The online gambling industry is profiting off addiction ‘the same way the Sackler family profited off of opioids.’ Only this time the pushers include state governments.
“I’ve had colleagues come up to me with concerns about gambling,” Addabbo said, “and then I tell them about the $900 million in revenue for education, and they’re like, ‘Oh my God, this is great!’" - Every time I read something like this it makes me scratch my head. Seems like they would say "Oh my God, they are getting all that money in addition to the tax revenue they were already receiving, and our fifth graders are reading at kindergarten level?" The system is broken and clearly more money - even tons of money - isn't going to fix that.
Money is fungible. So In many cases, that part of the budget that WOULD have gone to education anyway is reallocated to some less-popular part of the budget, with only a marginal net increase to education.
The gambling industry is parasitic on the people least equipped to resist its temptations. It is a tax on people who are bad at math.
State lotteries are the most cynical and regressive versions of a 'tax on people who are bad at math', and uneducated, and poor, and desperate. For the well-off person who plays 'just in case' for the billion-dollar jackpot state lotteries are harmless fun; for the destitute who drop five or ten or twenty dollars a day in hopes of a life changing event state lotteries are devastating. One might think that the party that 'stands for the people' (you can insert either Democrat or Republican as your beliefs indicate) would have some concerns about running that sort of a con game.
I love the regressivness of state lotteries. It's the only way to get people who don't have to pay any taxes to chip in a bit of their share for public services.
I agree with you but people who have a gambling problem are going to bet anyway so why not make it legal and tax it? It has worked in Vegas for decades.
That is a good point -- people will do it anyway. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should expand and promote it as far as possible for the PURPOSE of increasing the funding of the government. When we allow our government to move from not forbidding but limiting access to a behavior through taxation (smoking for example) to actively promoting a negative behavior as a way to generate additional government funding (state lotteries is the example under discussion) I think we are abandoning the purpose of government. The state and local governments know there will be increased cost and damage to society but encourage that behavior in order to hide the true taxation levels they desire through the 'non-tax' funding source. The knock-on costs being externalized by the governments in question are ultimately paid by the citizens anyway (generally in a strongly regressive fashion) and usually at a significant multiplier to the increased funding they receive. At some point the total bill comes due....
I disagree. I would prefer to have a government that is moral - I say this as an avowed atheist. I will always support lower taxes - saying that as an avowed conservative.
The government that governs best, governs least. It doesn't matter "where" they get the money from to fund all these BS "services", the size and scope of government should be reduced to the bare minimum at every level; every tax, even those I can avoid if I choose to, are antithetic to small government.
To me, governing least would mean NOT criminalizing gambling. Which can be done without the government taking anything extra beyond what they take from any other business (which is also less government, since everything would be taxed the same meaning less complications and thus less IRS).
I have empathy for those who get addicted. But that does not mean a thing should be illegal for everyone. Our laws should not be defined by people's weaknesses. That is why we already have the over-man laws that we have.
My gripe is the state-sponsored vices; gambling and pot, like alcohol, should be private endeavors taxed at the same rate as everything else. "Sin" taxes are just code for "we're going to screw you even harder than normal".
I don't think it's that simple, Cat. I've witnessed people who clearly can't afford it putting down $50 to play their stupid lotto games. Will I put down $2 when Powerball is at $500 million? Sure. Would I bet through a bookie? Never. These vermin make it so easy for people to gamble. They are scum. Just as Kevin rants. Pure, unadulterated vicious scumbags. And wrapping it in the "virtue" of education compounds their scumbaggery.
In Texas, there was a big campaign for a state lottery to fund education. After the proposition passed, then-governor Ann Richards said, "Well, we never said ALL of the money would go to education."
Back in the early 80s, I traveled around California and saw people gathering signatures for a referendum on a lottery. “Don’t you want to raise money for schools?” They met the threshold, the referendum was approved, and what was the result? Lottery money went to Sacramento where politicians such as Willie Brown put it to their purposes. By the time my child was old enough for school in the early 90s, the condition of California’s schools was dreadful, with the exception of a few of the more than 1,000 districts who through some tax accounting trick could manage their own school budgets. The tiny bedroom town of Belmont was one, so my child attended a school that was well maintained and had ample supplies of new textbooks, in contrast to the miserable conditions of say, the schools in San Francisco.
The kicker in this whole saga is that the petition for a lottery referendum was funded by NEVADA CASINOS, who with the state of California that by gaining a lottery, they’d not allow any more casinos than the Indians were entitled to. It’s gross.
Robert, you read my mind! This exactly what I was thinking as I read that. What additionally struck me was that NY is one of the most heavily taxed states. People are leaving and politicians refuse to be fiscally responsible and make cuts to programs. Instead, they keep idiotic government programs in place AND help create gambling addicts while wasting more money in BROKEN education system.
They don't know CRT. What they know is that the only thing that matters in the universe is what they believe and want to do, and that they are the ones who get to decide if something is true and that all authority is illegitimate if they don't like it.
There's all this talk about this ideology or that philosophy being taught, but at the end of the day the hidden curriculum is actually just an idea of radical individualism that says they owe nothing to nobody and must be affirmed in everything. CRT, Transgenderism, and even the "gimme socialism" is all just an outgrowth of that basic hyper-narcissism stance.
I'm with you on everything except calling it radical individualism. Hyper-narcissism, absolutely. But individualism (to me, at least) means you own your life choices - the costs and the rewards. The responsibility is yours, not some BS about other people's privilege, etc. You do it "my way", but you don't expect everyone else to pay for it/affirm your views/play your games with you. None of these losers are interested or capable of taking personal responsibility for their lives - only for your tone and pronoun usage.
In NY when they started the Lottery to supposedly benefit Education, do you know what those skanks in the government did❓ Instead of a separate Education fund, they put all the money in the General Fund. MEANING: THEY CAN SPEND IT HOWEVER THEY LIKE‼️ It is nauseating.
I believe in many lotteries the private companies that run them on behalf of Government are making a LOT of money off of them, which makes this entire "lottery for education" nonsense even more nauseating, because much of the funds received aren't even going to the "General Fund"....
THIS. 1 MILLION times over. My girlfriend's whole family is in education and it's like a religious mantra with them. "more money for schools! Will someone PLEASE think about the CHILDREN!?" It's the most emotionally manipulative bullcrap I've ever seen. If you hired a contractor who charged a ton of money and did shoddy work, would you hire him again? Nope. So why would you keep funding underperformance?
The answer is obvious. Unions (both administrative and teachers) and emotional manipulation.
When you can't solve the problem, there is good money to be made in perpetuating it.
My mother was a teacher my whole life. Brother, Sister In Law, Aunt, Cousin, all in education. Not one of them ever said money was the issue. It was always too much admin and bureaucracy for them.
I don't say that to contradict your anecdote. Just to show that not all teachers believe that more money=better education.
That phrase got me too. Gambling was legalized in my state fairly recently. I (unlike the overwhelming population of my state) voted against it. I will never gamble so it really doesn't affect me, but I cannot in good conscience vote for something that can become a stumbling block for someone else. I do have an acquaintance who died maybe 2 years ago from suicide (caused by gambling debt) leaving behind a wife and 2 young kids. I also live in a state that was recently in the news for having 0% of kids proficient in math in a certain district SO maybe something else rather than more money would help education.
