For instance in many places bartenders are bound by law to not give more alcohol to people that are already drunk.
The biggest problem I see with gambling is that the Pareto effect shows an ugly face there: often it's just economically feasible for the operator because of the addicts.
But anyway, suppose they could. There's always the world's biggest casino: the stock market. Or there are actual casinos. Or there are lottery tickets.
In most gaming jurisdictions, casinos are required to pay for billboards and the like advertising where a problem gambler can get help. (The lotteries, which are state run, never do this, and Wall Street sure as shit doesn't.) I'd have no problem with those sites putting link to Gamblers Anonymous on every page.
But beyond that, I don't think they have responsibility.
I'm curious, did the market play out like you thought it would? Is this about where you expect daily fantasy will end up, or are there still big changes ahead?
It is a shame we weren't the ones to have gotten there. I would have learned some lessons from the rise and fall of online poker that the DFS guys don't seem to have.
Bartenders are bound by law not to give drunks more alcohol because they could go drive a car and kill someone. A gambler is only hurting himself when he loses his money.
Why do you think heroin or meth are illegal? Those substances are only hurting the person using them, right?
The damage is not as impactful and severe, but it is still damage.
But I'm still not convinced about your parents first sentence.
But in my opinion the harm an addict can do to others isn't even the only problem. Addiction is a sickness that needs treatment and help. Addicts are victims first (at least partly of themselves) and only then can also be perpetrators.
Living off the problems of other people (by enabling them in their addiction, not by helping them) to me personally is morally questionable. It might be a bit of a cultural thing though, as here in Europe there isn't as much emphasis on the idea that everyone needs to take their luck in their own hands as there is in the US.
I find your last paragraph interesting. I too, am European. But there are lots of cultures in Europe. To me, the word "responsability" struck me as being very strong.
As a portuguese, we are sociably incentivised to help each other out but it usually goes as far as helping a "friend of a friend". We have almost a "helping out" economy, that I believe comes from the hardships from our parents and grandparents during the middle of the century. And it's how we make bonds with each other.
But when someone can't or doesn't want to help, it's OK. The way you phrased it turned a "could do" and "might do" to a "must do".
I'm addicted to Hackernews. Does the fact that it's a free site make the operator any less responsible?
How about we just make everyone personally responsible for their own actions. Gambling addicts can just block the website.
Bartenders have a responsibility not because of addiction, but because someone could actually kill themselves or others when they are too drunk.
I also don't see the medical marijuana dispensaries responsibly for people that ruin their lives due to MJ addiction (yes, I know that it's not chemically addictive, but like gambling, you can get addicted to it).