[shipman05]

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.

[ACCount37]

"Make it legal but very annoying" is an underrated policy option. And banning advertisement is the first resort in this line of regulation.

If there are no ads to tell you, you have to, first, be informed that sports gambling is a thing people do, then decide that it's a thing you want participate in, and then obtain information on how it's done. This adds friction. Friction reduces participation. But if you really want to gamble? You still can.

[dredmorbius]

Taxing they daylights out of the advertising is another option.

That should push the shadier operators out of the limelight, though it would likely leave large-pot gaming (sports, Powerball, etc.) standing, at least for a while.

(I'd very much like to hear criticisms of this approach.)

[maxerickson]

So this is sort of a gotcha question, but I don't mean it that way.

Is it advertising when the announcer for a game talks about gambling? There's statements that obviously would be advertising, so the interesting thing is where and how to draw the line.

[dghlsakjg]

Not that hard at all. Is the message from the announcer paid for directly or is the casino a sponsor? Its an ad.

If an announcer just wants to talk about gambling, fine, I guess, but I really doubt that there are any announcers that would do much of that.

[jakelazaroff]

I mean, are they being compensated for saying so? The sports gambling industry did not invent advertising; there are already clear laws that govern this.

[xnx]

Agree. Gambling, smoking, drugs, and possibly weed should be legal, but just barely more preferable to obtain legally than illegally.

[photon_garden]

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.

[InMice]

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.

[bitmasher9]

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.

[hollerith]

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.

[premisis]

Your premise, that a premise is a premisis, is incorrect.

[hollerith]

I do not catch your meaning.

Experts sometimes spell it "off-premise":

https://www.nabca.org/covid-19-dashboards-premise-retailers has "While there are several different retail channels permitted to sell alcoholic beverages for offsite (off-premise) consumption".

https://www.parkstreet.com/states/california/ has "Retailers [c]an sell product directly to consumers for on or off-premise consumption".

"Off-premises" is also used.

[BalinKing]

"Premisis" is not an English word, as far as I can tell.

[Workaccount2]

It varies heavily by state. In some places you can buy alcohol anywhere anytime it's open. On the other end there are limited stores that can only sell just beer or just liquor, and their hours are short and days limited. Some local areas are still "dry" and have no place to get alcohol.

It can be a real pain to get alcohol without planning in these places.

[kgwgk]

> You can still get a beer if you want, but it takes a little bit of doing.

It takes a little bit of money but you can get a beer at the supermarket.

[LadyCailin]

Or the bar.

[the__alchemist]

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

[bongodongobob]

Why is that good

[banannaise]

Alternatively: ban the instant-gratification bets. No bets on the outcomes of partial games: one pitch, one at-bat, one inning or quarter or half. If you want to get extreme with it, scorelines only (points, moneyline, over/under).

[ryanjshaw]

Nah the sweet spot is to make the gambling companies pay for the treatment and recovery of the people addicted to their products, up to whatever amount they gave the gambling company.

[mlrtime]

Talk through it, how does that play out exactly?

Do they addicts have to self report to get treatment? Do we force them?

[Ekaros]

I wonder could this be expanded to other areas. Say you run a ski-resort. Any broken bones and other issues are fully on you. To unlimited liability, piercing any corporate setup. Could really work for any sports too.

Food, tobacco, alcohol get more interesting... As there is bit harder time to assign blame of each meal. Maybe in those cases the claimants should be able to fully list everything they have ingested over say past 10 years. So that liability can be fairly and exactly distributed.

[watwut]

Ski resorts do not try to break legs of skiers on purpose. They already have enough incentives to remove danger.

Betting companies employ all the tricks to make you a gambler. The more you loose, the more they target you. And if the gambler atops playing they literally go put of their way to nake them relapse.

[SCdF]

Don't be intentionally daft. Skiing and sports aren't notably addictive, and don't notably cause harm in society.

[parthdesai]

Should we also make sugar companies, coca cola/pepsi pay for people that become obese?

[indolering]

I would support taxes based on long term health effects. The sugar tax in Mexico had measurable impacts IIRC.

[parthdesai]

agree with taxing, but that's not what OP was suggesting

[wombatpm]

Tax advertising for gambling? Require all advertising for gambling to go through a state agency? There is lots a state can do besides banning.

[cael450]

Yeah but banning them is the right thing to do. Why would you have a state agency review gambling ads?

[dredmorbius]

Look at regulated advertising / marketing on tobacco products as examples.

No ads on TV/Radio. Mandated warnings. In some countries, packaging must carry prominent health warnings, in some cases excluding virtually all branding (Australia, for example).

That along with high taxation, smoking cessation programs, legal proceedings against tobacco companies, restrictions on retailling, etc., have drastically reduced smoking rates in many countries.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Public_policy>

[hsbauauvhabzb]

I imagine outright banning would create a fairly large grey market. The objective should be harm reduction, as eradication would be basically impossible.

[margalabargala]

The discussion is about banning the advertising of gambling, not gambling itself.

There won't be a large grey market for advertisements.

[mlrtime]

Wanna bet?

Try regulating that on the internet, or walk down a construction sight in Manhattan, there are illegal ads all over.

[dghlsakjg]

Easily solved.

If someone shows the regulator an ad for fanduel that shouldn't exist, they pull their permit to operate.

We have already seen that you can ban ads pretty effectively. I can't remember the last time I saw a cigarette ad, hell, where I live you can't even display them openly in stores, I can't even recall the last time I saw a cigarette logo.

I have yet to see any 'grey market' cigarette ads.

[margalabargala]

I think we just disagree about the definition of "large" in this context.

The market for what you mention is less than 1% the legal market.