I hate to say it, but 'education' isn't going to fixed. More money won't fix it. What people call 'education' is really driven by some combination of innate talent (or a lack thereof) and parental pressure (or a lack thereof). These things can't be changed with the any of the tools we have at hand.
Agree. You can't fix homes with school funding, and the most important predictor of school success is a stable home run by adults who prioritize education.
Of course, I agree. Since public conversation about things that might actually make a difference (in education) is not allowed, we talk about money instead.
"In New Jersey, where bettors have wagered nearly $35 billion since June 2018, the state has reeled in $309 million in revenue. "
And what are they doing with it? Remember when states legalized the lottery in the 80s and they said it would all go to schools and roads, that we'd have the best schools and roads in the world because of it?
I hate to say it, but 'education' isn't going to fixed. More money won't fix it. What people call 'education' is really driven by some combination of innate talent (or a lack thereof) and parental pressure (or a lack thereof). These things can't be changed with the any of the tools we have at hand.
We have sports betting now, but follow the smell of greenbacks - it all stems back to the blossoming of state lotteries in the 1970's, leading to the gargantuan and obscene nation wide billion dollar winner lotteries now. It's a gov't money grab all right, since govt's constantly need money (but hate asking citizens for it since they could be voted out) so to me it's just another form of tax, only disguised, since governments will never call it that. They know the connotations of that word in the American psyche and history - the Tea Party and all that..
Americans for the most part dislike paying taxes for the services they expect, and gripe about the amount of it, but just seem to love squandering a ton of it away on sports and lottery betting, the rubes among us at least. So I guess the cynical calculus of government strategy in siphoning tax revenue off betting and the possible addiction that may result, is working rather well.
"$909 million goes to education" could mean that they pay the schools first from the gambling bucket, and then they pay the rest of it from another funding source. Unless you ear-mark gambling taxation as adjunctive education funding on-top of the already agreed upon education budget, you are doing nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oregon decriminalized all drugs with 80 million for drug treatment... but it was passed in conjunction with a budget that had cut all 68 million in drug treatment from state budget, so it was only a 12 million dollar increase - impossible to cover the increased spending needs from decriminalization.
Like legalizing marijuana and CBD, the revenue is more important than people’s wellbeing. Govt intrusion in life will never stop as long as $$$ flies in. Horrible!!
Civil government exists to protect citizens from predation. Allowing something this toxic to the public health is the abandonment of its primary responsibility.
Government exists to promote the safety and welfare of the citizen. The problem is one person's safety and welfare is another person's loss of liberty to enjoy for them a safe and harmless activity. Plus wrapping every citizen in a cocoon is incredibly expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare that leads to abandonment of accepted methods - police departments and border protection - in favor of much more esoteric pursuits.
I could not disagree more. Promoting safety and welfare of the citizen is not a zero sum situation. Facilitating safety for some does not strip safety from others.
Police protection places no one in a cocoon, except for maybe criminals.
And you are of course entitled to your opinion. Yes it can be a zero sum game depending on which perceived safety is at issue. In this article it is gambling and there are many, many, many people who gamble for entertainment. Myself being one. So yes if gambling were made illegal it would strip me of my ability to engage in a harmless pursuit. Ditto gun ownership. Placing people in a cocoon is a result of overzealous, misplaced safetyism. At best it creates a false sense of security. Not supporting the function and role of law enforcement is an example of abandoning a legitimate safety and welfare concern in favor of things like funding gender transition for kids too young to make legal decisions.I am beyond weary of people who cannot form a logical conclusion thinking they are like the fictitious Captain Piquard and can "Make it so." That is who the vast majority of our society needs protection from.
'Safety' is relative and nebulous. For some 'Safety' means punishing a parent who lets their kid walk to the park unattended. For some 'safety' means never having to hear an unkind word or thought. Who gets to decide what is safe and how much safety is enough and which unsafe things to allow (driving in cars or eating fatty foods).
While I can agree on some government intervention to protect us to some degree. I do not know that it should be the governments job to protect us from things that we are capable of avoiding for ourselves. I say this as an alcoholic. At no point during my bad years did I think the government should have stopped these evil booze makers from letting me drink. And if they had, I would not have actually overcome my issues, they just wouldn't have had the same outlet.
Sometimes bad things make us better. Much like how getting sick makes us immune in the future. Or how a bully when you are a kid can help make you tougher as an adult. And being constantly protected from any kind of harm tends to make organisms very susceptible to harm.
I think from other comments you have made that you have experience in this. For which you have my genuine compassion. But it also likely means you are not objective. Many people gamble. I am one. I should not be deprived of that. My perception is that the problem with online gambling is the ever-present ads and ease with which it is accessed. And recognizing the absolute hypocrisy as I write it, I am fine with heavily regulating the advertising industry. All of it.
CBD wouldn't have been a problem if it was pure, because it's not addictive. Problem was that it wasn't pure. There is a real question of how many addictions, and how severe can this society handle before it starts to break-down? I see our lives getting worse, and gambling is a huge driver of wealth inequality.
Prohibition never works, but the state has no business being involved in this or any other enterprise. "We are here to help the poor, that is why we created the lottery for them". The examples of government creating new problems and dependencies are too numerous to list.
Like breaking your leg then handing you a crutch. Or making education loans automatic and then wondering why the cost of education has skyrocketed....etc, ad nauseum.
True. Prohibition didn't work. The question is why something as drastic as Prohibition was instituted in the first place. Public and private drunkenness was becoming a scourge and destroying families just like leniency on drugs today is causing a massive crime wave and these vagrancy camps (that's what they really are).
Your points are well stated. However, prohibition only enriches those that provide the desired product and provides motivation to generate substandard product that is more dangerous. Alcohol poisoning mushroomed during prohibition largely due to improperly manufactured alcohol. The same is happening right now (and has grown worse since the "war on drugs") with banned substances.
Historically, prohibition grew out of the revivalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US. The temperance movement was a direct outgrowth of this. It is inarguable that substance abuse has always and will always be a bane on the species. It has had a huge negative impact on my family. The answer is not to make it more lucrative to manufacture or grow and sell the potentially harmful substances.
I would point you to "Chasing the Scream" by Johann Hari.
Prohibition works all the time. It worked for sports betting just a few years ago. So sick of this argument. "We outlawed a thing but it still happened sometimes!!!" You're basically arguing that laws don't work. It's like saying we shouldn't prohibit murder because people are still getting murdered.
I think I understand your point. Murder and other crimes against other people, violating fundamental freedoms, like, say, life are explicitly forbidden, not because they don't stop murder but because they violate that persons rights. Not at all the same thing. If I shoot heroin I am not violating any ones rights, just making a bad decision. So you seem to be arguing that if there is something we don't like that others choose we should have the power to prohibit it? I don't like certain kinds of sex so that should be illegal? Laws against behavior that is chosen that does not violate another persons rights should not be be in force, seems to be the point of the constitution. If I am not messing with you, leave me alone, or something like that. I am just fine without the help of the gubment.
