[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/29332/gross-gaming-revenue-fr...
Reasonable overview here and it's only gotten worse since 2024. https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...
I'm eating just ramen here ...
Beyond that however I agree that turning this loose on the American public is an incredibly short-sighted act, but it's part of a pattern rather than an outlier.
So rationality? You're assuming there's good options available for these people. But if they don't own a home ... they won't lose much, and their careers provide them with little to gain month to month.
Isn't it rational under those circumstances to try to get quick large reward ... or fail entirely? When you have no real other options and even arguably little to lose?
The time when being a non-educated worker in a big city would get you a house, a family, and pretty good comfort, enabling ordering 5 beers most evenings in a pub, have a hobby, ... has long ended, at least in Australia.
morality is completely out the window
Gambling benefits society but kratom does not.
---USGBetting of any type is bad for humanity
You should allow people to bet sums on whether you're gonna get shot tomorrow, so you can have the best possible information!
Of course there's no incentives for acting badly against you, and if there are it's again, just price discovery.
I'm honestly curious if it's better to have some outlet for people who love gambling, and just have some cap, vs trying to ban it altogether.
I'm going with the rollout of LED headlights on that one, but reasonable people can disagree.
No reference - no comparison.
Here's an unforced error.
* Person 1: "$THING is a problem for a significant chunk of people. My audience might not feel it, but it's still true."
* Person 2: "But what if we are feeling it!? Ah-hah! I found an error! You goofed!"
* Person 3: "That's really not the point, stop nitpicking the disclaimer."
As with many other psychological phenomenona, finances and education only protect to a certain degree or not at all, depending on what one is talking about in detail.
This is not a comment about correlation or causation of wealth with mental health, but rather a warning to keep in the back of ones head; success and a sharp mind don't make one immune against mental health issues in general and gambling addiction in particular.
That's a tough sell; the US makes a lot of errors. Assuming "public policy" means "domestic"; their industrial policy promoting deindustrialisation seems like a bigger error. After a few moments of thought I'd probably argue the Bush-Obama era establishment of a massive internal surveillance apparatus (including a secret court) is a strong contender for biggest unforced error in living memory. There might be bigger ones but the US citizens lost a remarkable amount there. It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret. And the use of spying and federal harassment of political opponents seems to have been steadily normalising.
Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
But for others their "fill" is so high their addictions will wreck them entirely regardless of means.
But perhaps to your point, if I'm give it charity, people with less means are more likely to get entirely wrecked by certain addictions.
bvcp•31m ago
stevenpetryk•29m ago
bigyabai•29m ago
WarOnPrivacy•24m ago
> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition
And applied to gambling, this seems like an conjured argument, so oft repeated it has morphed into a platitude. I'm not aware of research that indicate that having the state safeguard gambling improves society in a quantifiable way - the lowest possible bar of "much better".
The gross proliferation of gambling ads certainly feels far removed from any notion of watching out for society's well being.
Rapzid•16m ago
asanineassasin•24m ago
But i do not see, what the meta-narrative wrapped around the problem adds to the conversation. What do all these moralin negators add to the conversation? Just step back, be a example and remain virtuous while the rest of the world follows "First comes the feast, then the morals?"
This is such a discourse decay, we used to have analysis, a whole pyramid of needs- and a culture with a dedication to keeping the machine that gives us the luxus of morals at any costs. Now instead of guarding civilizations and the machine that keeps it going, we get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant, for whom their virtuous self-important abstinence from the decay, makes them blue blooded, nobles even.
jbellis•23m ago
(And yes, I am using the word "ban" as shorthand for "extremely tight/onerous regulations in red and blue states, respectively".)
zeryx•22m ago
tyrabound•20m ago
Do people who have actually had to earn and deserve what they have gamble?
charcircuit•16m ago
fn-mote•15m ago
The whole article's complaint isn't about the legality of sports gambling. It's about the prevalence of advertising. Of course the author doesn't like it, period, but once the billions started rolling in the politicians got out of the way.
I'm sure this will be inflammatory, but's not meant to be. It's like having separate smoking areas in bars/restaurants vs everybody smokes anywhere they want.