Should Online Gambling Be Completely Legalized?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Sorry if this doesn't generate discussion, but I haven't seen this polled as a partisan breakdown on here - solely in the morality poll when 70+% said it was not immoral but the legality of it seems like a separate issue. Definitely curious how this breaks down on here compared to real life stats. As a big gambler (on games of skill - not luck), I'm obviously - Yes (R). I'd imagine R's overpoll slightly on the Yes side here. Not sure what to expect from D's, especially some of our European friends. What's your take?

By Completely, I am implying all the gray areas - banks handling transactions, US-based sports websites, serious prediction markets without limitation. Possibly advertising as well but interpret that at your own discretion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Proud Nanny Statist calling!

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yes, except for those under age 21.

[dead0man]

Gambling, like all victim less crimes, should be legal.  Totally.  I guess I could compromise a little and add an age restriction.... under 12 can't gamble more than $10/day.



(here comes the "but wont somebody think of the children of gambling addicts!")

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes (D/like to gamble)

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes (likes personal freedom)

[TNF]

Yes, it should be legal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Aren't those sites basically just quick ways to launder cash?

And I don't really know. Obviously the business model is basically exploitation (as is those silly FarmVille games) of those with more cash than sense, so I can hardly see what the benefit of them being completely legal is. At least with casinos you get some local employment out of it. I'm leaning towards many stater, mainly to counter the yawn-worthy "freedom!!" Argument.

[VPH]

There should be some limits

[NewYorkExpress]

Yes, for all under 18/21 etc.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Aren't those sites basically just quick ways to launder cash?

And I don't really know. Obviously the business model is basically exploitation (as is those silly FarmVille games) of those with more cash than sense, so I can hardly see what the benefit of them being completely legal is. At least with casinos you get some local employment out of it. I'm leaning towards many stater, mainly to counter the yawn-worthy "freedom!!" Argument.

Thanks for your explanation - I'm hopeful that casinos would remain open with jobs for at least the card tables. Sure you could get the experience online, but it's much better in person. And some people actually care to waste their time in front of a slot machine - go figure. That's an in person kind of thing, but I'm not sure too much about the jobs on that end - at least another in-person drawing feature though.

With sports gambling, I'm not sure how many jobs you are saving. Those can easily be computerized for the less complex bets and perhaps even with teasers if done properly. I would still go to the racetrack to place bets on sports games and then watch them play out, but even that is not an option because the best action of Christie's governorship was overturned. And due to the limitations of an in-person sportsbook, a lot of games (cough...FCS Football...cough) don't get odds in the few places you can do that in America.

I think it's entirely possible for them to exist together. It's a huge industry being missed out on with money going to shady offshore places anyway. I'd definitely be open to just widening the availability of non-online gambling first if online was a concern for some of the reasons you mentioned. The state-by-state restrictions made little sense to begin with.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Perhaps there is a windfall of taxes to be raised from online gambling. But even if local governments don't immediately fritter away such a landfall on something dumb, I feel uneasy. At the moment in the UK, one of the few successes of the recession (in addition to the pawnbrokers and the quick loan companies) we betting shops. I've got nothing against them in particular, but like many industries they are designed to exploit the vulnerable. In particular the FOBT machines are a huge draw (I understand Australia has a huge problem with them). People will sit at these machines for hours and hours, hoping to grab the jackpot. And in theory its great. Business execs get a raise, the profits rise and the government takes some cream off the top to engorge itself on. But we see from the evidence that this profit doesn't come evenly from casual gamers. No, it sucks from a significant minority of problem gamers. The people who will game and game till the cows come home. Who cares right? People should have the freedom to bankrupt themselves.

Well, sure, but no man is an island. Families are broken up. People become despondent, and even entire communities can suffer because of epidemics of problem gaming. And now, it has become an established business, so nobody - not the government with its newfound reliance on gambling taxes (a chief issue with sin taxes) - can do anything.

Gambling, like Zynga, is just one industry that relies on exploitation. Perhaps if I was being sage, every business model in some capacity is exploitative and I'm making a mountain of a molehill. But I refuse to be cavalier about the gambling industry, whatever I think of gambling as a practise (which ftr I enjoy). Gambling ruins lives (in fact to be profitable, it invariably has to rely on addicts), and an economy reliant on such industries is very often toxic. Gambling is invariably linked with organised crime and money laundering operations no matter how regulated it is. I still don't know what should be done about it, but really the whole business makes me very nervous.

