I mean gambling is shitty but we don’t hold folks that make alcohol responsible for folks getting addicted to alcohol.
I’m not familiar with legal gambling, but theoretically there is a percentage of users that partake casually for fun - yes? And others who get addicted. Same with booze.
Obviously the overall experience of gambling is more predatory/distasteful, but I’m not sure that means they should be legally responsible for the folks who get addicted. If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?
If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?
True, but we do hold those who serve alcohol responsible for over-serving customers (at least in the US). Though I’m not sure how we’d even begin to regulate gambling services in a similar manner. A bartender can be held legally responsible if they serve alcohol to someone who is very visibly intoxicated, then that person drives home and kills a family of 4.
Of course they do. In Landman, where Michelob Ultra is prominently placed, the booze companies sponsor Billy Bob Thornton’s character as he says “I quit drinking, I’ll stick with beer.”
When told that drinking beer is still drinking, he replies “It’s a Michelob Ultra, there’s more alcohol in orange juice.”
That is the beer manufacturers telling the public that they don’t have to stop drinking beer when they “quit drinking”.
Recovering alcoholics caution that non-alcoholic beer is a major path to relapse, yet every manufacturer produces and markets a non-alcoholic version, designed and intended to keep people within the manufacturer’s sphere of influence, where they will receive marketing opportunities for real beer and other alcoholic products.
Manufacturers offer direct incentives to drinkers.
I realize these are traditional marketing techniques and not algorithmic targeting. However, these do indicate they are targeting recovering alcoholics.
They also sponsor drinking apps. They partner with retailers and social media companies to identify and directly target consumers. Retailers print custom coupons for specific customers based on their partnerships with alcohol producers. These are all algorithmic targeting.
They for sure create targeted advertising towards likely repeat-spend customers. Big box liquor stores I’m sure use algorithms to encourage repeat purchases.
Again - not defending predatory gambling sites at all - just aware that almost every business model is about targeting big spenders and getting them to spend more. Example: micro transactions in gaming.
“Everyone does it” doesn’t make it ok, but if we don’t like that gambling sites care more about profit than the wellbeing of users? Certainly they are not alone in that.
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
Plenty of food additives are illegal, so we’ve already decided that to some extent regulation there is OK.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
Going down that slippery slope, why are recreational drugs illegal?
We’ve drawn plenty of lines already, and I’ve never heard anyone defend gambling with an argument that isn’t “but my liberty” or “it’s going to happen whether it’s legal or not”.
For the record, I believe in the legalisation of drugs that do not have:
A) Massive addiction-causing traits and
B) Enormous health detriments
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
As we’ve already done, the answer is to find the limit for what is acceptable and regulate based on that limit. The limit changes with time and society (see: pornography, cannabis), but I believe gambling as a corporate profit option should be outlawed.
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
If gambling must exist, allow non-profit gambling operators and ban the rest.
Non profit gamblers would be awesome - like all gambling proceeds go to addiction recovery services… emphasis on gambling addiction.
I do think if gambling was outlawed completely it would still happen - fewer people involved but likely more associated violence. I would 1000% support gambling only being available via not for profit companies.
We made tobacco companies legally responsible to an extent. I don’t see why we can’t do the same to alcohol and gambling by making them do something like fund rehab programs.
I mean gambling is shitty but we don’t hold folks that make alcohol responsible for folks getting addicted to alcohol.
I’m not familiar with legal gambling, but theoretically there is a percentage of users that partake casually for fun - yes? And others who get addicted. Same with booze.
Obviously the overall experience of gambling is more predatory/distasteful, but I’m not sure that means they should be legally responsible for the folks who get addicted. If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?
True, but we do hold those who serve alcohol responsible for over-serving customers (at least in the US). Though I’m not sure how we’d even begin to regulate gambling services in a similar manner. A bartender can be held legally responsible if they serve alcohol to someone who is very visibly intoxicated, then that person drives home and kills a family of 4.
Booze makers aren’t using predictive algorithms to hook people that are trying to quit.
They are, but in a more traditional sense.
How?
The hell they aren’t. That’s called “Marketing”. You’re describing “Marketing”.
So the booze makers are pushing ads directly to people trying to quit? Because the gambling apps certainly do.
https://archive.is/XnYAv
Of course they do. In Landman, where Michelob Ultra is prominently placed, the booze companies sponsor Billy Bob Thornton’s character as he says “I quit drinking, I’ll stick with beer.”
When told that drinking beer is still drinking, he replies “It’s a Michelob Ultra, there’s more alcohol in orange juice.”
That is the beer manufacturers telling the public that they don’t have to stop drinking beer when they “quit drinking”.
Recovering alcoholics caution that non-alcoholic beer is a major path to relapse, yet every manufacturer produces and markets a non-alcoholic version, designed and intended to keep people within the manufacturer’s sphere of influence, where they will receive marketing opportunities for real beer and other alcoholic products.
Manufacturers offer direct incentives to drinkers.
I realize these are traditional marketing techniques and not algorithmic targeting. However, these do indicate they are targeting recovering alcoholics.
They also sponsor drinking apps. They partner with retailers and social media companies to identify and directly target consumers. Retailers print custom coupons for specific customers based on their partnerships with alcohol producers. These are all algorithmic targeting.
They for sure create targeted advertising towards likely repeat-spend customers. Big box liquor stores I’m sure use algorithms to encourage repeat purchases.
Again - not defending predatory gambling sites at all - just aware that almost every business model is about targeting big spenders and getting them to spend more. Example: micro transactions in gaming.
“Everyone does it” doesn’t make it ok, but if we don’t like that gambling sites care more about profit than the wellbeing of users? Certainly they are not alone in that.
Not at this level.
https://archive.is/XnYAv
Ok, but if we take a step back, is there any justification for this kind of gambling remaining legal, outside of a capitalist view?
Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.
There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?
I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?
It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.
Plenty of food additives are illegal, so we’ve already decided that to some extent regulation there is OK.
Going down that slippery slope, why are recreational drugs illegal? We’ve drawn plenty of lines already, and I’ve never heard anyone defend gambling with an argument that isn’t “but my liberty” or “it’s going to happen whether it’s legal or not”.
For the record, I believe in the legalisation of drugs that do not have: A) Massive addiction-causing traits and B) Enormous health detriments
As we’ve already done, the answer is to find the limit for what is acceptable and regulate based on that limit. The limit changes with time and society (see: pornography, cannabis), but I believe gambling as a corporate profit option should be outlawed.
If gambling must exist, allow non-profit gambling operators and ban the rest.
Non profit gamblers would be awesome - like all gambling proceeds go to addiction recovery services… emphasis on gambling addiction.
I do think if gambling was outlawed completely it would still happen - fewer people involved but likely more associated violence. I would 1000% support gambling only being available via not for profit companies.
Maybe they all should be.
We made tobacco companies legally responsible to an extent. I don’t see why we can’t do the same to alcohol and gambling by making them do something like fund rehab programs.