Supreme Court lifts federal ban on sports betting

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Gamboling depends on the fact that people are easily addicted to behavior that gives an occasional reward regardless of win loss considerations long term. It's just another way to make a profit on the manipulation of brain chemicals, no different, really, than selling drugs.

Anything in life can be addictive to a human brain.

Sex can be addictive.
Alcohol can be addictive.
Caffeine can be addictive.
Working out can be addictive.
Illegal drugs can be addictive.
Legal drugs can be addictive.
Gambling can be addictive.
Going to work can be addictive.

Anything that triggers a certain brain chemical reaction can be addictive. Justifying laws based on that alone is incredibly asinine.

Of all things though, I will never understand why gambling with cards (or games, or sports) is illegal, but better on the stock market and state-sponsored lotteries are legal.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
I think that can indeed be said.



The comparison, I think, is the addiction to brain chemicals, not the identity of reward externally. You can wire monkey brains so they can push a button to stimulate pleasure and they will die of starvation rather than stopping to eat.
I agree, im just hesitant to directly compare since you get a physical item in most cases.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Anything in life can be addictive to a human brain.

Sex can be addictive.
Alcohol can be addictive.
Caffeine can be addictive.
Working out can be addictive.
Illegal drugs can be addictive.
Legal drugs can be addictive.
Gambling can be addictive.
Going to work can be addictive.

Anything that triggers a certain brain chemical reaction can be addictive. Justifying laws based on that alone is incredibly asinine.

Of all things though, I will never understand why gambling with cards (or games, or sports) is illegal, but better on the stock market and state-sponsored lotteries are legal.
I would think the objective wouldn't be outlawing pleasure but outlawing obvious attempts to manipulate the weakness of the naive by the cunning for the profit of the latter. As for the stock market we have pretty good evidence that is a winning bet when common sense is used whereas with lotteries the conscious is assuaged by a presumption that the house is a public good.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
I think that can indeed be said.



The comparison, I think, is the addiction to brain chemicals, not the identity of reward externally. You can wire monkey brains so they can push a button to stimulate pleasure and they will die of starvation rather than stopping to eat.

This perhaps is the condition of most of us in the modern consumer driven world. Addicted to pleasure sensations and starved of real life
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I agree, im just hesitant to directly compare since you get a physical item in most cases.
Yes, and many needs are real. Food, for example, while it can be an addiction, is also a necessity

As the Sufis say, "Too many camel bones and and one can forget what a real camel looks like."
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,801
581
126
Jesus Christ, at least read WHY the dissenting opinion was written. It had nothing to do with morality or gambling. RBG+ felt it was an inappropriate application of anti commandeering doctrine and overly broad in striking the whole law down.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
Perhaps the fact that they are complete incompetent morons? The fact that they are both a joke of the supreme court?

Anyone who argues for shit like this might as well go back to days of prohibition. I don't know how you can advocate for people having a right to consume alcohol, but not a right to a bet with your own money... All the while, investing in the stock market (by definition)... is a FUCKING bet.

Seriously, supreme court nominees like those 2 fools are a joke to this nation.
That was my initial reaction too but if you take the time to read the dissent there seems to be much more to it than that. While I agree adults should be allowed to gamble their own money however they want, it looks like this decision also removed barriers preventing state governments from sponsoring the activities.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Not that I personally give a crap about sports betting, I agree with the ruling if only because certain states, like Nevada, were excluded from the law. I wonder how much lobbying the sports franchises have been doing to get sports betting outlawed in all 50 states and especially Vegas?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Not that I personally give a crap about sports betting, I agree with the ruling if only because certain states, like Nevada, were excluded from the law. I wonder how much lobbying the sports franchises have been doing to get sports betting outlawed in all 50 states and especially Vegas?

tbh I don't understand why sports weren't for this. They should have embraced it and started buying up sports betting franchises (e.g. fantasy sports leagues, etc...).

