The old "legalize, regulate and tax" routine tends to work better than just letting the problem fester in the background. Regulated gaming with proper oversight ensures that games are fair and not overtly predatory, and that the operators are inspected for compliance and pay their taxes.
this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
35 points (85.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26707 readers
1398 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think this is a good argument. That said, seems like adding gambling to skeeball or pervasive sports betting apps are good candidates for prohibition by regulation.
I'm concerned about regulatory capture - the industry infiltrates and ends up controlling regulatory bodies because there's so much money to be made.
The answer to regulatory capture isn't prohibition though, because prohibition essentially means unregulated.
Prohibition is effectively the same as a tax on gambling from the point of view of gamblers, but the tax is just the additional effort people have to spend to not get caught or fines when they do. The difference is there's no tax revenue for the governing authority to redistribute, fines go almost exclusively to pay for enforcement.
What I mean is regulating a vice means putting some kind of guard rails on it. Alcohol is legal, but not for children, and many places have rules about how it's advertised, training for servers and not serving clearly intoxicated customers.
Should there be rules about gambling like, "you've lost $10k this month, no more betting for a while", that kind of thing. In recent years it seems like you can bet on anything anywhere, and it's being pushed very hard in advertising. Doesn't seem like there is much going on in the way of regulation.
Similar to alcohol or drugs, legalisation can make things safer. As a bonus it can also open a new revenue stream for government through taxes.
Look at the legalisation of weed in some American states. Instead of a shady dealer you could go into a store. Instead of whatever they had at the time, you have known quality goods. Yes, there's a lot more nuance to it than that, but the general idea is that it takes away randomness/unknowns, and as a bonus: organised crime that would otherwise have been profiting from the industry lose out.*
For gambling the same kind of logic applies. People are going to be gambling anyway, so add in some legal frameworks that can make sure that things are more of a known value, and hopefully less likely to cause harm. Perfect example: you get stiffed on a win? If it's an off the books thing and you complain you'll probably end up with broken legs. If it's a legalised thing you could go to court or a regulatory body.
I don't really give a shit about gambling, but I wish it weren't like 20% of the ads I see and hear. Products and services that are advertised in America are fucking weird, and most of us don't really recognize that until we've spent time outside of the country. Pretty much all I've seen lately is gambling, medications, insurance, and political campaigning.
Same reason for legalizing any addictive vice. Some people find it fun, and don't overindulge
Main thing is it brings in money to the government, similar to taxes on other harmful products like tobacco and alcohol.
Adults should be allowed to do what they want.
Which would be an argument for legalizing anything you can think of
Yup
It's a good one
In a democracy you shouldn't need a reason to legalize something. That's approaching it from the wrong direction.
Most governments you're starting from an existing set of laws, not starting from scratch, so presumably someone at some point had a reason for putting a law into place. Not saying they're all good, plenty of shit laws.
All things being equal we should let people eat what they want. But I don't see much of a benefit, and a lot of downside, to allowing the spread of eating beef.
Which is to say that it's a murky area when you start banning things people find fun because you don't get it.
It may not be beneficial for a government to ban a vice as the costs of banning it may cost more than the costs of society to bear the burden of dealing with the vice.
Of course, there are separate discussions as to how governments should allow capitalism to interact with vices. Take tobacco as an example, a generation ago, tobacco was allowed to be advertised as any other commercial product. That has significantly changed since then, to the point where some governments go so far as regulating packaging.
I expect gambling is on the deregulation path as it is a way for some governments to raise revenue without raising common taxes while the societal costs are seen as low.
What counts as a "legitimate" argument?
Most governments that allow it do so because they get mega bucks in tax revenue from it.
On the other hand, it destroys peoples' lives and facilitates money laundering on an embarrassingly industrial scale.
The counter argument is that the government then uses those tax dollars to build hospitals, schools and roads.
It's up to you if you think that's a legitimate reason :shrug:
In the case of this post whatever people replying consider legitimate.
For me "tax revenue" isn't, if we could get tax revenue off murder for hire we wouldn't do it. It's not like with cannabis where there are more obvious personal benefits and relatively low risks.
I'm more receptive to other commenters points about being able to regulate the activity rather than drive it underground and in doing so strengthen criminal enterprises.
Bring revenue to the local area instead of it going to Vegas etc
It's practically the same thing as lottery tickets (slot machines) or game tournaments with entry fees (cards) so there is precedent to allow similar activities
I want a casino for board games. You play monopoly, connect four, pictionary, whatever. You can bet against the other people, have some drinks and pokie machines are banned. Daytona 500 tournaments, street fighter tournaments. I want real games and small bets. Seems like fun to me.
I'm about tired of hearing and seeing so much gambling shit. It destroys people, it really does.
Sometimes I can't even go on YouTube to watch like even dart streams without 7 people placing bets and complaining how a player cost them X amount of money because that they lost.
Gambling is about as infectious as porn is. Draft Kings can go fuck themselves too.
Maybe folks should mind their own business 🤷♂️ .
Saviour complex and nanny state shit.
I think there's a balance somewhere between helping people handle risk and letting them make their own decisions.
For example, I'm glad the U.S. has the food and drug administration. A person could say "people are smart enough to choose their own food" which is true but I also want there to be a professional who is verifying food doesn't have contaminants in it.
I agree there is a balance. It's repeatedly stepped on.
What you described is creating awareness and accountability to the accuracy of what is being sold. Akin to being told the odds of winning and ensures a level of accuracy where an individual needs to be highly educated and/or wealthy to verify themselves.
What is proposed here is not accuracy. It's telling adults what they can and can't do because people feel all sad because there are idiots and people with addictions.
Well in my example there is also someone with the power to say "this product exceeds x threshold for harmfulness so it's illegal to sell"