Comment by kelseyfrog

4 days ago

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?

30 comments

kelseyfrog

Reply
snarfy  4 days ago

> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

That's not how addiction works.

  • kelseyfrog  4 days ago

    If someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?

    • sd9  4 days ago

      If you were friends with an alcoholic it would be pretty shitty to give them a bottle of vodka for their birthday.

      People are not machines, it’s not as simple as deciding whether to do something or not. You have stronger and weaker days. Temptation makes it harder to do what is in your best interests, even if you’ve decided on another day that you’d rather not partake.

      Getting concrete about gambling: lots of people decide not to gamble and just don’t. Lots of people decide they don’t care whether they gamble and they do. But there are also many people in the middle, who would rather not gamble, but find that they sometimes act against their own best interests, and their own past resolutions to not gamble. Bombarding these people with offers of free bets increases the likelihood that they will gamble on their weaker days.

      When I hear takes like yours, I feel very jealous. I would love to always act in my own best interests and according to some policy I predetermined. But that’s just not my experience of how life works.

      7 replies →

    • cjcenizal  4 days ago

      I understand moral arguments but also see how others might not. I think it might be more useful to view this from a societal perspective. Is it to society's benefit to ensure gamblers don't ruin their own lives? To answer that question, what's the cost to society when a gambler ruins their life?

      Lost savings means an impoverished individual and potentially an impoverished family and children. These draw support resources from the state and community, are more likely to turn to crime, and are less likely to develop into contributing members of society.

      5 replies →

    • AlexandrB  4 days ago

      Gambling is basically a scam (house always wins) and thus should not be a legal transaction you can make. What moral responsibility do we have to allow companies to scam people?

      2 replies →

    • santoshalper  4 days ago

      Only the moral obligation not to prey on the weak. Gambling addicts are sick. Taking advantage of a sick person makes you scummy.

jazzpush2  4 days ago

It was legal up til a few years ago. Take a guess why it's not now (or just read the news).

| If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

If this is serious, lol. "Why are you addicted to X. Just stop, it's easy!"

yearolinuxdsktp  4 days ago

> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

Because harm does not guarantee control.

When it becomes compulsive, it’s not a simple cost-benefit choice anymore. People can know it’s hurting them and still feel driven to keep doing it.

The dopamine rush of gambling means the brain can get stuck chasing relief, hope, or reward, despite also knowing that it is destructive.

> If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?

Because it’s not that easy to prove responsibility in the face of powerful money lobbying and victim-blaming. Shame and stigma around addiction means people don’t come forward. Freedom argument comes in that not everyone who gambles is an addict, so restricting it takes freedom away. The same argument is used to push the personal responsibility angle.

Ultimately I think the way the gambling orgs cover their ass is by advertising gambling addiction helplines and adding small disclaimers to call those lines if you have a problem: “that’s it, legislators, we are clearly giving them the tools to help themselves, and that shows us exercising responsibility. Bombarding gamblers with offers is simply marketing and creating engagement for our business, you can’t make that illegal.”

Do they have moral responsibility to not exploit addicted gamblers? I would argue, yes, they do. But unless you prohibit all gambling marketing, how would you accomplish this moral responsibility even if the gambling company agreed it had it? It’s not like addicts identify themselves or that you can filter your marketing easily to people without problems. This is why the solutions have been on outlawing the whole thing, because it’s really hard to operate as a business without the societal cost.

sfn42  4 days ago

> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

Because they're stupid. Gamblers are idiots, gambling companies prey on the dumb. Anyone who understands the very basic math behind the games understands that it's pointless to play, you'll just lose more the more you play. That's the whole point. It's not even a secret, you can find the exact odds for each game.

Poker is different as you're playing other players rather than the house but it's still a negative sum game as the house takes a cut so you have to be better than the others to play. And if you're a reasonably intelligent person you'll just bet a little and accept your losses and move on. Or not play at all. Idiots will do dumb stuff like bet way more than they can afford, then they won't have money to pay their mortgage, rent etc and so on. People call it an addiction but I'm pretty sure it's mostly just being really really stupid. Can't be addicted to gambling if you aren't dumb as a rock.