On a roll with bad arguments. Dropped the "prohibition doesn't work" motte and on to the "It's all about rights" bailey. I don't think it's about rights. Certain types of sex actually are illegal, like those using coercion, and selling addictive substances like heroin is inherently coercive. We saw that with the latest opioid epidemic. Greater availability and normalization directly correlated with lives lost. people taking pills their Docs gave them and not realizing the hold they have. That's coercive as anything. Homo economicus doesn't apply to addictive substances. These things literally destroy the ability of a person to behave as a rational actor and engage in enlightened self-interest. This isn't just a baker selling bread. Try again.
Seem a bit mystified by this. Prohibition doesn't work and rights are completely entwined with this idea it seems to me. The issue is NOT what is illegal but what SHOULD be illegal. I don't need anyone to help me make decisions about my behavior as long as it does not violate the rights of others, certainly not the corrupt edifice known as government. The concept is not hard to grasp. Appreciate your dialogue, even though we disagree.
You might not need help making decisions, but if you're hooked on heroin.. you do. You aren't making decisions about behavior when you're addicted. Rational self-interest isn't applicable. Square peg, round hole. People let their children die for a hit. Your simplistic libertarian individualism is just not applicable to substances that are literal mind control.
Not arguing for prohibition of alcohol or anything, but I found it interesting when I read recently that Prohibition (capital P) was responsible for halving the rates of social and public health problems related to alcohol abuse. Those effects lingered into the 1950s, evidently.
I used to be a libertarian, and the whole "prohibition didn't work" thing is just an easy cliché so they can avoid dealing with the deeper questions of what role the government should have in promoting social well-being. Rather than having to argue for or against, they just try to negate the whole issue by saying nothing will work anyways.
I personally think the state should stay out of any business that makes a profit, such as gambling. That being said, everyone who is placing bets is an adult and it’s their personal responsibility to manage their lives and money.
The issue I have is the revenue that the state receives from the gambling and lottery always seem to disappear in the budget. The lottery was sold as “money for the schools!” Gambling was sold with the same promise. Why then is it that the school districts in Ohio are begging the residents to vote yes for school levy’s? Where is the state money for the schools being spent? My district has fat to cut in the upper administration level but they are cutting bussing and implementing
“pay-to-play” for extracurricular activities. The state hoards my taxes for schools and the district leaders waste money on items that don’t teach the kids. The kids and parents are stuck in the middle with very little hope. Voting new people in office is always the response I get, but in my area, voter turnout is awful. Most political problems are discussed on Facebook by keyboard warriors with zero guts to actually vote for a change.
Sorry for the whining. My opinion is that legalizing everything for the sake of increasing revenues for the government will always lead to greedy politicians voting for more spending on useless things.
In California they gave the green light to a lottery with the promise that the proceeds would help fund education. But a typical scenario resulted when the state deducted the amount of revenue from the lottery from their education budget, meaning that there was NO benefit to education, but the money the state didn't spend on education was spent elsewhere. This was a cynical political move that was, and IS, being re-enacted in many other states.
Furthermore, some of those few dedicated California gaming tax dollars are going to shore up California’s underfunded public employee pensions. Not to “the kids”.
Agree with your point that education is not a huge beneficiary and that the lottery scam for education is being rolled out in many states.
The CA lottery takes in 888 million dollars and approximately 20% goes to education. What charity or a fund raiser could declare an 80% operating budget and give back only 20%? Reputable charities have the reverse stats of 80% to the cause and 20% or less for operating cost.
In 2017-18, the CA lottery owed 36 million to education because it failed to balance the prize payout with educational funding. The lottery does not know how to offer maximum funding for education.
"For the children", along with "For the people", are both socialist buzz phrases used to take your money! Nancy Pelosi used BOTH in her push to get increased spending through the House. Sadly, people fell for it because people are stupid and do not pay attention!
I am not suggesting that the FDA is disbanded or allow drug companies to run wild.
I assume you are aware that pharma, the FDA and SOME doctors and health insurance companies are one in the same? It’s a revolving door between the government (elected officials and/or employees), drug companies and healthcare providers and companies.
I always quote George Carlin...It’s a big club and you ain’t in it!!
Um, there is a difference between marketing a product to citizens principally in order to fund government budgets, and regulating the safety of products marketed to citizens with a subsidiary tax revenue stream.
That's not what he said, sweetheart. You want to make a point, start a new post, but don't twist a clear message to spin some point to fit your narrative and off topic.
Very very true. To make things worse, unlike drugs, there seem to be no restrictions for gambling ads. They are everywhere. I am now hearing announcers, within games, talk about situational betting opportunities. Someone who wants to quit basically needs to switch off all media to avoid getting sucked in.
This started much earlier than the author claims. When NJ legalized casino gambling (1980?) other states then saw revenue. And then came state lotteries replacing the old mob numbers betting. It was all downhill from there.
I am old enough to remember when betting was confined to 4 things; Vegas, the horses, bookies and regular card games. To get involved in any required either effort or knowledge so entry for a potential addict was harder. Now, the addiction can find you in your cell with customer support to help if you have problems injecting the poison into your veins. Ah, progress!
Not sure where you live but here near Philly sports betting ads are frequent on TV and radio. Maybe it's because we have casino gambling in PA and each casino also has a sports betting arm??? It's like your neighborhood fentanyl dealer advertising home delivery on TV.
We live at the top of the Olympic peninsula, Washington State - surrounded by casinos. But in about five minutes here we will be leaving this state permanently. Just finished packing the cars. The moving van is long gone.
I listen to several football podcasts that are produced by the NFL. I hear ads on them for DraftKings “the official sports betting partner of the NFL” frequently. I see ads for Cesar’s sportsbook, draft kings and other online betting sites during every NFL game.
I live in Massachusetts, my ride to work is about 13 miles and depending on traffic, 15 minutes. Within those 15 minutes I will hear at least one commercial for either FanDuel, or DraftKings sports betting. Depending on the DJ, they all seem to be part of the station's sponsorship of each one. I also see multiple ads for Wynn Betting on YouTube (along side those ridiculous Liberty Mutual ads).
“Before you remove a fence, stop and ask yourself why it was put there in the first place.” - G. K. Chesterton
Government never considers the consequences of their actions, they only see the revenue those actions generate. And government has an insatiable appetite for revenue.
It's not just sports gambling. Betting machines--once exclusively found in casinos--have been popping up like poisonous mushrooms in local bars. This week, I saw billboards go up for a local "gaming parlor and pub."
As long as it took some effort to get to where instant-fix gambling was legal, gambling addiction was limited to a few desperate people. The easier it becomes to win or (more likely lose) a lot of money in a few minutes, the more people get sucked in. With ads for gambling apps (including online slots!) popping up on people's phones, it isn't hard to turn a person who likes playing games on their phone into a gambling addict.
When I was a child, you had to go to Nevada to gamble that easily. I've watched for decades as gambling has been increasingly promoted by the state: casinos on Indian reservations, lotteries, casinos on riverboats, more lotteries, casinos anywhere, and now gaming machines outside of casinos.
As usual, government is harming people in the name of "helping" them.
When I was a kid, our teachers were always complaining about class size and low per capita education funding compared to other states. And yet somehow we all managed to learn to read and write and do at least basic arithmetic by the time we graduated from high school.
In spite of constant increases in funding and class sizes no larger now than they were then, kids are not learning to read. They are taught from kindergarten onward that ANY attempt at writing is good enough, no matter how badly spelled or lacking in punctuation. They can't multiply single-digit numbers without a calculator, since the multiplication table is no longer taught.
