Again, agree something is needed. But interested in exploring the fuzzy boundary limits of how far to go. Alcohol rules in Texas
are almost comical, with prior 10am on Sundays restrictions , dry counties, with food exceptions, age limits, etc
If into playing lottery games (powerball…) there is the Jackpocket app; but is that bad
because it’s too convenient by using your phone and should be outlawed ?
Then there is the messy often discussed restrictions on proposed sugar consumption for our walking obese kids and adults…Think
most can see obesity as health, and thus society, risks…but how far do you go ?
What is the guiding principle to infringing on
everybody’s personal freedoms ?
Tricky issue but agree some regulation is probably needed. We regulate all kinds of things that are financially harmful to people. That includes other forms of gambling, payday loans, credit cards, high risk investing, etc.
I’m not sure how to do it or what’s specifically needed but there is precedence to do more than we are currently. Seems like we’ve created a bit of a mess.
I guess you could say these people he have a budget for their potential addiction, which serves as self-imposed control, but my question would then be how many go over budget?
The concept of an addict having control is amusing. The lack of control to a substance or behavior is what makes them an addict.
I don’t mean that as a moral failing, I mean that some folks can do a thing and take it or leave it (I’m like that with gambling). Others cannot. An addict cannot.
This is true, but does it make sense to enact legislation that provides control to addicts? There are no limits on how much an alcoholic can buy and drink. If cigarettes are still your thing, you can smoke as many of those as you can afford. People with no control over shopping impulses can spend to their hearts’ content. Porn addicts can…well, you know.
If I can be a day-trader with no guardrails beyond what the trading platform requires, then there should be no reason I can’t decide to be a “professional” gambler. Besides, if you’re going to put limitations on gambling, then you should also limit who can buy lottery tickets and how much they can spend on them. This is not the way to go.
I’m not a gambler and never will be - just not my thing. So if it all gets banned, I don’t have any skin in the game.
I just don’t like inviting more government control over how people live their lives. The world is full of people making bad decisions that wreck relationships, cause bankruptcies, and ruin their own lives. Freedom doesn’t always have great results, but that’s kind of an inherent feature.
Hard drugs are in no way the equivalent of gambling.
The fact that it causes bad outcomes for most isn’t justification for limiting it. It’s either legal or it isn’t - there really isn’t any middle ground beyond age limits connected to a determination of adulthood.
So if that’s an issue, then enforce them. The failure to enforce one set of laws doesn’t necessitate new ones that are even more onerous.
Whether it’s “the worst” is entirely a matter of opinion. I see the exact same arguments against it that I see when dry counties try to legalize alcohol sales. And they aren’t convincing.
For me personally, gambling is fine and should not be limited in any way. But I hate that all sports have invited it in to be an integral part of their games. THAT’S the real problem that I would like to see rectified.
When you try to make the “addiction” argument, then they absolutely are, given that they are legal and their use is not limited (beyond age). Hard drugs are not legal, so they aren’t in the same discussion.
They aren’t legal because of the impact they have on people.
If we are using the freedom argument, it’s not that different. We are limiting freedom in making them illegal just like we could limit gambling in some ways.
It’s limiting something that’s highly addictive like gambling is. We limit lots of things. Maybe you limit certain types of gambling that’s highly addictive as opposed to everything.
Another thing we do is limit cigarette marketing. There may be a way we should do that with gambling too. There are options that aren’t crazy.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
36
I am all for it.
“Hey espn you can no longer have odds listed or shows about fantasy football”
Again I am all for it.
Do you think they will aggree to that?
I really wish they would.
We keep framing this as individual freedom vs individual good or harm. The big thing is the externalities involved. The whole idea of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. We regulate things like pollution on these grounds, even though it impacts certain parties’ freedom, because of the diffuse costs to many who are otherwise uninvolved.
With sports gambling, sure, there are some who will lose big and ruin themselves and their families. There are some addicts. But these aren’t the only harms. There’s too great a risk to the integrity of the competitions. Leagues already get a lot of exemption from anti trust regulation because the alternative wild West of leagues would cause greater harm (so we’ve determined over time). If those competitions aren’t on the level, everybody loses, even if not involved in gambling, even if not personally competing and making a living from it.
We regulate oil handling because an oil spill would suck, not because it’s constantly spilling.
This is not an argument for regulating sports betting - this is an argument for making all of it “illegal.”
There’s really not much use in trying to draw parallels with pollution or oil handling or whatever unless you believe that people choose to pollute waterways or spill oil because they get enjoyment from the thrill of doing it. Not the same thing, and nobody is claiming that polluters are addicted to polluting.
If you think gambling on sports should be made illegal, then just say that. It won’t stop gambling on sports, but it will make it more difficult like it used to be. But does that cure the threat to the game?
I’d venture to say 98+% of sports betters do not influence the outcomes. Making sports betting illegal would not stop fixing the games. That would still happen by those who have have done so in the past.
SigEpCoog2005
(SHAUN - Bill Yeoman needs to be honored with a BOBBLEHEAD!)
40
As far as a retirement plan goes my mom’s investment advisor told her that owning investment property is gambling, stocks are the only sure thing.
