Nanny state mentality. “If we just make gambling illegal the poor, stupid and bad at math will have to stop doing it,” sounds like a foolproof plan. Same thinking that brought us the war on drugs and the failed prohibition experiment.
1 Like
I agree with this in theory but we’re watching the barrier to entry here being lowered SO much
Yeah I think it’s a straw man to say the only two choices are complete prohibition or every advertisement being for online gambling and lottery tickets at every single cash register.
This is my take. I’ll happily pay Apple, their products rule.
Literally everyone hates United Health and Cablevision and Spectrum and on down the list. Sue those fuckers.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone is advocating throwing a bunch of people in jail over this, but maybe DraftKings and MGM and everyone shouldn’t be able to operate mostly national online sportsbooks that saturate every televised sporting event with tons of ads
So when gambling is illegal and guys are going to the local bookie… what should happen when that is found out?
We’ve come to be fine with beer commercials dominating sports advertising, I don’t see why gambling should be treated different, and would rather society err on the side of freedom.
I don’t think a bunch of regulatory restrictions are going to do much to stop the degenerate gamblers who actually have a problem, neither would prohibition. Those people will find a way to gamble and having mainstream legal sites is the best of a bunch of bad options for them. For everyone else, who cares.
The whole, “I find the X annoying so I am going to campaign for laws against X” is kind of a bad perspective in general. Especially so when it’s something like TV commercials that are easily avoided
Surely banning it will fix the problem. We could even call it a prohibition on sports betting
Pony is slow
1 Like
I think a general “nanny state” sort of criticism is just reductive here. Regulating predatory loan operations (also something organized crime is known for) is also a “nanny state” sort of thing, should we just throw our hands up and avoid regulation for the same reasons? Where do you draw the line, and why?
It’s different than drugs though. Underground gambling wasn’t as huge as the illegal drug market. It was much more difficult to accidentally fall into an addictive gambling spiral when the nearest legal gambling was Vegas and AC. We also didn’t heavily penalize gamblers like we do drug users.
You recognize that this is a republican/conservative expression, right?
Yeah this. You don’t need to criminalize it (at least you don’t need to criminalize the gamblers), but you can certainly ban the providers.
Gambling was banned for what, 100 years? The negative effects to society of that ban were:_______?
Yes, so what?
1 Like
That a “Nanny State” is a good thing. We should want the state to take care of its citizens…
We have many examples of it being a bad thing, like alcohol prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution etc. Almost all of those examples are trying to legislate away personal vice, as would be your DraftKings ban.
We also have one example where it worked, the prohibition on gambling outside of some very specific locations in the US that lasted for around 100 years. I am not advocating some novel concept here, literally it’s just a return to the former framework.
In what ways do you think it worked? Because you weren’t annoyed by TV commercials?
edit: to me it worked about as well as weed prohibition
There’s going to be a lot of grey area here, and I’m not committing to debating this line over dozens of posts but as a general principle…
I think trying to regulate away personal vice is bad and counterproductive. Trying to regulate away coercive exploitation is ok.
1 Like
Fair enough, but I think that’s a pretty foggy line and sports betting has plenty of financial exploitation in it (if you’re a winner at doing it, they ban or limit you lol. Only donators allowed!)
I would be OK about some regulation where if you’re offering bets to the general public you can’t ban people for skill.
I’m not in favor of total deregulation of this or any industry,