Not only does it blow my mind that betting is legal, states run their own goddamn lotteries and made more than $70 billion of revenue doing that in 2014. [0]
I'm pretty sure lotteries have destroyed more lives than all of the drugs combined.
That's quite a claim, what makes you think state lotteries ruin any lives at all? Per capita lottery spend was at just $225 a year in 2016 [0], so no one is going broke playing the lottery, and the revenues typically go to state programs around education.
Per capita may be $225 but gambling isn't distributed evenly through the population. I live in a country with very relaxed laws and I've seen the social problems that unrestricted gambling leads to.
And those problems exist whether you ban gambling or not. Do you think that no-one is addicted to heroin because it is illegal? It is kind of farcical.
If you regulate gambling properly, you actually have tools to control harm. If you don't, then you are increasing harm.
Before state lotteries, there were numbers games run by various organized crime groups and independent operators.
And before that, there were other forms of gambling.
The only difference is where the money goes.
Drugs and alcohol have destroyed far more lives, I can say that with absolute certainty. Drugs are not cheap, plus the drugs affect your judgement/health/family to a far greater degree than just gambling. Just compare the amount of treatment programs for both, etc. It's not even close.
What I'm saying is that gambling should not be legal. I don't know if it's worse than drugs and alcohol (my initial claim is definitely a hyperbole), but it's definitely not good. Just step a foot inside a casino and look at what kind of people spend their days there.
I'm sure there are ways to handle this issue without it leading to the uprising of organized crime.
Rates of gambling addiction are tiny compared to other kinds of addiction (0.5-1%).
More to the point though, the absolute worse way to help people who are sick is to criminalise their sickness. By legalising gambling you can generate money to invest in harm prevention.
The way the US approached the issue has led to terrible outcomes for gambling addicts, funding for organised crime, and has led to the creation of a powerful lobbying groups (in Las Vegas Sands/Adelson) that obstructs progress.
It is kind of bizarre to see these comments in the 21st century. For the rest of the world, these issues have been solved.
The second worst way to help people who are sick is to flood the market with their addiction, and then justify that as a way to essentially redistribute money from the desperate and the stupid, to the rich and cruel. That the latter then shares a cut with some half-asses public programs doesn’t change the way the money was made.
Don’t make it illegal, but don’t encourage it. I support total legalization of all drugs for example, but not advertising them or encouraging people to take a vacation to a shooting gallery.
...but that isn't occurring in any regulated markets. The reason that is happening is because, in the US, this is a grey area. The process has been captured by casino operators (btw, a casino operator is one of the largest Republican donors) and, ironically, they have co-opted religious groups who are saying the same stuff as you (religious groups have given up on LV but casino operators like these groups shutting down the competition).
Every regulated market has removed the incentive completely for organised crime. In addition to substantial harm reduction measures that actually make it easier for addicts to get help (where I am, gambling addiction charities are well-funded to an almost obscene level i.e. probably $100m+ in a country with a population of tens of millions) and work with operators to exclude these people from any form of gambling. Again though: this isn't unknown. Lots of countries are doing this, you just need to know about the world beyond your small corner.
You’re talking just about casinos while ignoring, for some reason, lotteries and scratch cards. Framing this as regulatory or political capture is laughable when prior to the internet taking off, state and national lotteries were the most common form of gambling in America.[1] After the internet became the go-to... guess what lotteries are still far and away the top.[2] In fact lotteries being in more revenue than all Indian and commercial casinos combined.
This isn’t about organized crime, it’s not even about private enterprise. This is about taking money from people who predominantly cannot afford it, in the context of shitty educations and stagnant wages. It’s not about “Vinny” breaking legs, it’s Uncle Sam. I’d add that “Harm reduction” is fine in the context parties who don’t directly profit from the harm, and in the context of readily available and high quality treatment.
Getting out and around and learning about the world at large is good, but in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge about your own “corner” it’s just empty puffery trying to sound worldly.
Yep, that is the point...there isn't a spectrum. Countries that have tried to take the middle ground, like the US, have ended up with a political system that is bought and paid for by casino groups (because they are often the only vested interest in semi-regulated markets, another possible comparison is Hong Kong but that is more complicated). Afaik, the only non-theocracy with regulations that as severe as the US is South Korea (military dictatorship within living memory).
There is nothing immoral about gambling. Smoking and alcohol are infinitely more harmful, are they immoral too? On what basis? If you enjoy gambling, fine...good for you. Addiction affects a tiny proportion of the population, under 1%. And we can reduce this by being adults, and working with operators on harm reduction rather than judging people. The implication that people who gamble or gambling addicts are immoral is quite sad. It is common to most theocracies but these are usually places that will rail against immorality of things like gambling and then drop bombs on their citizens the next week. Moral authorities indeed.
What makes you think people wouldn't otherwise blow their money on something else if they couldn't gamble? The next high for them could be any other sort of get-rich-quick scheme, or state sanctioned addictions like alcohol and cigarettes. Why do you think it's up to the state to tell people they can't waste their money or ruin their own lives?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/23/per-capit...