Here in Finland slot machines (and most types of legalized gambling) are controller by a government-owned nonprofit that distributes the revenue to various charities. I think that's the best way to run these kind of things if they need to exist.
Some may say the charities got just as addicted as the gamblers. I remember in particular in a TV debate, where Thorvald Stoltenberg, respected former minister and president of the Norwegian Red Cross, declared that although he realized the harm they caused, he had decided to defend slot machines "no matter what" because they were such an important income source for his organization. He said it as if it was some selfless commitment.
Eventually, though, gambling addiction became a too big and obvious problem to ignore, and the gambling monopoly took over, sharply reducing the numbers of machines and (supposedly) making them less aggressive. There were some concessions to the charities that lost income as a result of it (which, as I recall, screwed over the few charities that had taken a principled stand against slot machines).
In australia, slot machines are controlled by organisations which are effectively white collar gangsters. The NSW organisation is currently suing an ex-employee who worked in anti-corruption and subsequently whistle-blew on unactioned corruption reports, while he’s on his deathbed with terminal cancer.
> In australia, slot machines are controlled by organisations which are effectively white collar gangsters.
The thought process is that if it wasn't government run, it would be ran by actual gangsters with much less accountability.
But I’m also unsure how I feel about prohibiting a behaviour, given the whole slippery slope article etc
My "favorite" part, for lack of a better adjective, is how ClubsNSW (the slot machine organization) successfully got a federal court order telling the whistleblower to stop "intimidating, harassing" the poor, innocent ClubsNSW, while at the same time the home of the guy who interviewed the whistleblower gets firebombed, twice!
US state governments use the "it's for a good cause" justification all the time as well. But... it's still addictive and exploitive of vulnerable populations (especially lotto)
I despise the model just like lotteries, it's a regressive tax and the lions share of profit comes from those with addictions.