61–70 of 106 posts
Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?
As an Australian, living in a society where betting is legal albeit fairly regulated: I sincerely hope not. The reason for that hope is that gambling and gambling advertising, with the rise of online betting sites and smartphone apps, has started to become a fairly genuine social issue. With advertisements like this one ( https://twitter.com/sportsbetcomau/status/863634984682233856 ) [note: Ben Johnson recently was f…
We allow daytrading while you drink! Impaired daytrading!
Soon in California you will be able to be under the influence of marijuana while you daytrade!
If anything, I would like to see gambling completely in the open across the entire US. Prohibitions against it are a silly throwback.
If you are an adult and want to spend your life savings on craps, go for it. If you lose all of your money, sorry but you are an ADULT.
I love going to Vegas. Most times I don't gamble at all. My wife knows to stop when she is down $1k. She KNOWS that with almost 100% certainty, she will hit this limit. She even enjoys a drink while gambling. If this experience is beyond the discipline of other people, they should stay away and let the ADULTS enjoy themselves.
Our notions of legislating away all risk is inane. Just this weekend my friend was threatened with a $650 fine for riding his mountain bike on a Santa Clara County trail without a helmet. What? What next, will I be put in a police car if I go jogging without elbow pads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gambling hasn't always been so difficult. It's a practice with a long social history, often including attempts to stamp it out. Out of all of that, my impression is that it is generally not viewed as characteristically a vice of the old. How are things different now? Do you think it's just that if you grow up around legal gambling and you're the type to waste everything you have on it, you won't have any money left t…
Its a nasty addiction that’s been layered with a veneer of legitimacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gambling hasn't always been so difficult. It's a practice with a long social history, often including attempts to stamp it out. Out of all of that, my impression is that it is generally not viewed as characteristically a vice of the old. How are things different now? Do you think it's just that if you grow up around legal gambling and you're the type to waste everything you have on it, you won't have any money left t…
Its a nasty addiction that’s been layered with a veneer of legitimacy.
Everyone who gambles understands that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and if the casino lost more than they won, it wouldn't be a casino at all.
No one is told they will always win. True, there is manipulation, but all advertising is based on manipulation, as is most of our media.
Why don't we talk about banning alcohol? From deaths to sickness to loss of quality of life, alcohol is the grand-daddy of vice! But coastal liberals love their Pinot Noir, craft beer and boutique small-batch scotch, so instead we talk about limiting the vices of red-staters (guns, gambling, tobacco)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the particular issue, the point is that the sovereign state of New Jersey should be allowed to make whatever laws it wants, other than those it explicitly agreed not to by signing the U.S. Constitution. Self-determination of peoples, and all that...
I get the general point, but as far as I know that purist interpenetration is not actually applied in courts or used in legislatures, other than in a very general sense. I'd love it if someone could inform us about what the laws really are (not the 10th Amendment, but the body of Congressional and state laws) and how they are applied by courts. > Self-determination of peoples People in Newark have self-determination…
Well, you're right about that. In practice New Jersey can be forced to commit to go further than what they've agreed to. That doesn't make it right.
> People in Newark have self-determination in Washington; they elected those government officials too.
This is a bit of a distortion of the concept. If the UN started telling your country whether it could legalize gambling or not (totally unjustified by anything in the UN charter) and had a military to back this up, would you still feel like you had "self-determination" because you get one vote in the General Assembly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as an American, the choice in our society isn't between "voluntarily allow its citizens to be taken advantage of" and not that. It's between allowing gambling to be run by organized crime and creating a system that enables at least a modicum of accountability.
Disagree. This is probably true among your demographic but it's not true of the biggest whales for casinos: really old people. My grandparents wouldn't break the law to gamble but given the chance would blow hundreds of dollars on slots in a single visit to a casino. And they would go as often as possible because they liked the attention casinos gave them and they had nothing better to do. Sure maybe legal gambling w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. This is probably true among your demographic but it's not true of the biggest whales for casinos: really old people. My grandparents wouldn't break the law to gamble but given the chance would blow hundreds of dollars on slots in a single visit to a casino. And they would go as often as possible because they liked the attention casinos gave them and they had nothing better to do. Sure maybe legal gambling w…
Give your family some credit. They could have sought out a casino somehow and lost their life savings many times over if they were as dim-witted and susceptible as you think they are.
I never called them dim-witted in a mean sense, I mean that when you are old you aren't able to think with the same mental acuity as you once could. People with Alzheimer's or that are beginning to grow senile really are like children, and they are susceptible
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as an American, the choice in our society isn't between "voluntarily allow its citizens to be taken advantage of" and not that. It's between allowing gambling to be run by organized crime and creating a system that enables at least a modicum of accountability.
>>> between allowing gambling to be run by organized crime and creating a system that enables at least a modicum of accountability. By that logic nothing should be illegal as making anything illegal simply creates a black market. Some things are bad. Some things are just evil and need to be banned. Laws are meant to prevent people from doing things they otherwise would want to do. Gambling is a classic vice. If peopl…
If this was put to a national referendum today, no more than 10% of the votes would be to ban gambling. People enjoy it and are overwhelmingly capable of grasping the risks. For those that can't, stay away or phone that number on the sign in the casino that puts you in touch with a gambling addiction counselor.
Silicon Valley has such a myopic worldview...Facebook and Twitter are much more harmful to the fabric of society than a one-armed bandit in Vegas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ben Johnson recently was found to be on PEDs Recently? Wasn't he caught in 1988?
I mean, on a universal timeline that's pretty recent. (I have no idea who Ben Johnson is or was. You are probably correct, and I probably look silly.)
Well I do recall that as soon as he was caught, some in the Canadian media cynically referred to him as Jamaican.
Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?
On one hand, I can see this. Having worked in a casino, my gut reaction is, "If you are that dumb then you deserve to lose everything." But on the other hand, there is the societal good of not having people throw away their money and spend it on things like paying their rent/mortgage and healthcare and education and not be a burden to society.
Will you destroy all of your personal stock of this poison for the benefit of society and forsake it forevermore? If not, why not?