Gambling is “very harmful” to a tiny minority of people who have a disorder. That is very sad for them, and they should be protected from themselves through proportionate regulation.
I’m quite sure - this being lemmy - that plenty here think the “War on Drugs” is absurd and has failed, and that responsible people who know their limits are being punished and forced into illegal markets because a few people are unable to control themselves. And they’d be right. All prohibition does is force ordinary people into black markets and everybody loses.
As for alcohol - that damages far more people than gambling ever will. Personally, I am sufficiently competent to simply not drink alcohol, but I understand many are not capable of that - but I nevertheless don’t advocate for prohibition.
The question is how many people are harmed/unharmed by gambling? If say 2% of all bettors develop a gambling addiction, does that warrant a complete ban? What if it was 0,5% ? I don’t know the actual numbers on this but I generally think that you shouldn’t illegalsize for the many what is a problem for a small minority. I watch hours upon hours of sports with betting ads and I have never engaged in betting because I’m self aware enough to know that I might not be able to handle it if I get of “to a good start”.
According to reputable sources (Lancet), around 1.5% of people engage in problematic gambling, with at-risk harder to estimate but probably around 8%. Compared to around 50% of people overall who participate in gambling perfectly happily (and the rest don’t engage at all.).
Interestingly, there is a high co-morbidity with substance abuse and alcoholism. So if it’s all about protecting those people, we need to ban alcohol as well (and win the war on drugs - haha.)
That’s what I’m saying. To me, 1,5% is way too few people that it warrants banning an activity that the vast majority can handle - even though the ads for gambling are through the roof. Just like alcohol. Take Norway, s country that is known for its very strict alcohol laws. According to https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country (don’t know creditably), 1,59% suffer from alcoholism. Sweden is 2,81%.
However, it’s too different debates. My stand is that it’s all about proper relegation and education.
It’s not only about addiction. Gambling industry is very corrosive overall being a major source for money laundering, financial exploitation and source of conflict. Generally I’m very libertarian but gambling is just an incredibly toxic industry because it has so many invisible costs that is more than just addiction.
How are you sourcing these claims? I from a gambling friendly country and now live in one where gambling is illegal and the societal damage caused by gambling is very noticeable. Though, I’d say big chunk of it is coming from gambling advertisements and legal physical casinos with no advertisements allowed would be very fair compromise imo.
England of course has had a well regulated gambling environment for literally centuries, and regulated online for the best part of 30 years; in an unregulated/prohibition state, I’d expect the numbers for gambling to look worse. Because that’s what regulation does - it minimises harms.
Probibition does not minimise harms. The 1.5% who are serious problem gamblers will be on black market sites the next day, now with zero protection. The maybe 8% who are at-risk are much more likely to find themselves on a black market site with zero protection, and the remaining 50% who enjoyed gambling and were never harmed by it are the ones that lose out.
Brazil, for avoidance of doubt, did not have a well-regulated sector. I doubt - and I speak from direct experience - that there was a single operator in Brazil that didn’t have someone in the regulator on their payroll.
Brazil’s problem isn’t gambling, it’s corruption. This is just a sideshow.
Guy above is suggesting that gambling is a very harmful entertainment and that there are better ways to entertain yourself
And guy above is wrong.
Gambling is “very harmful” to a tiny minority of people who have a disorder. That is very sad for them, and they should be protected from themselves through proportionate regulation.
I’m quite sure - this being lemmy - that plenty here think the “War on Drugs” is absurd and has failed, and that responsible people who know their limits are being punished and forced into illegal markets because a few people are unable to control themselves. And they’d be right. All prohibition does is force ordinary people into black markets and everybody loses.
As for alcohol - that damages far more people than gambling ever will. Personally, I am sufficiently competent to simply not drink alcohol, but I understand many are not capable of that - but I nevertheless don’t advocate for prohibition.
You’re diminishing the harms of gambling. Entertainment is cheap and one of societal areas where we can afford safety.
The question is how many people are harmed/unharmed by gambling? If say 2% of all bettors develop a gambling addiction, does that warrant a complete ban? What if it was 0,5% ? I don’t know the actual numbers on this but I generally think that you shouldn’t illegalsize for the many what is a problem for a small minority. I watch hours upon hours of sports with betting ads and I have never engaged in betting because I’m self aware enough to know that I might not be able to handle it if I get of “to a good start”.
It’s the same problem with drug prohibition.
According to reputable sources (Lancet), around 1.5% of people engage in problematic gambling, with at-risk harder to estimate but probably around 8%. Compared to around 50% of people overall who participate in gambling perfectly happily (and the rest don’t engage at all.).
Interestingly, there is a high co-morbidity with substance abuse and alcoholism. So if it’s all about protecting those people, we need to ban alcohol as well (and win the war on drugs - haha.)
That’s what I’m saying. To me, 1,5% is way too few people that it warrants banning an activity that the vast majority can handle - even though the ads for gambling are through the roof. Just like alcohol. Take Norway, s country that is known for its very strict alcohol laws. According to https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country (don’t know creditably), 1,59% suffer from alcoholism. Sweden is 2,81%.
However, it’s too different debates. My stand is that it’s all about proper relegation and education.
It’s not only about addiction. Gambling industry is very corrosive overall being a major source for money laundering, financial exploitation and source of conflict. Generally I’m very libertarian but gambling is just an incredibly toxic industry because it has so many invisible costs that is more than just addiction.
Depends on regulations. In my country, the main big gambling company transfers their income to social projects
Absurd lie.
There is zero money laundering in well regulated gaming. None. Regulated gaming businesses have better AML & KYC than most banks.
Black market though - 100%. Why do you want to help black market operators?
Lmao this is not true. I’m personally familiar with this issue.
I’ve worked in the industry 30 years. You’ve already shown you’re not remotely familiar with it.
The harms of gambling are, by and large, tiny. Significantly less than alcohol or drugs.
We can’t only ban the entertainments you don’t like. You’re either a prohibitionist or not.
How are you sourcing these claims? I from a gambling friendly country and now live in one where gambling is illegal and the societal damage caused by gambling is very noticeable. Though, I’d say big chunk of it is coming from gambling advertisements and legal physical casinos with no advertisements allowed would be very fair compromise imo.
| Harm | Annual cost to England | Source | | ---- | ---- | ---- | Gambling | £1.05–1.77bn | OHID (UK government), 2023 Illegal drugs | £19.3bn | Dame Carol Black review / UK government response, 2021 Alcohol | £27.4bn | Institute of Alcohol Studies, 2024England of course has had a well regulated gambling environment for literally centuries, and regulated online for the best part of 30 years; in an unregulated/prohibition state, I’d expect the numbers for gambling to look worse. Because that’s what regulation does - it minimises harms.
Probibition does not minimise harms. The 1.5% who are serious problem gamblers will be on black market sites the next day, now with zero protection. The maybe 8% who are at-risk are much more likely to find themselves on a black market site with zero protection, and the remaining 50% who enjoyed gambling and were never harmed by it are the ones that lose out.
Brazil, for avoidance of doubt, did not have a well-regulated sector. I doubt - and I speak from direct experience - that there was a single operator in Brazil that didn’t have someone in the regulator on their payroll.
Brazil’s problem isn’t gambling, it’s corruption. This is just a sideshow.
Source? You’re just posting some AI hallucinations.
The references were given. It’s not my job to do your research for you.
Sure thing bot. Have a day.