Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Addiction Markets

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#331

Post by bitmasher9 »

InMice wrote: post #286
photon_garden wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway does a great job of this with the government-owned alcohol monopoly. The stores are always just a little bit out of the way, with slightly inconvenient hours. You can still get a beer if you want, but it takes a little bit of doing.

Interesting, didn't know they do that. USA (mostly) doesn't do any to of that and alcohol consumption and its related social costs are declining.

USA absolutely does things to reduce alcohol consumption. Most famously our high drinking age, but also high taxes, rules about public consumption, and various local laws.

Most countries will let 18 year olds drink beer in a park.

Re: Addiction Markets

#332

Post by Dumblydorr »

zkmon wrote: post #298

What happened to America. Maybe 70's or 40's were it's peak. Every activity has become a betting. Investments, sports, relationships, home-buying. Addictions are a symptom of having an excessive amount of free time, floating money and lack of fear of reprisal from family and society and lack of basic wisdom. Excessive prosperity breaks social rythm. It removes dependencies and relations across individuals. It's like…

Excessive prosperity is one phrase for it. Another is kleptocracy, politics have been co-opted by money and those who have it now control 99% of US society.

Those who have no prosperity are often the ones gambling, not the rich. When SS checks come in, our local casino fills with chain smoking seniors pulling levers on the slot with all their retirement security. It’s a sad addiction.

Re: Addiction Markets

#333

Post by m0rissette »

Isn’t everything deceptive? Isn’t every thing that produces a dopaminergic burst addictive? Should we dismantle and ban fast food? Social media? Fried food? Everything is coercive. You want a cure; force feed people mindfulness and psychology. All commercials are potentially coercive and deceptive. I’m watching a Walgreens commercial; there is no line in the commercial, the person behind the pharmacy is smiling and happy, no one else is in the store, the “paid for” actor leaves the pharmacy happy. This just seem like the reality of any Walgreens I’ve visited. But I digress; my argument for addiction markets as a recovering alcoholic… I grew more as a human from the experience of addiction and recovery than any other day to day mundane dopamine driven activity. Sometimes we need to fall to get back up. It makes us stronger, we learn to ask for help.

Re: Addiction Markets

#334

Post by bitmasher9 »

hamasho wrote: post #306
mlrtime wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly pro-market, but I agree with this. I think people should do what they want if they don't harm themselves or others. Advertising these things are different... I don't have a problem with people smoking or drinking, but I agree we shouldn't allow advertising. However, they should be able to advertise in adult only outlets. ex: Does Playboy still have Cigarette and Liqour advertisements?

> I'm fairly pro-market, but I agree with this. I think people should do what they want if they don't harm themselves or others. Is this still pro-market though? I have the same opinion and I often labeled as "anti-market" when I call regulations for gambling, social media, AI, etc.

I think it’s over simplifying a position to say if it’s “pro market” or “anti market”. I would be in favor of more markets existing if there were strict advertising limitations. Of course not advertising limits the growth of those markets.

Re: Addiction Markets

#335

Post by bitmasher9 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #315
shipman05 wrote: post #142

It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty. Sports gambling ads have ruined sports media. State lottery ads are even worse. The government should not spend money to encourage its own citizens to partake in harmful activities.

May I suggest just requiring people to register what how much they want to gamble and then be locked into that. If you want to gamble for 100 usd per month, then you can't bet more than that. You should be able to set your own amount, but any changes should only be active from the next month. This has minimum impact on personal liberty, and will almost eliminate problem gambling.

Problem gamblers will find ways around this regulation. It’ll reduce by adding friction but problem gambling existed before gambling was legalized.

Re: Addiction Markets

#336

Post by the__alchemist »

photon_garden wrote: post #233
shipman05 wrote: post #142

It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty. Sports gambling ads have ruined sports media. State lottery ads are even worse. The government should not spend money to encourage its own citizens to partake in harmful activities.

Norway does a great job of this with the government-owned alcohol monopoly. The stores are always just a little bit out of the way, with slightly inconvenient hours. You can still get a beer if you want, but it takes a little bit of doing.

It's like this for liquor (But not beer or wine) in some US states.

Re: Addiction Markets

#337

Post by clejack »

zkmon wrote: post #298

What happened to America. Maybe 70's or 40's were it's peak. Every activity has become a betting. Investments, sports, relationships, home-buying. Addictions are a symptom of having an excessive amount of free time, floating money and lack of fear of reprisal from family and society and lack of basic wisdom. Excessive prosperity breaks social rythm. It removes dependencies and relations across individuals. It's like…

So to avoid the suffering of gambling we need to simply suffer and toil so much in day to day existence that we don't have the capacity to engage with anything else?

Re: Addiction Markets

#338

Post by hollerith »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #331
InMice wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, didn't know they do that. USA (mostly) doesn't do any to of that and alcohol consumption and its related social costs are declining.

USA absolutely does things to reduce alcohol consumption. Most famously our high drinking age, but also high taxes, rules about public consumption, and various local laws. Most countries will let 18 year olds drink beer in a park.

Until 2004, Massachusetts banned alcohol sales for off-premise consumption on Sundays.

Still in effect is a ban on sales for off-premise consumption after 11:00pm and before 08:00am. Also, the number of stores that can sell alcohol for off-premise consumption is restricted by a quota system.

Re: Addiction Markets

#339

Post by elif »

mattmaroon wrote: post #218
Humorist2290 wrote: post #118

But if you want to outlaw this harmful activity [licensed gambling], you have to find a way to replace 6.4% of Maryland’s budget, which is slightly less than the entire amount the state brings in from corporate taxes. A fraction of the proceeds of losing bets from a fraction of Maryland's citizens contributes almost the same to state services -- EMS, education, road maintenance, etc -- than the total corporate taxes…

No to both. You probably understand it but it’s not that amazing. States don’t tax corporations much (it’s often fairly easy to move your company to the next state over if taxes are lower) the federal government does. They tax things like sales, homes, gambling and other vices, etc.

Yes but states provide the roads, EMS, schools, etc the commenter was talking about, not the autocratic regime.. and the corporations benefit from those services way more than gamblers do.

Re: Addiction Markets

#340

Post by noitpmeder »

onionisafruit wrote: post #171
Humorist2290 wrote: post #118

But if you want to outlaw this harmful activity [licensed gambling], you have to find a way to replace 6.4% of Maryland’s budget, which is slightly less than the entire amount the state brings in from corporate taxes. A fraction of the proceeds of losing bets from a fraction of Maryland's citizens contributes almost the same to state services -- EMS, education, road maintenance, etc -- than the total corporate taxes…

This part seems disingenuous. The article is primarily about sports betting, and the author reports that the amount that a much larger category brings in amounts for 6.4% of Maryland’s budget. Without close reading it leaves the reader with the impression that sports betting is responsible for 6.4% of the budget.

I think the author was more trying to say that to ban sports gambling you may need to ban legalized gambling altogether.
Post reply on HN