Hacker News Reader

Comment by cortesoft | Hacker News Reader

How do we determine at what point something is “too addictive” to be allowed?

There are many people who can gamble responsibly and enjoy it. I love playing poker, and play in a tournament every few years. Lots of people are compulsive gamblers, though, and lose it all.

Do I have to give up my hobby because some people can’t handle it?

What about drinking? I enjoy a happy hour once a month or so, and have a couple of drinks when I do. Others drink 10+ drinks a month. Do we ban it because of the people who can’t stop? (We know how well that works)

I am not saying we do nothing, but I don’t think it is as easy as “just pass legislation”

View on HN

We know how full 100% alcohol prohibition in 1920's worked in the USA, but what's missing is that it doesn't have to be a full 100% for it to benefit society. Laws restricting sales, like no selling alcohol past a certain hour, or on Sundays, still exist on the books in many places, and while I can't speak to how well they actually work, given that we'd just stock up on Saturdays anyway, there's also no Al Capone levels of violence in places with those restrictions. So let's not say "we know how that goes" hinting at 1920's prohibition, which was over a century ago now, and just leave it at that.

For a counter example, I like driving fast. Really fast. Should I be banned from doing that because other people can't handle that responsibly? Society has looked at that and decided that, yes, no one should be allowed to do that on public streets. So I keep that behavior to the race track and sign an extra liability waiver in order to do so.

Why should gambling or alcohol be treated different from that?

> Society has looked at that and decided that, yes, no one should be allowed to do that on public streets. So I keep that behavior to the race track and sign an extra liability waiver in order to do so.

So can I still drink and gamble in private if I sign a waiver?

Sorry, but alcohol prohibition did not work and was instrumental in fueling the rise of organized crime (does that ring any bells?).

I happen to believe the War on Drugs (prohibition v2) is an even bigger mistake than the first one, which also ignores why it came to be: v1 prohibition enforcers needed something to do and there was a growing problems with an "uppity" segment of society that needed to be put in its place. The history of it is horrifying; and the current implementation of it is horrifying as well.

So legalize it all. Regulate the advertisement/promotion/access/purity, etc. It's going to happen one way or another and pushing it into the shadows only makes it worse.

So let the gambling happen but keep it on a short leash.

> Sorry, but alcohol prohibition did not work

That's what GP said too, albeit poorly.

What would a gambling liability waiver cover? Your losses/damages are not in a confined circuit or ringfenced from your general finances. Are you just agreeing not to sue if you lose your house/wife/job?

If all you're saying is that it needs the right legislation/thoughtful legislation and not just a blanket ban, then I guess I agree. The base of this thread was someone saying that all gambling should be state owned, which seems like a reasonable thing to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com