If YOU want to bear the burden of gambling debt, feel free. That is a noble gesture that might help individuals in debt.
As a nation, however, we should outlaw the predatory gambling industry, and then sue for damages, to pay for the immense harms done to the people least equipped to resist its temptations.
And there's nothing noble about it. It's one thing to allow free people the freedom to muck up their lives without government interference. It's another to encourage them by bailing out their bad decisions while making everyone else pay for it. And this sentiment applies just as well to quite a large number of those who have student loan debt for useless but expensive degrees.
While being an addictive activity for some not all participants suffer. If you’re looking for the enabler, which is the ultimate beneficiary of legal gambling, look at the our state governments. They too have an addiction to spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
Not one jurisdiction has limited any advertising and it’s rebate focused marketing to new clients.
This is not like OxyContin and the manufacturers who benefited from addiction. States do no not tax pharmaceutical products. Well not yet anyway!
Having occupied some portion of my misspent youth as a 'drunken sailor on shore leave' I object somewhat to your remark. We tended to only spend the cash in our pockets and stopped there. The enabling of credit-based gambling changes the nature of the situation tremendously -- the gambler really has no reason to stop until disaster has fully struck. We at least had the Shore Patrol to corral us at the end of the night and hold our liberty cards at the next port of call. Our state and federal governments have no equivalent minders to help protect the states and nation from their follies.
Is anyone surprised that government is muscling aside the mob in every vice imaginable.? The took over the numbers racket with lotteries. They got into the drug business with legalized marijuana. And now they're getting into sports betting. All taking advantage of the worst elements of humanity and profiting from it. What's next, prostitution?
I've called our ruling cabal a "gangster government." Can anyone prove me wrong? John Adams said our Constitution was fit only for a religious and moral people. Even if we were, is our Constitution fit for an aggressively secular and immoral government? Isn't it long past time to clean out the swamps in DC and the state capitals and send these vermin packing?
If you want the state to ban everything that’s “addictive” you are looking at a VERY long list: nicotine, sugar, gambling, porn, social media, gaming, etc. No one wants to live in that country. Our Government and culture should promote virtue: education, work, honesty, saving money, marriage, children to married couples, etc. our govt should not promote gambling(lotteries) or any vices
You make a solid point but cigarettes, pot, and porn are not allowed to advertise. In online sports betting was banned from advertising it would make all our lives better.
We combined the addictiveness of smart phones with the addictiveness of gambling and then flog it almost 24/7 in ads during sports events…. What could possibly go wrong?
Through our entire existence as humans we have gambled, drank alcohol and drugged ourselves. Our entire existence. It is fundamental. In a capitalistic society, that means businesses that push it, and a very small amount of customers getting in trouble with it. We have tried prohibition and mass incarceration to no avail. What has always been assumed to be more of a male issue than female when it comes to gambling might not be so apparent, if you have ever gone to a casino and looked at the amount of older women who sit there for hours playing those games of chance. We usually end up just taxing it and trying to make something good come out of it.
Hunter gatherers did not have paper, printing presses, or sophisticated dyes so no poker. But there is archeological evidence that they did indeed play games of chance.
For hunter-gatherers, everyday life was pretty much a game of chance. Which just caused the thought to occur to me that maybe we should look at the increased popularity of gambling similar to extreme sports. Modern people in this country are so safe and secure that many feel the need to do something dangerous or risky to feel alive.
In addition to early anthropological studies of "primitive" tribes where they always played games of chance. Like The Dobe !Kung by Richard Lee or several of the Marshals' studies.
We live in an almost totally addicted society: gambling, narcotics, smoking, alcohol, food, laziness, antidepressants, anti anxiety meds, every child who cannot sit still has ADHD (I know there are some children with real problems but I believe it's overused), social media, TIKTOK, FACEBOOK, TWITTER and on and on. People are LACKING PURPOSE, GOALS, DREAMS, CONNECTIONS
ADHD is overdiagnosed & much of the time it is a result of the parents letting their child play too much video games, too much screen time, too much smartphones. Which causes decreased attention span & frontal lobe brain changes that look exactly like ADHD. Additionally, if they have screen time before bed, then they don't get enough sleep. And sleep deprivation looks EXACTLY like ADHD on Cognitive Testing & Brain MRI.
And the nearly complete feminization of education through the elementary years means that boys who don't sit still, docile and quiet, like girls, are labeled a problem in need of medical (pharmaceutical) solutions. My kids' old elementary school had precisely one man in the building (the janitor) and regularly took away recess for extra test cramming or punishment. Gee whiz it's amazing the boys got pretty wiggly and starting from the time they were 5 and 6 all those nice lady-teachers were suggesting they be "evaluated" so they could "get the help they need to focus." It's nauseating
yea kids need recess. they need breaks to jump and run around. no wonder those boys got wiggly! there's nothing wrong with them they just need some physical activity time.
in kindergarten, my little brother was wiggly & the school wanted him on meds when he was 5. They said he has "ADHD". My parents said No. By the time he was in jr high & high school, he was a straight A student. Never took any meds.
“I’ve had colleagues come up to me with concerns about gambling,” Addabbo said, “and then I tell them about the $900 million in revenue for education, and they’re like, ‘Oh my God, this is great!’" - Every time I read something like this it makes me scratch my head. Seems like they would say "Oh my God, they are getting all that money in addition to the tax revenue they were already receiving, and our fifth graders are reading at kindergarten level?" The system is broken and clearly more money - even tons of money - isn't going to fix that.
"Revenue for education" is so deceptive.
Money is fungible. So In many cases, that part of the budget that WOULD have gone to education anyway is reallocated to some less-popular part of the budget, with only a marginal net increase to education.
The gambling industry is parasitic on the people least equipped to resist its temptations. It is a tax on people who are bad at math.
State lotteries are the most cynical and regressive versions of a 'tax on people who are bad at math', and uneducated, and poor, and desperate. For the well-off person who plays 'just in case' for the billion-dollar jackpot state lotteries are harmless fun; for the destitute who drop five or ten or twenty dollars a day in hopes of a life changing event state lotteries are devastating. One might think that the party that 'stands for the people' (you can insert either Democrat or Republican as your beliefs indicate) would have some concerns about running that sort of a con game.
I love the regressivness of state lotteries. It's the only way to get people who don't have to pay any taxes to chip in a bit of their share for public services.
Ambrose Bierce: “Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.”
I agree with you but people who have a gambling problem are going to bet anyway so why not make it legal and tax it? It has worked in Vegas for decades.
That is a good point -- people will do it anyway. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should expand and promote it as far as possible for the PURPOSE of increasing the funding of the government. When we allow our government to move from not forbidding but limiting access to a behavior through taxation (smoking for example) to actively promoting a negative behavior as a way to generate additional government funding (state lotteries is the example under discussion) I think we are abandoning the purpose of government. The state and local governments know there will be increased cost and damage to society but encourage that behavior in order to hide the true taxation levels they desire through the 'non-tax' funding source. The knock-on costs being externalized by the governments in question are ultimately paid by the citizens anyway (generally in a strongly regressive fashion) and usually at a significant multiplier to the increased funding they receive. At some point the total bill comes due....
