from his pocket, possibly to ditch it so cops wouldn't see it. But apparently they did and thought he'll turn around to use it. High stressful situation indeed, a kid died and now the officer has to live with it. 

And yes, the culture of the US, that's where I was going. Though I still think there's plenty wrong with kids shooting guns at streets. Numbers of kids killing people is insane too, let alone violent crime rates in general. 

You do not need the news clip, as the police body cam video shows everything up to the moment of the shot and after the event.  I do not doubt the situation is tense and the perceived threat that the person has a gun is always prevalent within the US culture.  I watched the video probably a dozen times looking at the moment of the cop asking to see the kids hands to the moment of the shot.  There really was no delay. 

He asked to see the kids hands which the kid begins to raise them and then its done.  People stated he moved to fast, why did he turn around and a whole lot of stuff but the thing is the situation was stressful for both.  Logic doesn't always kick in those situations and especially for a kid 13 years old.  What I believe is that there were really not to many things the kid could have done where the cop doesn't shoot him since he shot so fast.  We know he did not see a gun first, we know that the kid never got his hands up.

The thing is, there are videos where people have been shot by cops where they give commands and they still shoot you.  This is why the distrust.  The words of a police within the US is trash because of the ones let free who abuse that power.  There is a video where a man got shot in a driveway because he raised his cell phone or another where he was said to have a gun but it was a cell phone.  Its these situations like this where the police have time and again shot unarmed people on fear and this one will be another.  Whether there was a gun or not, the end results is that it was not in the person hands when they were shot.  The cop did not say put your hands up nice and slow.

So the real problem is comes down to training.  There really isn't besides shoot to kill in the US.  6 months and you can be a cop while other nations it takes years.  Giving clear and direct directions where you are in control probably could prevent some of these types of deaths.

The real problem I see is people being ok that the result is always death and justifying it because their is the perceived threat.  I guess as long as it happens to those gansta then all is ok, until its not.