I’d say it’s a simple argument. Letting adults make bad decisions is preferable to sending guys with guns to stop them and throw people in jail for doing something they voluntarily want to do. Perhaps the people who would have wasted their money gambling instead invest in the stock market, but more likely they’ll piss it away on something although maybe something you find less offensive.
I'm not saying a drug-war like approach is the best method here, just that some degree of prohibition that prevents industrialized gambling is better than none.
For example, even in a fair game the house will eventually take a gambler's bankroll provided the house's bankroll is practically infinite [1]. That's a thought experiment, but it works in practice when you are dealing with gambling addicts that won't walk away from the table.
Secondly, those gambling addicts, or "whales" as they call them represent something like 0.15% of players bring in 50% of the revenue [2].
And lastly, I would have agreed with you a few months ago, before I heard this story [3] on NPR about how Big Fish was targeting people and using predatory practices to keep them on the game. It reminded me of a twisted version of AOL's customer retention practices that they were sued for a decade ago.
There's also the whole notion of casinos/gambling disproportionately impacting low income communities and how you can't start a gambling business without tons of capital, so it serves as an efficient funnel of money from the poor to the rich. And it's really naive to think that someone going broke affects that person alone. God help them if they have a family.
I'm with you except I'm not so sure those .15% of players wouldn't blow their money on something different. In my state, casinos are the sole purview of Native tribes, and those whales pay for a lot of tribal services for people in need.
Which just struck me as a perfect point for your argument. So I guess I'm smelling what you're cooking.
