These apps should be banned. Gambling is a social ill with such a limited upside and so much harm it can't really be justified
Word document metadata shows the bill's proposed text was written in circulated in a .docx file created by a lobbying firm that's paid $90k/month by the Malaysian owner of a local casino.
Not bad for 30 seconds dedicated to a first blind attempt!
Maybe just put a limit on how much you can transfer to the app each month or something? Like $500?
I don't think that's exactly true. Laws introduce varying degrees of friction for citizens to do something.
It's like entrepreneurship. If there are a bunch of laws in place making it hard to start a business, fewer people will start businesses. Some people will still create illegal businesses on the black market, but lots of law abiding citizens will just stop creating businesses because there's too much friction to bother.
Bookies scale very well, a small number of them could serve whatever clientele is still interested.
It'll probably turn out similarly to drugs. Prohibition keeps your average citizen away, and makes the market much worse for anyone left in it.
I'm not sure about B, it's pretty easy to identify an addict.
The problem I have with sports gambling is the massive commercialization and advertising. We don't tolerate it for cigarettes, and gambling addictions are much worse than cigarette addictions in terms of financial harm.
Gamblers know where to go, but the purpose of all the advertising is attract new gamblers, preferably the compulsive kind.
Another harm is what it does to the integrity of sports. There are famous cases like the 1919 White Sox and Pete Rose. The people who took part were banned for life for a reason.
exactly how it reads? can you point to any historical examples where it has?
> Are you really going to claim legalizing sports betting a few years ago DIDNT increase gambling in the US
No? Did not claim that at all?
> This doesn't strike me as a good faith comment
yours does strike me that way either; although mine definitely was in good faith.
If it was in good faith, why didn't you bother addressing the point? How was gambling prohibition "not working"?
On gambling prohibitions though - one local one I can think of is the CA gambling market. California has decided most forms of online gambling are “illegal,” (except the ones that have successfully lobbied for it), yet it is not enforced at all, only on corporate sites, which creates a massive black market that actually causes far more exposure to harm to consumers than legalization would. This isn’t a novel argument, it’s been debated for 20+ years and the results are pretty clear. I understand however people don’t seek nuance in these arguments and if your stance is “GAMBLING == BAD” I really don’t have much else to say here.
That goes beyond moralism; most people don't want to pay higher taxes. I think that it's good that we have a safety-net for people who get into impossible levels of debt, but that does mean that we have an interest in figuring out ways to minimize how often bankruptcy is actually invoked.
Stock options can be used as a tool to hedge against risk.
It wouldn't bother me if it was just hedge funds or big corporations or multibillionaires who played with contracts, it bothers me that regular people do it too, and the average John Doe simply doesn't have the same multi-million-dollar option pricing algorithms that Goldman Sachs does. At that point, it feels like it's big corporations leeching money away from poorer people who don't know better.
Full disclosure, I do play with options occasionally, but I have mostly stopped, and I treat it like a casino, or as you mentioned to hedge against risk.
You make it sound like options exist for large traders to profit off individuals with access to less information. That's not how options are primarily used. That is however how sports betting is primarily used.