[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.