It is stunning to me that gambling is legal. It preys upon people who are vulnerable to gambling addiction, most other people are not interested. Laws need to change so that in America, even tribes are not allowed to promote this family and person destroying activity.
Here in Croatia they passed a law last year that forbids traders to open on Sundays except for 16 weekends of their choosing. Betting shops and casinos are exempt!
Why should tribal sovereignty be diminished yet again in order to benefit the American state and people?
Edit: I see now that OP was specifically referring to restricting the promotion of gambling. Such restrictions seem reasonable where it doesn’t infringe on the sovereignty of the tribes.
Assuming we're talking about online gambling, and taking for granted that we ought to ban gambling, presumably sovereign tribes should have the same rules as betting sites from any other sovereign nation, which I think at least previously meant that it would be illegal and payment processors weren't allowed to facilitate it? Likewise it would make sense to ban any advertising of casinos off of tribal land.
Given that GP called out the tribes specifically, I figured they were referring to the casinos on tribal land.
Online gambling restrictions are sensible in that “online content/services” are a kind of import when accessed from within non-tribal US territory (To me at least, but IANAL).
They did say they shouldn't be allowed to promote it (which I take to mean outside tribal land). A ban on advertising gambling in places where it's illegal seems reasonable to me. They could put a billboard right on the border like some states have with e.g. fireworks.
Ah I did miss the narrowing to “promote it”. I have no issue with that either, as ads presented within the territory of the US, are again a kind of import.
Might need to narrow the wording further though, since as you point out, billboards are advertising and could be erected solely on tribal land and should probably be protected for reasons of tribal sovereignty.
That’s determined by the tribe, not the US government. Not sure how else the tribes would manage it without extensive record-keeping or some sort of “re-citizenship” test/process. But again, that’s their/your sovereign right to determine for yourselves.
Either way, the US government isn’t making these casino allowances based on race.
(There is the CDIB, which I’m sure you’re aware of, which is used to confer federal assistance in other areas but doesn’t confer tribal membership. Sounds like you might disagree with that race-based assistance as well? But I’m not sure how else the government is supposed to repair the race-based harms it already inflicted.
Seems like if you knock a family down for being X, then when you go and later lift them up, the reason your lifting them up is not because they’re X; it’s because you knocked them down in the first place.)
Once people open the door to using race based discrimination as a tool, they often find it is used in ways they find reprehensible.
No one alive today is responsible for the harms of our ancestors, and all of us have had ancestors who were slaves at one point or another. No one should get special treatment based on race.
In the context of fighting alcoholism, it was very effective. I'm not sure what other metric would matter—you're never going to be able to ban alcohol consumption (or gambling) entirely. Presumably the point is harm reduction, not absolute abstinence.
EDIT: I reworded the above; it's static now. I, however, also would like to ban gambling again. I've watched multiple people in my life have their lives consumed by gambling apps(!?!) and I don't ever see them straightening their lives out without assistance from the state.
I think harm reduction is worthwhile. You're very correct that both responsible and irresponsible people will engage in the behavior regardless, but even if I were really into sports gambling (which I'm not really morally opposed to per se) I don't think being able to do it with strangers from my couch is worth the harm I observed.
To be frank, the adults i referred to that are being sucked into this are very easily taken advantage of: illiterate, financially illiterate, and easily swindled by that One Big Win. That really does make my stomach turn. Even just making them trek across town to the casino would mark a noticeable increase in life quality. Watching them spend literally their last dollar on gambling every night truly makes me despair. In many ways I would prefer they spend it on alcohol.
Roger that, I agree with you, the point about making someone need to drive across town does introduce friction. Knowing what I know about gamblers, that commute would just become part of their addiction ritual. All addicts have a ritual.
Gambling prohibition went fine. The laws were relaxed because there was money to be made, not because they were causing problems.
The GP outlines why alcohol and gambling are distinguished. Alcohol is enjoyed by a majority of people, with a very small minority abusing it. Gambling is enjoyed by a much smaller portion of people, a larger portion of whom abuse it. This is especially true with respect to where money is made off of gambling. Since so much more money can be made off of single person from gambling than alcohol, the portion of the money made in gambling from abusers is much higher.
At least for the stock market, the difference is the barrier to entry to being a "accredited investor" is significantly higher, and risk mitigation offerings exist. And gamification is regulated to a certain extent.
Meanwhile gambling laws are a patchwork of legacy state, tribal, and federal laws.
The primary reason American gambling has exploded in recent years is the Supreme Court, which decreed federal restrictions on sports gambling as unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_... So "laws" aren't really enough.
2. One state allows gambling and its neighbor doesn't: Gamblers in the non-gambling state use websites / travel to locations in the gambling state, spending massive amounts of money there. Both states experience the negative side effects of gambling, but the one that allows gambling gets a huge tax influx, and the one that forbids gambling loses tax revenue.
3. All states allow gambling: No state has a tax advantage, but all states have the negative externalities of gambling.
Individual states probably don't have the authority, and certainly not the clout, to do much about their citizens going to the neighboring state to gamble. The federal government used to have the authority, and certainly does have the clout, to make a dent in inter-country gambling.
The federal government still has the authority to regulate/ban gambling transactions that cross state lines (including online). Needing to cross state lines also creates a large barrier for lots of people vs. having it on your phone.
you are forgetting that gambling is an addiction… crossing state lines for gamblers is not a large barrier much like it isn’t for sexual predator and other deviants/addicts.
It is a huge barrier for someone like a college student that doesn't have a car, or if they did they'd have to drive for hours. They'll never have an opportunity to get started. It's wildly different from Disney (or their university) advertising sports betting during games and having them download an app.
I am thinking based on reading your words that you are upstanding citizen who was raised well and never fell into an addiction trap.
but trust me, for people with addiction traveling 1000 miles without a car is a non-issue (speaking from quite personal experiences). some stuff might slow you down but not prevent you from reaching a goal and quenching your thirst
The point is that vastly fewer people will become addicts in the first place if you don't literally advertise it during games and let them download an app and get going in a couple seconds. Stopping 100% of addicts isn't the goal. The goal is to discourage it, or at least not encourage it.
We don't need cartoons pushing cigarettes on kids, and rightly banned that. We don't need Disney and schools pushing gambling on young adults. The current situation is that some public schools are literally pushing gambling on students. It's a complete betrayal toward the younger generation by the older ones (yes, state lotteries are also bad).
I dont disagree at all - I think gambling should be outright illegal. there are hordes of “fans” of all sports in america that watch the sport only in the interest of gambling and nothing else. the last superbowl I was at a party and was asked in disbelief many times how come I don’t have any “action” on the game so much so that it made me feel like I am somehow “weird” … just take football for example, games are 3+ minutes long, there is on average 11-ish minutes of actual gameplay, the commentators are paid more than maybe handful of players on the field… no wonder one needs gambling to keep money machine churning
i predict that within my lifetime (i've got about 40 years left) a college football player will be killed due to a spread-related mistake on the field.
Not yet but there's a precedent for incredibly perverse incentives caused by sports gambling -- most iconically the White Sox throwing the world series in 1919.
I'm against lots of antisocial behaviors and one of the antisocial behaviors I oppose is exploiting addicts by running a casino. I value the safety of my fellow citizens (the many) over a few businessmen's wealth accumulation.
I don’t speak for all Americans. I do hate gambling as I have seen it destroy families while not have any redeeming qualities. I can give justifications for sports, hunting, and drinking. But I see gambling as purely destructive. And yes the puritan in me sees Las Vegas as a city built to prey on gamblers and a way for the mafia to launder money.
There's a great lesswrong article that provides a libertarian critique of phone based sports betting as well as some good attempts to quantify the damage that it does.
I see a bunch of comments about whether gambling should be banned or not. But what about enforcement : can you ban it?
Nowadays, gambling is on 2 fronts : in-person and online. I am not sure about % distribution between them but I suspect online is not too small.
In-person gambling operations should be fairly easy to ban.
But online is a different problem because there will always be some country where gambling websites are legal.
And what's stopping gamblers from bypassing online restrictions (VPNs, cryptocurrencies, etc)?
I think an un-enforceable law holds no value and shows naive idealism. I agree that banning gambling would save the in-person gamblers but eventually, we risk them converting to online gamblers. (If vast majority of gambling is in-person, then maybe it's worth it).
It's an interesting coincidence that gambling laws are becoming more permissive in most places now that online gambling is becoming more prevalent. Another comment wonderfully put it as a possible prisoners dilemma. If place#1 bans gambling, gamblers from that place would go to place#2 that has gambling : now place#1 has both gamblers and less-tax-revenue while place#2 has same gamblers but more-tax-revenue.
> And what's stopping gamblers from bypassing online restrictions (VPNs, cryptocurrencies, etc)?
You ban financial institutions from facilitating illegal transactions and treat use of cryptocurrency to attempt to bypass restrictions as money laundering. In any case there's a large difference between "download the ESPN betting app" being advertised during games and "use a VPN to send monero to sportsbetting.ru" being info you can find from a dedicated scene. You don't really have to enforce things war-on-drugs style to keep it out of the mainstream/prevent major corporations from pushing it.
My understanding is that online gambling starting growing a lot more after legalization (and subsequent mass advertising), not the other way around. Disney has an official betting app now. Public schools push it on students.
57 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadEdit: I see now that OP was specifically referring to restricting the promotion of gambling. Such restrictions seem reasonable where it doesn’t infringe on the sovereignty of the tribes.
Online gambling restrictions are sensible in that “online content/services” are a kind of import when accessed from within non-tribal US territory (To me at least, but IANAL).
Might need to narrow the wording further though, since as you point out, billboards are advertising and could be erected solely on tribal land and should probably be protected for reasons of tribal sovereignty.
Either way, the US government isn’t making these casino allowances based on race.
(There is the CDIB, which I’m sure you’re aware of, which is used to confer federal assistance in other areas but doesn’t confer tribal membership. Sounds like you might disagree with that race-based assistance as well? But I’m not sure how else the government is supposed to repair the race-based harms it already inflicted.
Seems like if you knock a family down for being X, then when you go and later lift them up, the reason your lifting them up is not because they’re X; it’s because you knocked them down in the first place.)
No one alive today is responsible for the harms of our ancestors, and all of us have had ancestors who were slaves at one point or another. No one should get special treatment based on race.
How did alcohol probation go? Why would gambling be different?
In the context of fighting alcoholism, it was very effective. I'm not sure what other metric would matter—you're never going to be able to ban alcohol consumption (or gambling) entirely. Presumably the point is harm reduction, not absolute abstinence.
EDIT: I reworded the above; it's static now. I, however, also would like to ban gambling again. I've watched multiple people in my life have their lives consumed by gambling apps(!?!) and I don't ever see them straightening their lives out without assistance from the state.
That was the poor point I was trying to make about prohibition. Similar to the war on drugs I suppose.
To be frank, the adults i referred to that are being sucked into this are very easily taken advantage of: illiterate, financially illiterate, and easily swindled by that One Big Win. That really does make my stomach turn. Even just making them trek across town to the casino would mark a noticeable increase in life quality. Watching them spend literally their last dollar on gambling every night truly makes me despair. In many ways I would prefer they spend it on alcohol.
Just my two cents, of course.
The GP outlines why alcohol and gambling are distinguished. Alcohol is enjoyed by a majority of people, with a very small minority abusing it. Gambling is enjoyed by a much smaller portion of people, a larger portion of whom abuse it. This is especially true with respect to where money is made off of gambling. Since so much more money can be made off of single person from gambling than alcohol, the portion of the money made in gambling from abusers is much higher.
Meanwhile gambling laws are a patchwork of legacy state, tribal, and federal laws.
It won't stop anyone from playing with options.
But not at the same scale that you could while gambling.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014-229
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robinhood-halts-trading-amids...
1. No states allow gambling: Everything is normal
2. One state allows gambling and its neighbor doesn't: Gamblers in the non-gambling state use websites / travel to locations in the gambling state, spending massive amounts of money there. Both states experience the negative side effects of gambling, but the one that allows gambling gets a huge tax influx, and the one that forbids gambling loses tax revenue.
3. All states allow gambling: No state has a tax advantage, but all states have the negative externalities of gambling.
Individual states probably don't have the authority, and certainly not the clout, to do much about their citizens going to the neighboring state to gamble. The federal government used to have the authority, and certainly does have the clout, to make a dent in inter-country gambling.
but trust me, for people with addiction traveling 1000 miles without a car is a non-issue (speaking from quite personal experiences). some stuff might slow you down but not prevent you from reaching a goal and quenching your thirst
We don't need cartoons pushing cigarettes on kids, and rightly banned that. We don't need Disney and schools pushing gambling on young adults. The current situation is that some public schools are literally pushing gambling on students. It's a complete betrayal toward the younger generation by the older ones (yes, state lotteries are also bad).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal
or pay them
that will happen for sure, if it already hasn't
We’ve had it in the UK forever. The sky hasn’t fallen in. Yes, we have addicts, just as we have alcoholics, most people are, well, normal.
You can just not. I like a bit of a play now and then. In fact, I bet on the US election which was genuinely useful as a financial hedge for me.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tHiB8jLocbPLagYDZ/the-online...
Gambling ads everywhere, poker machines at venues in many suburban neighbourhoods, and of course huge financial losses for the gamblers.
Nowadays, gambling is on 2 fronts : in-person and online. I am not sure about % distribution between them but I suspect online is not too small. In-person gambling operations should be fairly easy to ban.
But online is a different problem because there will always be some country where gambling websites are legal.
And what's stopping gamblers from bypassing online restrictions (VPNs, cryptocurrencies, etc)?
I think an un-enforceable law holds no value and shows naive idealism. I agree that banning gambling would save the in-person gamblers but eventually, we risk them converting to online gamblers. (If vast majority of gambling is in-person, then maybe it's worth it).
It's an interesting coincidence that gambling laws are becoming more permissive in most places now that online gambling is becoming more prevalent. Another comment wonderfully put it as a possible prisoners dilemma. If place#1 bans gambling, gamblers from that place would go to place#2 that has gambling : now place#1 has both gamblers and less-tax-revenue while place#2 has same gamblers but more-tax-revenue.
You ban financial institutions from facilitating illegal transactions and treat use of cryptocurrency to attempt to bypass restrictions as money laundering. In any case there's a large difference between "download the ESPN betting app" being advertised during games and "use a VPN to send monero to sportsbetting.ru" being info you can find from a dedicated scene. You don't really have to enforce things war-on-drugs style to keep it out of the mainstream/prevent major corporations from pushing it.
My understanding is that online gambling starting growing a lot more after legalization (and subsequent mass advertising), not the other way around. Disney has an official betting app now. Public schools push it on students.