zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
The older I get the more I hate gambling. When i was younger I tended to think "hey it's their choice" but i've realized how unfair our society is in terms of things like this.

Food, gambling, etc. are all backed by hordes of brilliant well paid people trying to get you to ruin your life so they make money. On the other side is just regular people like us stressed out trying to survive.

This isn't some "freedom" issue, it's an incredibly huge power asymmetry and I think "we the people" need protection from these forces

>>snapca+0M2
I'm kind of the in "hey its their choice" camp but would love to hear an alternative perspective.

My main gripe is that it seems like a strangely weird place to decide where we need protection.

I would think a similar article could be written about, just off the top of my head:

* Junk food

* Participating in dangerous sports (Football, Boxing, etc)

* All forms of gambling

* Alcohol, cigarettes

* Pornography

All of which are also dangerous, potentially addictive, and probably has a larger net negative impact than sports gambling.

What principles could be adopted to not turn this into a larger and larger bureaucracy that decides which of these industries gets preferential treatment over another?

>>czhu12+1y3
> What principles could be adopted to not turn this into a larger and larger bureaucracy that decides which of these industries gets preferential treatment over another?

How about evidence based policy? We've seen what happens with drug prohibition and we've seen what happens with gambling prohibition. The former leads to an extensive underworld and tons of negative consequences but the latter wasn't nearly as bad.

What were the downsides of the prohibition on sports gambling? How many fewer people lost their savings to a blackmarket bookie versus the number of people who lose money now on the easily accessible mobile apps? I struggle to think of any net-negative effects of the prohibition on gambling - all the negative effects of gambling get worse when it's legalized.

>>throwu+gz3
Well, I'd argue the net negative effects are people who enjoy responsible sports gambling aren't able to do it anymore.

The state can of course, claim that no one should be gambling on sports anyways, so its not a problem that people lose access, just as it can with any other vice. People who have no interest in sports gambling would of course, not care either way.

If there is no value assigned to having the freedom, in and of itself, then of course, banning anything becomes trivial.

I think under this criteria, as long as we can have an "effective" ban (ie: no black markets are created) on anything that is not healthy for people to participate in, it would be worth banning.

So basically, anything that is unhealthy, but not yet banned, is only allowed because the state cannot yet find an effective way to ban it.