Question inspired by the news that Dave and Busters is supposed to be adding gambling to their games. And of course there are the sports betting apps.

I get that all things being equal we should let people do what they want to do. But I don’t see much of a benefit, and a lot of downside to allowing the spread of gambling.

  • z00s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    What counts as a “legitimate” argument?

    Most governments that allow it do so because they get mega bucks in tax revenue from it.

    On the other hand, it destroys peoples’ lives and facilitates money laundering on an embarrassingly industrial scale.

    The counter argument is that the government then uses those tax dollars to build hospitals, schools and roads.

    It’s up to you if you think that’s a legitimate reason :shrug:

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      In the case of this post whatever people replying consider legitimate.

      For me “tax revenue” isn’t, if we could get tax revenue off murder for hire we wouldn’t do it. It’s not like with cannabis where there are more obvious personal benefits and relatively low risks.

      I’m more receptive to other commenters points about being able to regulate the activity rather than drive it underground and in doing so strengthen criminal enterprises.