Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

you_give_me_coupon t1_izcqqyb wrote

> Trying to abolish something that can be as easily done as sports betting, just causes it to go underground. Those who are addicted will have no protections, they will be able to gamble more than they have, and they will be owing money to potentially dangerous individuals. In a legalized system, you at the very least have to transfer funds in, and that is a very helpful barrier.

This is the same argument that's currently en vogue regarding prostitution. But unsurprisingly, in the countries with legal prostitution, even rich, liberal democracies like Germany, none of the promised protections have arrived, and none of the dangerous people have gone away. Most prostitutes in German brothels are trafficked from poor countries and exploited by pimps, for example. It's tough to imagine it would be any different with gambling. Organized crime already runs the casinos.

One of the greatest tricks of the lower-case-l-liberal ruling class is lowering the bar for evaluating anything to mere consent. We're only allowed to consider if something is allowed, we're never supposed to ask if that thing is something anyone should be doing, and we're never supposed to ask if doing that thing is intrinsically harmful, whether or not anyone consented.

−1

huskers2468 t1_izczk8e wrote

Alcohol prohibition is the best example, and it has decades of time to back it up. Alcohol is not "intrinsically healthy." Alcohol is similar to gambling on many terms.

There aren't many underground distilleries or alcohol smuggling operations. Using the open market for purchasing is a much better option than skirting the law. I would say that it was a success, albeit with the known negatives, but it's better than it was.

Your prostitution example is still new, it's going to take time to adjust. Are you saying that the organized crime today at casinos is just as bad as it was? I'd have to see some statistics on that.

3