zlacker

Of course, and our laws have apparently determined that "gambling is OK."

Why ought we revisit and overturn that process in this case? Is there any objective criterion beyond "it seems bad to me, I don't like the result of our lawmaking process?"

>>pjlega+(OP)
My point was that drawing arbitrary lines for what's legal isn't the new invention you acted like it was.

This most recent comment has shifted the topic entirely, and I'm not going to address it because it's obviously either written in bad faith or just painfully unthoughtful.

>>diggin+T1
The lines for what is legal are not at all drawn arbitrarily in a constitutional legal system such as the United States.

>>pjlega+(OP)
This is a perfectly valid criterion. People sometimes make stupid decisions and want to reverse them, a wholly rational choice.

I don't want to outlaw gambling as such but I think it needs to be far more strictly regulated because gambling corporations massively exploit people and the industry borders on scamming.

>>pjlega+f3
Counterpoint: Yes, they are, within the bounds of higher law.