Also what do sports leagues have to GAIN by it being illegal? Honest question here, because I have no idea - and I understand that (like you said) they WERE lobbying against it. Just curious as to what monetary gain they had for it being outlawed. Less booze sales at the games because the fans lost all their money on bets?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
I don't either. We shouldnt legislate morality in that way, it's historically a religious tenet. If and when, offer help for those who need it. And if they choose religion to battle their addiction, that's fine.
This is one thing I've gotten more "conservative" one with age. I used to think gambling was completely personal choice and government's role should only be to regulate the rules on the games.

But after being in enough non-Vegas casinos I've learned how many of the people are gambling money they can't afford to lose and they've been manipulated into believing it could be their saviour. The marketing in many states is highly predatory and pushes the get rich quick lines. I've also known several people that have fallen into a gambling addiction, even people that don't here the get rich quick payoff.

Anyways I view gambling about the same as payday loans, just another industry that preys on poor and uneducated people and as a result is a net negative to society. Republicans have decided they are okay with gambling now because it is yet another way to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

I am not that opposed to destination gambling locations like Vegas, because you have to have money to get there and you generally leave before you can build an addiction.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
That was my initial reaction too but if you take the time to read the dissent there seems to be much more to it than that. While I agree adults should be allowed to gamble their own money however they want, it looks like this decision also removed barriers preventing state governments from sponsoring the activities.

Even still, reading through her reason I still don't justify it. I don't really care if state governments sponsor it. Sponsors are everywhere, whether it comes from the state or not doesn't really matter. Illinois is one of the most liberal states I've been to - with some of the most ridiculous tax laws in existence - but you can damn sure bet they will run state sponsored advertisements for lotteries.

Anyone who knows lotteries knows that it's a tax on the uneducated for the educated.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
This is one thing I've gotten more "conservative" one with age. I used to think gambling was completely personal choice and government's role should only be to regulate the rules on the games.

But after being in enough non-Vegas casinos I've learned how many of the people are gambling money they can't afford to lose and they've been manipulated into believing it could be their saviour. The marketing in many states is highly predatory and pushes the get rich quick lines. I've also known several people that have fallen into a gambling addiction, even people that don't here the get rich quick payoff.

Anyways I view gambling about the same as payday loans, just another industry that preys on poor and uneducated people and as a result is a net negative to society. Republicans have decided they are okay with gambling now because it is yet another way to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

I am that opposed to destination gambling locations like Vegas, because you have to have money to get there and you generally leave before you can build an addiction.

Ok - But where do you draw the line?

I see people addicted to alcohol, should we limit alcohol sales (beer, wine, liquor) for everyone based on some morons? Might as well bring back prohibition.
I see people addicted to consumerism - every year they need to buy another fucking 70" TV with ultra surround sound durpa derp derp. But don't worry! You can still own it for the low price of $30/month for the rest of your life! No worries!

There will always be morons. There will always be people that will be taken advantage of. Understand this: A fool and their money are soon parted. It's not a matter of IF it will be parted, it's just a matter of WHOM will part it from them. If it's alcohol, gambling, sex, timeshare companies, con artists, hobos, etc... does it really matter? At least with gambling part of it goes to taxes.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
This is one thing I've gotten more "conservative" one with age. I used to think gambling was completely personal choice and government's role should only be to regulate the rules on the games.

But after being in enough non-Vegas casinos I've learned how many of the people are gambling money they can't afford to lose and they've been manipulated into believing it could be their saviour. The marketing in many states is highly predatory and pushes the get rich quick lines. I've also known several people that have fallen into a gambling addiction, even people that don't here the get rich quick payoff.

Anyways I view gambling about the same as payday loans, just another industry that preys on poor and uneducated people and as a result is a net negative to society. Republicans have decided they are okay with gambling now because it is yet another way to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

I am that opposed to destination gambling locations like Vegas, because you have to have money to get there and you generally leave before you can build an addiction.
Funny that you call that more conservative. I see it as more liberal, more nuanced, more aware of grays, deeper, more self aware and introspective, less judgmentally certain, etc
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,996
126
I agree, im just hesitant to directly compare since you get a physical item in most cases.

