zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
Gambling is a vice, and we should allow it but make it expensive and somewhat stigmatized.

At the very least, ads should be banned or require nasty images like tobacco products.

>>datadr+3a
I have participated in a few meetings of some lottery boards, and I have heard that there is a tension here between the illegal market and the pricing of the legal market. Some states charge the (relatively low) commissions that the illegal market charges because they would prefer to stamp out the illegal market, and others take your position but have a thriving black market for gambling. Those are basically the two options.

>>pclmul+Ga
> Some states charge the (relatively low) commissions that the illegal market charges because they would prefer to stamp out the illegal market

Slight tangent, but I am now of the view the state should not be allowed to tax legal vices. (Drugs, gambling, alcohol primarily). The reason is it keeps pushing amazing conflicts of interest, and the state ends up incentivized to maintain the behavior it supposedly does not want.

Either [vice] is wrong and should be illegal, or is tolerated and regulated but in no way profited from by those that do the regulation.

>>fidotr+ld
Taxing vices is how you control the amount of them while still allowing people to do them. Taxation is an important form of regulation.

>>pclmul+Td
That's one theory. Another Theory is that the state is simply piling on and further exploiting these people.

A third theory is that the state shouldnt be in the position of playing nanny or parent, influencing behavior. If it is illegal, prevent it from happening. If it is legal, it shouldn't it shouldnt interfere.

>>s1arti+wz
> A third theory is that the state shouldnt be in the position of playing nanny or parent, influencing behavior. If it is illegal, prevent it from happening. If it is legal, it shouldn't it shouldnt interfere.

This sort of black-and-white position basically means either a complete ban (presumably with a harsh penalty for people who participate in the activity) or no regulation at all. A ban will just get circumvented if you don't penalize people for getting around it, so you're going to have to penalize addicts for illegal gambling, not just the people who enable that gambling. If you want to take the other extreme, are laws that force people to put lung cancer warnings on cigarettes "playing nanny"?

In real life, we usually take middle ground positions, and that means doing things that influence behavior, whether they are taxes or restrictions on labeling.

>>pclmul+cE
Yes, I do think government should be more black and white, and the government should stay in it's lane. I support regulation that empowers and informs individuals to make their own choices.

Labeling of side effects, calories, and similar topics fall into that category of empowering the citizen.

Sin taxes dont educate or empower, they simply punish and try to prevent individuals from acting on their own choices.

The two are very different.