05-16-2018, 08:21 AM
I'm a bit wary of proliferating gambling, which I suspect will be the outcome of this decision. (Which, on the legal merits, seems sound to me -- based strictly on my citizen's knowledge of the law blah blah).
Prohibition doesn't really work, as we've seen in a bunch of contexts. But the unfettered spread of what we'll call "vice" activities -- gambling, drinking, drugs -- also doesn't work, in a way that's not acknowledged by civil libertarians. Drinking kills many people per year and it seems to me relatively modest regulations could mitigate much of the damage to society. Instinctively, gambling feels like a similar class of problem.
And, as we've seen in many contexts (e.g., say, opioids) it can be difficult to lasso problems once they've escaped orderly confines. So while I wouldn't mind putting a bet or two down I'm wary about what this will mean as a societal phenomenon.
Prohibition doesn't really work, as we've seen in a bunch of contexts. But the unfettered spread of what we'll call "vice" activities -- gambling, drinking, drugs -- also doesn't work, in a way that's not acknowledged by civil libertarians. Drinking kills many people per year and it seems to me relatively modest regulations could mitigate much of the damage to society. Instinctively, gambling feels like a similar class of problem.
And, as we've seen in many contexts (e.g., say, opioids) it can be difficult to lasso problems once they've escaped orderly confines. So while I wouldn't mind putting a bet or two down I'm wary about what this will mean as a societal phenomenon.