[Brusco_RF]

Allow me to play devils advocate. If a consenting adult wants to blow their whole paycheck at the casino, who are you to stop them? The casino did not trick or coerce the gambler. The rules are known and unchanging. According to the principles of freedom, you can't interfere with what two consenting parties agree to on their own. Why do you get to insert yourself in this transaction?

[kthejoker2]

First, of course the casino "tricked" them, they literally manipulate their senses (visual, audio, temporal, spatial), they are Skinner boxes controlled by the opertaor.

Second, addiction suggests lack of full consent.

And clearly there are negative externalities to such a choice. That person may have a family, other debts they don't pay, may make poorer life choices as a result of blowing their paycheck , may choose violence or drugs or self-harm ... most of which will cost taxpayers and other third parties.

[justinhj]

The argument seems to be whether people should be free to pursue activities they enjoy even if there are inherent risks, or if people feel that they know better and should step in to protect them from their own choices. It seems similar to how people feel about free speech.

[kthejoker2]

Again, "choices" made while in an addictive state is not "your own choice" (especially as it pertains to the developing brains of minors) and couching it in those terms is not helpful.

Also "enjoy" is a loaded term.

[coding123]

It sounds like a person that could spend their money like that because of the right music and lighting effects should probably get help before going to a casino.

Also, just as likely this person is already abusing their body with drugs.

This planet is HARD and not every thing born on it is going to have a good time. Ask the squirrels my neighbors shoot at if life is fair.

[kthejoker2]

Isn't this article and thread about a kind of "help" that person could get from regulators?

[affinepplan]

"X is a bad idea, therefore it should be illegal"

[kthejoker2]

I didn't comment on the legality at all. I just disagree that this proposed scenario happens in a vacuum of full consent and free of consequences.

[jowea]

Nobody is an island. I would guess that the vast majority of cases of "blow their whole paycheck at the casino" is going to lead to some problem that society is going to have to solve afterwards.

[d_sem]

This is not a devils advocate because in your hypothetical you already defined the gambler was a fully consenting, which is in alignment with the persons comment you replied to.

A more accurate devils advocate could be one who suggest that forms of manipulation and coercion should be allowed because its physically possible in reality to do so.

[Brusco_RF]

I think it is a devils advocate because there are plenty of people who think the state should disallow gambling by consenting adults.

As for when coercion is used... I don't think it's useful to play devils advocate for coercion. That one is settled, everyone already agrees that coercion is bad.

[pharrington]

How about you just don't go out of your way to predictably, deliberately make people's lives worse just so you can make a buck?