[hobofan]

There is big difference in signaling of social acceptability with advertising existing e.g. as main sponsor of the superbowl vs. existing as Stake logos on social media videos.

[wombatpm]

Prevent false claims, educate people on the foolishness of parleys?

[TeMPOraL]

> Tax advertising

That move alone would make a big dent in many of the major problems of modern living.

[dredmorbius]

Prior to the 1830s, advertising was apparently very heavily taxed in the UK, though I know very few details about this, the reasons why, or what occurred to change this.

[slumberlust]

I'd argue sports ruined their own product with ad insertion at every available opportunity (and even creating new opportunities to shove ads at you). If gambling ads were banned, it'd just be something else crammed down our faces.

[aleph_minus_one]

> I'd argue sports ruined their own product with ad insertion at every available opportunity (and even creating new opportunities to shove ads at you).

Side remark: I love to ridicule that of all things producers of very unhealthy food and beverages (or to put it more directly: producers of foods and drinks that make you fat and thus unathletic) love to sponsor sports events. :-)

[mlrtime]

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?

[hamasho]

  > 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.

[bondarchuk]

Is it pro- or anti-market if you think people should be forced to participate in a market against their will? Attention is a market and there is not always a way to avoid giving your attention to advertising.

[bitmasher9]

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.

[dredmorbius]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure>

[Workaccount2]

In order for people to feel right and feel smart, they need their opponents to have the absolute worst and dumbest takes.

"You're pro-market? Why do you support letting children buy cocaine!?!"

[tomjen3]

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.

[bitmasher9]

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

[Terr_]

Perhaps the important question to study is whether that scheme would prevent people from crossing into the "problem" category when they aren't already.

It's one thing to put a slightly higher number and the number box each time, it's another to do identity theft or coaxing your spouse into letting you play as them.

[TimByte]

Banning or heavily restricting gambling ads feels like the bare minimum, honestly

[gloosx]

Banning anything is the opposite of liberty. There is no sweet spot, either banning, or liberty

> The government should not spend money to encourage its own citizens to partake in harmful activities.

That's what goverment ever do.

[rufus_foreman]

>> It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty

No.

If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty.

I want to restrict individual liberty, I have voted against gambling when it has come up for a vote in my state over and over.

You want to appear to be the type of person who wants to maintain individual liberty, but you in fact are not. You want to restrict individual liberty in the area of gambling.

I would also like to appear to be the type of person who wants to maintain individual liberty, and I will vote against gambling every single time it comes up.

No gambling.

[shipman05]

"If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty."

I grant that, but I never claimed the contrary. I never suggested that banning advertising reduces ALL harm or preserves ALL individual liberty. I just believe an ad ban is a good compromise position.

I'm a former smoker. I would have been outraged had the government tried to ban cigarettes while I was addicted to nicotine. But there's a difference between allowing people to have their vices and allowing people to spend hundreds of millions in multi-media advertising campaigns convincing others to pick up a new one.

[galaxyLogic]

Makes sense. If something is harmful to people, government should

1. Ban advertizing of it. (because it provides no benefit for the nation as a whole)

2. But allow people to do it. (because they will then do it illegally, which is bad for the nation as a whole)

I think it's that simple.

[derektank]

As with many things, the degree matters. It is both an imposition on your liberty to require identification when boarding an airplane and an imposition on your liberty to ban everyone from flying altogether. But one clearly restricts your liberty more than another. I think when choosing between different solutions to a problem, choosing the one that limits your freedom the least is a reasonable rule of thumb.

[rockskon]

Gambling vs advertising gambling are two different things.

Equating them as exactly the same doesn't serve your argument justice even if you do have a point with respect to the OP's "have their cake and eat it too" rhetorical flourish.

[rufus_foreman]

If you want to restrict advertising on gambling you want to restrict individual liberty.

I want to restrict individual liberty.

Do you want to restrict advertising on gambling?

[virtue3]

Advertising isn’t “individual liberty” — it’s paid psychological manipulation.

Banning gambling ads isn’t banning gambling. It’s just stopping corporations from pushing addictive behavior on people who didn’t consent to see it.

We banned cigarette ads for the same reason — harm and addiction.

Limiting corporate ad power protects individual liberty. I can choose to gamble if I want, but I shouldn’t have to fight off brainwashing every time I watch a game.

[Terr_]

It's both liberty and manipulation, simultaneously.

I don't think we can build anything good in the long run if we imagine there's a clear and obvious line between them.

[nine_k]

To ban gambling would be to limit individual liberty (see also: smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, self-harm, suicide).

To ban advertising of gambling is to limit a liberty too, but the kind that substantially affects others. See also: dumping a bucketful of water on a passer-by, smoking in a crowded subway car, blaring super loud music outside at night time.

That second kind of liberty is and will always be limited in a society, voluntarily most of the time, because people want to be good neighbors, not harm each other.

Another problem here is the addiction. Advertising applesauce is one thing, advertising cocaine is another. For some people, gambling is more like cocaine, hampering their reason and forcing their hand in making choices. The freedom to advertise cocaine (and tobacco, alcohol, etc) inevitably gets limited in a society; if it does not, the society likely unravels.

[mlrtime]

Serious question, is everything black/white to you?

Extreme example: I don't have individual liberty to murder or take things that aren't mine. So I'm ok with giving up at least 1 or 2 individual liberties. How many is enough, and who decides?

Or do we all just decide and that is the point of voting, not sure what you're trying to say.

[a123b456c]

> If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty.

No.

An organization's liberty to advertise is not individual liberty.

Let individuals gamble. Do not let organizations advertise gambling services. Organizational liberty is not individual liberty.

[mlrtime]

Devils advocate:

You're restricting my liberty to consume those advertisements. I want to see them and you are restricting them.