[Goldwater]

Yes (R/Muh unfettered Capitalism)

[Mr. Smith]

Nope, nanny-stater to the max.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Don't see why not

[Torie]

Proud Nanny Statist calling!

Yes, option 4 rules. Gambling is a cancer. It should be contained. It's the most evil regressive tax (that's the effect), that is out there. Yet for revenue, governments are perfectly willing to prey on those who cannot afford it. Ditto lottery tickets.

[DavidB.]

Perhaps there is a windfall of taxes to be raised from online gambling. But even if local governments don't immediately fritter away such a landfall on something dumb, I feel uneasy. At the moment in the UK, one of the few successes of the recession (in addition to the pawnbrokers and the quick loan companies) we betting shops. I've got nothing against them in particular, but like many industries they are designed to exploit the vulnerable. In particular the FOBT machines are a huge draw (I understand Australia has a huge problem with them). People will sit at these machines for hours and hours, hoping to grab the jackpot. And in theory its great. Business execs get a raise, the profits rise and the government takes some cream off the top to engorge itself on. But we see from the evidence that this profit doesn't come evenly from casual gamers. No, it sucks from a significant minority of problem gamers. The people who will game and game till the cows come home. Who cares right? People should have the freedom to bankrupt themselves.

Well, sure, but no man is an island. Families are broken up. People become despondent, and even entire communities can suffer because of epidemics of problem gaming. And now, it has become an established business, so nobody - not the government with its newfound reliance on gambling taxes (a chief issue with sin taxes) - can do anything.

Gambling, like Zynga, is just one industry that relies on exploitation. Perhaps if I was being sage, every business model in some capacity is exploitative and I'm making a mountain of a molehill. But I refuse to be cavalier about the gambling industry, whatever I think of gambling as a practise (which ftr I enjoy). Gambling ruins lives (in fact to be profitable, it invariably has to rely on addicts), and an economy reliant on such industries is very often toxic. Gambling is invariably linked with organised crime and money laundering operations no matter how regulated it is. I still don't know what should be done about it, but really the whole business makes me very nervous.

Excellent post. This is my take on it as well. I would probably be in favor of legalizing most of it, but the exploitation of vulnerable people makes me very uneasy and seems inherent to the sector. Some restrictions need to be implemented in order to protect these people. So I voted no (R) - but not because of "muh morals".

[NeverAgain]

No (normal Sheldon Adelson hater)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gambling is like drugs and prostitution in that banning it just doesn't work. It gets even worse considering this is the Internet we're talking about here making it even more unenforceable. So like drugs and prostitution, I'll take the "legalize and regulation" position.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No (R, normal).

Aren't those sites basically just quick ways to launder cash?

This.

[DC Al Fine]

No, largely for the reasons Crabcake outlined.

Gambling, prostitution etc make me very uneasy. Even though blanket bans don't work, I find that many ostensibly liberal people are far too cavalier about the exploitation inherent in these industries.

[Horus]

Decriminalized (moderate hero)

[Marokai Backbeat]

The ease of online gambling makes me, like Crabcake, nervous about it, and so I really don't know. I support legal gambling, of course, in some form, but the ability to just pull out your phone and do it whenever just strikes me as scary. The need to physically go to a place seems like a decent regulation of gambling in itself, and may prevent people from taking it too far, but I'm probably wrong, and like BRTD said, it certainly doesn't stop people from creating some hacky loopholes anyway and doing it online regardless. Need to hear more arguments about the online side, specifically.

[PJ]

I don't like the attitude that gambling is purely an issue of personal liberty, and that opposing unrestricted gambling is nanny statism. Gambling itself isn't inherently wrong or immoral, but there's a lot of potential for exploitation, fostering gambling addictions, and causing people to throw their money away. Like others have stated, there's more of a potential for the negatives of gambling to affect people when the practice is accessible online, so it should be illegal, or at the very least, not easily accessible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gambling is like drugs and prostitution in that banning it just doesn't work.

It is a fact that gambling (internet or otherwise) is much more widespread in places where it is legal than where it isn't.