I think the comparison is a little more direct than you see it. The gambler is not buying a physical item, he's buying the rush which is exactly the same as a drug user. The gambler knows, deep down inside, that he's not going to win. The prize is not the goal, the action is.

Drug user buys dope --- smokes/injects/snorts --- gets high
Gambler places bet ---turns card/rolls dice/pulls lever/watches race --- gets high

They're essentially the same.

But yeah, the comparison between normal shopping and gambling is completely wrong for most people. Buying a TV or new pair of shoes is not close to comparable to drug use or gambling. You are in fact getting something of lasting use, not a brief high and it's a foolish comparison. Except....

Some people do get a high from shopping, at least in shopping for stupid things. Picking up the weekly groceries or filling the car with gas doesn't trigger the emotional high they get. But wasting money on silly toys does. People who collect essentially worthless junk, are chasing the same quick, brief high that drug users and gamblers are chasing. Buy --- WHEEEE!! NEW TOY -- get high. Don't play with the toy, that's not the goal. Once you have it it's like a losing ticket on a horse race or an empty bag of weed. The high is gone, gotta get another one because that one is empty.
 
Last edited:

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
But after being in enough non-Vegas casinos I've learned how many of the people are gambling money they can't afford to lose and they've been manipulated into believing it could be their saviour.

If they believe in the American creed that the purpose of life is to get rich and possess a lot, and are desperate enough to throw their money at it, I don’t think the govt should get in the way

Dostoevsky’s gambling debts had a lot to do with the creation of his great works. Who knows America might yet produce the next Dostoevsky. Though I wouldn’t ‘bet’ on it :)
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
tbh I don't understand why sports weren't for this. They should have embraced it and started buying up sports betting franchises (e.g. fantasy sports leagues, etc...).

Also what do sports leagues have to GAIN by it being illegal? Honest question here, because I have no idea - and I understand that (like you said) they WERE lobbying against it. Just curious as to what monetary gain they had for it being outlawed. Less booze sales at the games because the fans lost all their money on bets?

Well they claimed that it was to protect the sanctity of the sport. Players or refs might start throwing games or playing/calling differently to try to cover spreads or whatever.

I think it's bullshit because if that was the case they'd have just as much of an issue with the states that were allowed sports betting and especially Vegas. These days anyone can place a sports bet online in a matter of a few seconds and I haven't heard them screaming bloody murder about the sanctity of the game being at risk. If they are willing to argue this in front of the Supreme Court you'd think they would have been screaming from the rooftops about all of this for a long time.

OTOH, I, like you, can't see a direct monetary gain from them continuing to keep sports betting legal only in a select few places. Maybe they are getting very generous donations from Vegas?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Funny that you call that more conservative. I see it as more liberal, more nuanced, more aware of grays, deeper, more self aware and introspective, less judgmentally certain, etc

Grays? I knew it!

%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%AB%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%82.jpg
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Funny that you call that more conservative. I see it as more liberal, more nuanced, more aware of grays, deeper, more self aware and introspective, less judgmentally certain, etc

You would have thought that 5-10 years ago. No doubt, I would have said that as well at the time. Now... there is a reason that a liberal was just quoted as saying he was more conservative for thinking an (originally) liberal thought.

And that is because liberals today want to police your thoughts - as if they affect others.

The sane scope simply boils down to libertarian. It distances yourself from the christian nutbags, but keeps you in line with the original foundation of liberal thought process. Blame your own party for completely ruining it..
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Well they claimed that it was to protect the sanctity of the sport. Players or refs might start throwing games or playing/calling differently to try to cover spreads or whatever.

I think it's bullshit because if that was the case they'd have just as much of an issue with the states that were allowed sports betting and especially Vegas. These days anyone can place a sports bet online in a matter of a few seconds and I haven't heard them screaming bloody murder about the sanctity of the game being at risk. If they are willing to argue this in front of the Supreme Court you'd think they would have been screaming from the rooftops about all of this for a long time.