I disagree. I would prefer to have a government that is moral - I say this as an avowed atheist. I will always support lower taxes - saying that as an avowed conservative.
The government that governs best, governs least. It doesn't matter "where" they get the money from to fund all these BS "services", the size and scope of government should be reduced to the bare minimum at every level; every tax, even those I can avoid if I choose to, are antithetic to small government.
To me, governing least would mean NOT criminalizing gambling. Which can be done without the government taking anything extra beyond what they take from any other business (which is also less government, since everything would be taxed the same meaning less complications and thus less IRS).
I have empathy for those who get addicted. But that does not mean a thing should be illegal for everyone. Our laws should not be defined by people's weaknesses. That is why we already have the over-man laws that we have.
My gripe is the state-sponsored vices; gambling and pot, like alcohol, should be private endeavors taxed at the same rate as everything else. "Sin" taxes are just code for "we're going to screw you even harder than normal".
I don't think it's that simple, Cat. I've witnessed people who clearly can't afford it putting down $50 to play their stupid lotto games. Will I put down $2 when Powerball is at $500 million? Sure. Would I bet through a bookie? Never. These vermin make it so easy for people to gamble. They are scum. Just as Kevin rants. Pure, unadulterated vicious scumbags. And wrapping it in the "virtue" of education compounds their scumbaggery.
No different than a drug dealer
True but. The drug dealer is likely an addict, him or herself, and doesn't spew sanctimonious bullshit.
Buying a lotto ticket gives you a slightly greater chance of winning than not buying a ticket.
Thing is, I think I'd rather have Joe Kneecapper make the money instead of my putrid politicians..... ; )
Good point
In Texas, there was a big campaign for a state lottery to fund education. After the proposition passed, then-governor Ann Richards said, "Well, we never said ALL of the money would go to education."
Back in the early 80s, I traveled around California and saw people gathering signatures for a referendum on a lottery. “Don’t you want to raise money for schools?” They met the threshold, the referendum was approved, and what was the result? Lottery money went to Sacramento where politicians such as Willie Brown put it to their purposes. By the time my child was old enough for school in the early 90s, the condition of California’s schools was dreadful, with the exception of a few of the more than 1,000 districts who through some tax accounting trick could manage their own school budgets. The tiny bedroom town of Belmont was one, so my child attended a school that was well maintained and had ample supplies of new textbooks, in contrast to the miserable conditions of say, the schools in San Francisco.
The kicker in this whole saga is that the petition for a lottery referendum was funded by NEVADA CASINOS, who with the state of California that by gaining a lottery, they’d not allow any more casinos than the Indians were entitled to. It’s gross.
Talk about insidious. Willie Brown only cared about Willie Brown .
Robert, you read my mind! This exactly what I was thinking as I read that. What additionally struck me was that NY is one of the most heavily taxed states. People are leaving and politicians refuse to be fiscally responsible and make cuts to programs. Instead, they keep idiotic government programs in place AND help create gambling addicts while wasting more money in BROKEN education system.
Ditto. And I would add that these "tax" revenues are as regressive as they get.
They can't read or do math but I bet they know about CRT and what pronouns to use.
Anyone want to take me up on that bet?
Bless their hearts if grade school children can understand conjugation for a singular "they". Maybe the education sysytem deserves more credit?!
Good point. I can't conjugate they as singular.
They don't know CRT. What they know is that the only thing that matters in the universe is what they believe and want to do, and that they are the ones who get to decide if something is true and that all authority is illegitimate if they don't like it.
There's all this talk about this ideology or that philosophy being taught, but at the end of the day the hidden curriculum is actually just an idea of radical individualism that says they owe nothing to nobody and must be affirmed in everything. CRT, Transgenderism, and even the "gimme socialism" is all just an outgrowth of that basic hyper-narcissism stance.
I'm with you on everything except calling it radical individualism. Hyper-narcissism, absolutely. But individualism (to me, at least) means you own your life choices - the costs and the rewards. The responsibility is yours, not some BS about other people's privilege, etc. You do it "my way", but you don't expect everyone else to pay for it/affirm your views/play your games with you. None of these losers are interested or capable of taking personal responsibility for their lives - only for your tone and pronoun usage.
In NY when they started the Lottery to supposedly benefit Education, do you know what those skanks in the government did❓ Instead of a separate Education fund, they put all the money in the General Fund. MEANING: THEY CAN SPEND IT HOWEVER THEY LIKE‼️ It is nauseating.
Illinois did they same thing ~ said it was for education. Now they say "Good Causes", which is another name for the trough they feed off of.
My city confiscates library late fees into the general fund. It’s disgusting behavior.
At least people in your city are still reading, that you library is able to charge late fees
I believe in many lotteries the private companies that run them on behalf of Government are making a LOT of money off of them, which makes this entire "lottery for education" nonsense even more nauseating, because much of the funds received aren't even going to the "General Fund"....
THIS. 1 MILLION times over. My girlfriend's whole family is in education and it's like a religious mantra with them. "more money for schools! Will someone PLEASE think about the CHILDREN!?" It's the most emotionally manipulative bullcrap I've ever seen. If you hired a contractor who charged a ton of money and did shoddy work, would you hire him again? Nope. So why would you keep funding underperformance?
The answer is obvious. Unions (both administrative and teachers) and emotional manipulation.
When you can't solve the problem, there is good money to be made in perpetuating it.
My mother was a teacher my whole life. Brother, Sister In Law, Aunt, Cousin, all in education. Not one of them ever said money was the issue. It was always too much admin and bureaucracy for them.
I don't say that to contradict your anecdote. Just to show that not all teachers believe that more money=better education.
Good point!
Couldn't agree more. And there is no transparency or accountability as to how the revenue being generated is spent.
That phrase got me too. Gambling was legalized in my state fairly recently. I (unlike the overwhelming population of my state) voted against it. I will never gamble so it really doesn't affect me, but I cannot in good conscience vote for something that can become a stumbling block for someone else. I do have an acquaintance who died maybe 2 years ago from suicide (caused by gambling debt) leaving behind a wife and 2 young kids. I also live in a state that was recently in the news for having 0% of kids proficient in math in a certain district SO maybe something else rather than more money would help education.
I hate to say it, but 'education' isn't going to fixed. More money won't fix it. What people call 'education' is really driven by some combination of innate talent (or a lack thereof) and parental pressure (or a lack thereof). These things can't be changed with the any of the tools we have at hand.
Agree. You can't fix homes with school funding, and the most important predictor of school success is a stable home run by adults who prioritize education.
Of course, I agree. Since public conversation about things that might actually make a difference (in education) is not allowed, we talk about money instead.
"I do have an acquaintance who died maybe 2 years ago from suicide (caused by gambling debt) leaving behind a wife and 2 young kids."
That is just terrible. Poor wife and kids.
Yep!
"In New Jersey, where bettors have wagered nearly $35 billion since June 2018, the state has reeled in $309 million in revenue. "
And what are they doing with it? Remember when states legalized the lottery in the 80s and they said it would all go to schools and roads, that we'd have the best schools and roads in the world because of it?
Look where we are now. Criminals
I hate to say it, but 'education' isn't going to fixed. More money won't fix it. What people call 'education' is really driven by some combination of innate talent (or a lack thereof) and parental pressure (or a lack thereof). These things can't be changed with the any of the tools we have at hand.
- "They were doing it in the shadows, and we couldn’t help them,” he said. Now, he added, “We can make sure they get the resources they need."
And that's how they sleep at night.
We have sports betting now, but follow the smell of greenbacks - it all stems back to the blossoming of state lotteries in the 1970's, leading to the gargantuan and obscene nation wide billion dollar winner lotteries now. It's a gov't money grab all right, since govt's constantly need money (but hate asking citizens for it since they could be voted out) so to me it's just another form of tax, only disguised, since governments will never call it that. They know the connotations of that word in the American psyche and history - the Tea Party and all that..
Americans for the most part dislike paying taxes for the services they expect, and gripe about the amount of it, but just seem to love squandering a ton of it away on sports and lottery betting, the rubes among us at least. So I guess the cynical calculus of government strategy in siphoning tax revenue off betting and the possible addiction that may result, is working rather well.
"$909 million goes to education" could mean that they pay the schools first from the gambling bucket, and then they pay the rest of it from another funding source. Unless you ear-mark gambling taxation as adjunctive education funding on-top of the already agreed upon education budget, you are doing nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oregon decriminalized all drugs with 80 million for drug treatment... but it was passed in conjunction with a budget that had cut all 68 million in drug treatment from state budget, so it was only a 12 million dollar increase - impossible to cover the increased spending needs from decriminalization.
LMAO, exactly. That was the big promise of the California State Lottery system. One does not need to be an Einstein to see how that worked out.
Like legalizing marijuana and CBD, the revenue is more important than people’s wellbeing. Govt intrusion in life will never stop as long as $$$ flies in. Horrible!!
Am I missing something? I thought governments intrude by making things illegal.
Civil government exists to protect citizens from predation. Allowing something this toxic to the public health is the abandonment of its primary responsibility.
Government exists to promote the safety and welfare of the citizen. The problem is one person's safety and welfare is another person's loss of liberty to enjoy for them a safe and harmless activity. Plus wrapping every citizen in a cocoon is incredibly expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare that leads to abandonment of accepted methods - police departments and border protection - in favor of much more esoteric pursuits.
I could not disagree more. Promoting safety and welfare of the citizen is not a zero sum situation. Facilitating safety for some does not strip safety from others.
Police protection places no one in a cocoon, except for maybe criminals.
And you are of course entitled to your opinion. Yes it can be a zero sum game depending on which perceived safety is at issue. In this article it is gambling and there are many, many, many people who gamble for entertainment. Myself being one. So yes if gambling were made illegal it would strip me of my ability to engage in a harmless pursuit. Ditto gun ownership. Placing people in a cocoon is a result of overzealous, misplaced safetyism. At best it creates a false sense of security. Not supporting the function and role of law enforcement is an example of abandoning a legitimate safety and welfare concern in favor of things like funding gender transition for kids too young to make legal decisions.I am beyond weary of people who cannot form a logical conclusion thinking they are like the fictitious Captain Piquard and can "Make it so." That is who the vast majority of our society needs protection from.
'Safety' is relative and nebulous. For some 'Safety' means punishing a parent who lets their kid walk to the park unattended. For some 'safety' means never having to hear an unkind word or thought. Who gets to decide what is safe and how much safety is enough and which unsafe things to allow (driving in cars or eating fatty foods).
While I can agree on some government intervention to protect us to some degree. I do not know that it should be the governments job to protect us from things that we are capable of avoiding for ourselves. I say this as an alcoholic. At no point during my bad years did I think the government should have stopped these evil booze makers from letting me drink. And if they had, I would not have actually overcome my issues, they just wouldn't have had the same outlet.
Sometimes bad things make us better. Much like how getting sick makes us immune in the future. Or how a bully when you are a kid can help make you tougher as an adult. And being constantly protected from any kind of harm tends to make organisms very susceptible to harm.
Politics is always about muddling through, compromise, tradeoffs. I am sympathetic to the libertarian argument.
But gambling is parasitic and economically destructive. Making it less accessible is hardly "wrapping every citizen in a cocoon."
I think from other comments you have made that you have experience in this. For which you have my genuine compassion. But it also likely means you are not objective. Many people gamble. I am one. I should not be deprived of that. My perception is that the problem with online gambling is the ever-present ads and ease with which it is accessed. And recognizing the absolute hypocrisy as I write it, I am fine with heavily regulating the advertising industry. All of it.
Don’t get a sprain wagging your finger at people.
CBD wouldn't have been a problem if it was pure, because it's not addictive. Problem was that it wasn't pure. There is a real question of how many addictions, and how severe can this society handle before it starts to break-down? I see our lives getting worse, and gambling is a huge driver of wealth inequality.
It's always the fault of the Gumment, ain't it.
Prohibition never works, but the state has no business being involved in this or any other enterprise. "We are here to help the poor, that is why we created the lottery for them". The examples of government creating new problems and dependencies are too numerous to list.
I think it is intentional - create a problem to be able to campaign on solutions.
Like breaking your leg then handing you a crutch. Or making education loans automatic and then wondering why the cost of education has skyrocketed....etc, ad nauseum.
Like funding virus research then offering you a vaccine.
True. Prohibition didn't work. The question is why something as drastic as Prohibition was instituted in the first place. Public and private drunkenness was becoming a scourge and destroying families just like leniency on drugs today is causing a massive crime wave and these vagrancy camps (that's what they really are).
Your points are well stated. However, prohibition only enriches those that provide the desired product and provides motivation to generate substandard product that is more dangerous. Alcohol poisoning mushroomed during prohibition largely due to improperly manufactured alcohol. The same is happening right now (and has grown worse since the "war on drugs") with banned substances.
Historically, prohibition grew out of the revivalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US. The temperance movement was a direct outgrowth of this. It is inarguable that substance abuse has always and will always be a bane on the species. It has had a huge negative impact on my family. The answer is not to make it more lucrative to manufacture or grow and sell the potentially harmful substances.
I would point you to "Chasing the Scream" by Johann Hari.
Prohibition works all the time. It worked for sports betting just a few years ago. So sick of this argument. "We outlawed a thing but it still happened sometimes!!!" You're basically arguing that laws don't work. It's like saying we shouldn't prohibit murder because people are still getting murdered.
I think I understand your point. Murder and other crimes against other people, violating fundamental freedoms, like, say, life are explicitly forbidden, not because they don't stop murder but because they violate that persons rights. Not at all the same thing. If I shoot heroin I am not violating any ones rights, just making a bad decision. So you seem to be arguing that if there is something we don't like that others choose we should have the power to prohibit it? I don't like certain kinds of sex so that should be illegal? Laws against behavior that is chosen that does not violate another persons rights should not be be in force, seems to be the point of the constitution. If I am not messing with you, leave me alone, or something like that. I am just fine without the help of the gubment.
On a roll with bad arguments. Dropped the "prohibition doesn't work" motte and on to the "It's all about rights" bailey. I don't think it's about rights. Certain types of sex actually are illegal, like those using coercion, and selling addictive substances like heroin is inherently coercive. We saw that with the latest opioid epidemic. Greater availability and normalization directly correlated with lives lost. people taking pills their Docs gave them and not realizing the hold they have. That's coercive as anything. Homo economicus doesn't apply to addictive substances. These things literally destroy the ability of a person to behave as a rational actor and engage in enlightened self-interest. This isn't just a baker selling bread. Try again.
Seem a bit mystified by this. Prohibition doesn't work and rights are completely entwined with this idea it seems to me. The issue is NOT what is illegal but what SHOULD be illegal. I don't need anyone to help me make decisions about my behavior as long as it does not violate the rights of others, certainly not the corrupt edifice known as government. The concept is not hard to grasp. Appreciate your dialogue, even though we disagree.
You might not need help making decisions, but if you're hooked on heroin.. you do. You aren't making decisions about behavior when you're addicted. Rational self-interest isn't applicable. Square peg, round hole. People let their children die for a hit. Your simplistic libertarian individualism is just not applicable to substances that are literal mind control.
Thanks for your perspective, but you might want to lose the judgement.
Not arguing for prohibition of alcohol or anything, but I found it interesting when I read recently that Prohibition (capital P) was responsible for halving the rates of social and public health problems related to alcohol abuse. Those effects lingered into the 1950s, evidently.
I used to be a libertarian, and the whole "prohibition didn't work" thing is just an easy cliché so they can avoid dealing with the deeper questions of what role the government should have in promoting social well-being. Rather than having to argue for or against, they just try to negate the whole issue by saying nothing will work anyways.
Remember kids, these guys are not gambling addicts. They are persons with betting dependences!
Ha! Like bums becoming "homeless" becoming "unhoused". Maybe call them "Unmoneyed"? As well as "unhinged"?
I personally think the state should stay out of any business that makes a profit, such as gambling. That being said, everyone who is placing bets is an adult and it’s their personal responsibility to manage their lives and money.
The issue I have is the revenue that the state receives from the gambling and lottery always seem to disappear in the budget. The lottery was sold as “money for the schools!” Gambling was sold with the same promise. Why then is it that the school districts in Ohio are begging the residents to vote yes for school levy’s? Where is the state money for the schools being spent? My district has fat to cut in the upper administration level but they are cutting bussing and implementing
“pay-to-play” for extracurricular activities. The state hoards my taxes for schools and the district leaders waste money on items that don’t teach the kids. The kids and parents are stuck in the middle with very little hope. Voting new people in office is always the response I get, but in my area, voter turnout is awful. Most political problems are discussed on Facebook by keyboard warriors with zero guts to actually vote for a change.
Sorry for the whining. My opinion is that legalizing everything for the sake of increasing revenues for the government will always lead to greedy politicians voting for more spending on useless things.
In California they gave the green light to a lottery with the promise that the proceeds would help fund education. But a typical scenario resulted when the state deducted the amount of revenue from the lottery from their education budget, meaning that there was NO benefit to education, but the money the state didn't spend on education was spent elsewhere. This was a cynical political move that was, and IS, being re-enacted in many other states.
Furthermore, some of those few dedicated California gaming tax dollars are going to shore up California’s underfunded public employee pensions. Not to “the kids”.
Agree with your point that education is not a huge beneficiary and that the lottery scam for education is being rolled out in many states.
The CA lottery takes in 888 million dollars and approximately 20% goes to education. What charity or a fund raiser could declare an 80% operating budget and give back only 20%? Reputable charities have the reverse stats of 80% to the cause and 20% or less for operating cost.
In 2017-18, the CA lottery owed 36 million to education because it failed to balance the prize payout with educational funding. The lottery does not know how to offer maximum funding for education.
Anything that starts with "it's for the children" be very wary!
"For the children", along with "For the people", are both socialist buzz phrases used to take your money! Nancy Pelosi used BOTH in her push to get increased spending through the House. Sadly, people fell for it because people are stupid and do not pay attention!
The 'state should stay away from any business that makes a profit'? Are you for real?
Pharmaceutical companies make profits. Are you suggesting we scrap the FDA, and allow them to sell drugs that will recklessly kill us? Wise up pal.
I am not suggesting that the FDA is disbanded or allow drug companies to run wild.
I assume you are aware that pharma, the FDA and SOME doctors and health insurance companies are one in the same? It’s a revolving door between the government (elected officials and/or employees), drug companies and healthcare providers and companies.
I always quote George Carlin...It’s a big club and you ain’t in it!!
Apples and oranges. Collecting income tax versus operating a profit making business.
Um, there is a difference between marketing a product to citizens principally in order to fund government budgets, and regulating the safety of products marketed to citizens with a subsidiary tax revenue stream.
That's not what he said, sweetheart. You want to make a point, start a new post, but don't twist a clear message to spin some point to fit your narrative and off topic.
234 ?..
Very very true. To make things worse, unlike drugs, there seem to be no restrictions for gambling ads. They are everywhere. I am now hearing announcers, within games, talk about situational betting opportunities. Someone who wants to quit basically needs to switch off all media to avoid getting sucked in.
This started much earlier than the author claims. When NJ legalized casino gambling (1980?) other states then saw revenue. And then came state lotteries replacing the old mob numbers betting. It was all downhill from there.
I am old enough to remember when betting was confined to 4 things; Vegas, the horses, bookies and regular card games. To get involved in any required either effort or knowledge so entry for a potential addict was harder. Now, the addiction can find you in your cell with customer support to help if you have problems injecting the poison into your veins. Ah, progress!
Interesting. I have yet to see a single ad for this. We inhabit different worlds, I guess.
Not sure where you live but here near Philly sports betting ads are frequent on TV and radio. Maybe it's because we have casino gambling in PA and each casino also has a sports betting arm??? It's like your neighborhood fentanyl dealer advertising home delivery on TV.
We live at the top of the Olympic peninsula, Washington State - surrounded by casinos. But in about five minutes here we will be leaving this state permanently. Just finished packing the cars. The moving van is long gone.
Happy trails and safe travels.
I listen to several football podcasts that are produced by the NFL. I hear ads on them for DraftKings “the official sports betting partner of the NFL” frequently. I see ads for Cesar’s sportsbook, draft kings and other online betting sites during every NFL game.
I live in Massachusetts, my ride to work is about 13 miles and depending on traffic, 15 minutes. Within those 15 minutes I will hear at least one commercial for either FanDuel, or DraftKings sports betting. Depending on the DJ, they all seem to be part of the station's sponsorship of each one. I also see multiple ads for Wynn Betting on YouTube (along side those ridiculous Liberty Mutual ads).
Unfortunately, online betting is here to stay.
“Before you remove a fence, stop and ask yourself why it was put there in the first place.” - G. K. Chesterton
Government never considers the consequences of their actions, they only see the revenue those actions generate. And government has an insatiable appetite for revenue.
You can bet the New York senator promoting his gambling bills has an offshore account somewhere.
It's not just sports gambling. Betting machines--once exclusively found in casinos--have been popping up like poisonous mushrooms in local bars. This week, I saw billboards go up for a local "gaming parlor and pub."
As long as it took some effort to get to where instant-fix gambling was legal, gambling addiction was limited to a few desperate people. The easier it becomes to win or (more likely lose) a lot of money in a few minutes, the more people get sucked in. With ads for gambling apps (including online slots!) popping up on people's phones, it isn't hard to turn a person who likes playing games on their phone into a gambling addict.
When I was a child, you had to go to Nevada to gamble that easily. I've watched for decades as gambling has been increasingly promoted by the state: casinos on Indian reservations, lotteries, casinos on riverboats, more lotteries, casinos anywhere, and now gaming machines outside of casinos.
As usual, government is harming people in the name of "helping" them.
Yeah, but, all that money for education, and look how much better our education system has gotten in the past few years ;)
Best sarcastic comment of the day.
When I was a kid, our teachers were always complaining about class size and low per capita education funding compared to other states. And yet somehow we all managed to learn to read and write and do at least basic arithmetic by the time we graduated from high school.
In spite of constant increases in funding and class sizes no larger now than they were then, kids are not learning to read. They are taught from kindergarten onward that ANY attempt at writing is good enough, no matter how badly spelled or lacking in punctuation. They can't multiply single-digit numbers without a calculator, since the multiplication table is no longer taught.
The problem isn't money.
Casinos always know exactly who their market is too: look at the free bus services from Chinatown.
Blame Clinton who legalized Indian casinos, and the subsequent rise of all the new Clinton Indian tribes.
A podcast I listen to is littered with ads for casino phone apps.
Why can’t we just wipe out gamblers’ debts they way we can students’?
Careful. Don't give them any ideas.
If YOU want to bear the burden of gambling debt, feel free. That is a noble gesture that might help individuals in debt.
As a nation, however, we should outlaw the predatory gambling industry, and then sue for damages, to pay for the immense harms done to the people least equipped to resist its temptations.
I think he was being facetious!
That occurred to me, and I should probably chill. But the issue is too close to home, for me.
And there's nothing noble about it. It's one thing to allow free people the freedom to muck up their lives without government interference. It's another to encourage them by bailing out their bad decisions while making everyone else pay for it. And this sentiment applies just as well to quite a large number of those who have student loan debt for useless but expensive degrees.
Don't give them ideas!!!!!
"There’s talk about the antidepressant escitalopram helping (although the Food and Drug Administration has yet to sign off)."
Cool. Big Pharma to the rescue.
While being an addictive activity for some not all participants suffer. If you’re looking for the enabler, which is the ultimate beneficiary of legal gambling, look at the our state governments. They too have an addiction to spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
Not one jurisdiction has limited any advertising and it’s rebate focused marketing to new clients.
This is not like OxyContin and the manufacturers who benefited from addiction. States do no not tax pharmaceutical products. Well not yet anyway!
Having occupied some portion of my misspent youth as a 'drunken sailor on shore leave' I object somewhat to your remark. We tended to only spend the cash in our pockets and stopped there. The enabling of credit-based gambling changes the nature of the situation tremendously -- the gambler really has no reason to stop until disaster has fully struck. We at least had the Shore Patrol to corral us at the end of the night and hold our liberty cards at the next port of call. Our state and federal governments have no equivalent minders to help protect the states and nation from their follies.
Is anyone surprised that government is muscling aside the mob in every vice imaginable.? The took over the numbers racket with lotteries. They got into the drug business with legalized marijuana. And now they're getting into sports betting. All taking advantage of the worst elements of humanity and profiting from it. What's next, prostitution?
I've called our ruling cabal a "gangster government." Can anyone prove me wrong? John Adams said our Constitution was fit only for a religious and moral people. Even if we were, is our Constitution fit for an aggressively secular and immoral government? Isn't it long past time to clean out the swamps in DC and the state capitals and send these vermin packing?
Good observations.
If you want the state to ban everything that’s “addictive” you are looking at a VERY long list: nicotine, sugar, gambling, porn, social media, gaming, etc. No one wants to live in that country. Our Government and culture should promote virtue: education, work, honesty, saving money, marriage, children to married couples, etc. our govt should not promote gambling(lotteries) or any vices
You make a solid point but cigarettes, pot, and porn are not allowed to advertise. In online sports betting was banned from advertising it would make all our lives better.
Fair point. I'm certainly no prohibitionist, but if pot, cigarettes and porn can't advertise in most spaces, gambling shouldn't be able to either.
The only way to live to be 100 years old is to take away all the things that make you want to live to be 100. I think Woody Allen said that.
We combined the addictiveness of smart phones with the addictiveness of gambling and then flog it almost 24/7 in ads during sports events…. What could possibly go wrong?
😢
Through our entire existence as humans we have gambled, drank alcohol and drugged ourselves. Our entire existence. It is fundamental. In a capitalistic society, that means businesses that push it, and a very small amount of customers getting in trouble with it. We have tried prohibition and mass incarceration to no avail. What has always been assumed to be more of a male issue than female when it comes to gambling might not be so apparent, if you have ever gone to a casino and looked at the amount of older women who sit there for hours playing those games of chance. We usually end up just taxing it and trying to make something good come out of it.
Yeah, I can easily picture a group of hunter-gatherers sitting around playing poker.
Hunter gatherers did not have paper, printing presses, or sophisticated dyes so no poker. But there is archeological evidence that they did indeed play games of chance.
For hunter-gatherers, everyday life was pretty much a game of chance. Which just caused the thought to occur to me that maybe we should look at the increased popularity of gambling similar to extreme sports. Modern people in this country are so safe and secure that many feel the need to do something dangerous or risky to feel alive.
I think you are on to something.
Some people are more risk averse than others. Which would be a positive in some circumstances and a negative in others.
In addition to early anthropological studies of "primitive" tribes where they always played games of chance. Like The Dobe !Kung by Richard Lee or several of the Marshals' studies.
We live in an almost totally addicted society: gambling, narcotics, smoking, alcohol, food, laziness, antidepressants, anti anxiety meds, every child who cannot sit still has ADHD (I know there are some children with real problems but I believe it's overused), social media, TIKTOK, FACEBOOK, TWITTER and on and on. People are LACKING PURPOSE, GOALS, DREAMS, CONNECTIONS
I’d like to like this but I’m sort of addicted to Substack. :(
That's not an addiction. It's called useful information as opposed to the misinformation we get everyday from other sources.
ADHD is overdiagnosed & much of the time it is a result of the parents letting their child play too much video games, too much screen time, too much smartphones. Which causes decreased attention span & frontal lobe brain changes that look exactly like ADHD. Additionally, if they have screen time before bed, then they don't get enough sleep. And sleep deprivation looks EXACTLY like ADHD on Cognitive Testing & Brain MRI.
And the nearly complete feminization of education through the elementary years means that boys who don't sit still, docile and quiet, like girls, are labeled a problem in need of medical (pharmaceutical) solutions. My kids' old elementary school had precisely one man in the building (the janitor) and regularly took away recess for extra test cramming or punishment. Gee whiz it's amazing the boys got pretty wiggly and starting from the time they were 5 and 6 all those nice lady-teachers were suggesting they be "evaluated" so they could "get the help they need to focus." It's nauseating
yea kids need recess. they need breaks to jump and run around. no wonder those boys got wiggly! there's nothing wrong with them they just need some physical activity time.
in kindergarten, my little brother was wiggly & the school wanted him on meds when he was 5. They said he has "ADHD". My parents said No. By the time he was in jr high & high school, he was a straight A student. Never took any meds.
Spot on. Our culture is missing something important and we are desperately trying to fill that void with things that will turn and destroy us.