OTOH, I, like you, can't see a direct monetary gain from them continuing to keep sports betting legal only in a select few places. Maybe they are getting very generous donations from Vegas?

So they don't trust their employees to call games accurately because they might have a vested interest in the outcome of the game? I mean, that's why I'm for betting just like drugs - regulation. If you bet on sports, you damn sure bet you need to provide your name and identification for #1 - tax purposes. #2 - for identification to ensure you aren't a conflict of interest.

Still, when it comes to corporate lobbying, no matter what they voice it's always about money. So I'm just wondering what that monetary source is.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
So they don't trust their employees to call games accurately because they might have a vested interest in the outcome of the game? I mean, that's why I'm for betting just like drugs - regulation. If you bet on sports, you damn sure bet you need to provide your name and identification for #1 - tax purposes. #2 - for identification to ensure you aren't a conflict of interest.

Still, when it comes to corporate lobbying, no matter what they voice it's always about money. So I'm just wondering what that monetary source is.

Good point, with it being illegal there is no shortage of illegal avenues for them to place their bet, still rig the games and there is zero regulation or oversight.

As you said, they must have a serious monetary incentive to keep sports betting limited as it is.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Ok - But where do you draw the line?

I see people addicted to alcohol, should we limit alcohol sales (beer, wine, liquor) for everyone based on some morons? Might as well bring back prohibition.
I see people addicted to consumerism - every year they need to buy another fucking 70" TV with ultra surround sound durpa derp derp. But don't worry! You can still own it for the low price of $30/month for the rest of your life! No worries!

There will always be morons. There will always be people that will be taken advantage of. Understand this: A fool and their money are soon parted. It's not a matter of IF it will be parted, it's just a matter of WHOM will part it from them. If it's alcohol, gambling, sex, timeshare companies, con artists, hobos, etc... does it really matter? At least with gambling part of it goes to taxes.
I disagree with businesses that knowingly take advantage of vulnerable people by getting them addicted to a complete con. If advertising and loyalty programs were illegal and you had to prove means to play I wouldn't give a shit.
You would have thought that 5-10 years ago. No doubt, I would have said that as well at the time. Now... there is a reason that a liberal was just quoted as saying he was more conservative for thinking an (originally) liberal thought.

And that is because liberals today want to police your thoughts - as if they affect others.

The sane scope simply boils down to libertarian. It distances yourself from the christian nutbags, but keeps you in line with the original foundation of liberal thought process. Blame your own party for completely ruining it..
It has nothing to do with controlling people's minds, it had to do with protecting people from get rich quick scams that enrich the few while hurting the many.

The fact people see it as a good source of taxes is also sickening. Tax the people that are benefiting the most from society, not the poor and addicted.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I disagree with businesses that knowingly take advantage of vulnerable people by getting them addicted to a complete con. If advertising and loyalty programs were illegal and you had to prove means to play I wouldn't give a shit.
.

A business is not human. It doesn't know what morals are. It isn't meant to study the human psychology - specifically on a case by case basis of those who are subjected to addictions vs. those that aren't. That is why prohibition came about, and that is why the american public got fucking pissed off for infringing on our rights.

"knowingly take advantage" - You're honestly smoking something. Businesses don't give a single fuck about you. They don't care if you're vulnerable or invulnerable. They just care if you buy the product or service. That's how it should be. Or is a company a breathing, living entity?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,200
136
A business is not human. It doesn't know what morals are. It isn't meant to study the human psychology - specifically on a case by case basis of those who are subjected to addictions vs. those that aren't. That is why prohibition came about, and that is why the american public got fucking pissed off for infringing on our rights.

"knowingly take advantage" - You're honestly smoking something. Businesses don't give a single fuck about you. They don't care if you're vulnerable or invulnerable. They just care if you buy the product or service. That's how it should be. Or is a company a breathing, living entity?

Your end argument is essentially, legalize crack and businesses can sell it to kids cause they don't give a fuck and shouldn't have to, it's about making a dime. At some point businesses either have to care or be told how to care.

Personally I am for the legalization of sports betting as long as it's regulated properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba