Probably not. My main issue with prohibition is that it is really difficult to quantify utility, and I don't love the idea of a centralized authority attempting to do so.

We can list off data point after data point about the easily quantifiable destructive effects of gambling. How do you quantify the fact that I usually have an awesome time/make great memories playing craps with friends on Vegas trips, and that millions of others feel the same?

The great thing about safety nets is that they curb destructive behaviors from the demand side. I like this a lot better than trying to do it from the supply side.

I agree with what you wrote although Sklansky was getting at something like "does government have more right to regulate your behavior if they are acting like your parents in giving you stuff?" Also, prohibition usually doesn't work and causes other problems. If there's no legal numbers racket, there's an illegal one. The illegal numbers racket does a lot of other terrible stuff like break kneecaps and corrupt the police and government even more than they already are. Still, the biggest point is not balancing utility or the utilitarian truth that prohibition usually causes more harm than good. It's FREEDOM. That's not an absolute thing, but it shouldn't be taken lightly either.

Yeah, I kinda figured this was what he was getting at. This is just a really weird way to think about governance to me. It's not a two-way give/take relationship. It's all "give". A government should solely serve the purpose of giving its people a better society.

https://undercoverinfo.wordpress.com...ernment-obeys/

"aqui manda el pueblo y el gobierno obedece"

"where the people command and the government obeys"

I do not approve of state lottos, but they could be ok if limited to 5 tickets/scratchers per customer.

These issues are complex, but my rule of thumb is that something should be illegal if it leads to significantly more harm than benefit and the cost of compliance is relatively low (helmets, fire codes, meat inspection). This makes it an empirical question. I enjoy my vices as much as the next guy, whether they cause substantially more harm than good across society is an empirical question, and not a narrow one--eg, there can be significant harmful/beneficial third order effects.

As Joe pointed out, whether they do more harm than good is impossible to measure because you can't quantify how much people like it or appreciate the freedom. It's the same old problem of economists ignoring everything they can't count.

Pai Gow is ****ing amazing, thanks to all the Asian degens who lose enough for them to keep spreading this game, at which I magically break even no matter how long I play and how many drinks I consume(d).

Respectfully, I hope these outlooks are not contagious.

Looks like theyre not, this thread has trended way more to my side than I thought it would.

Throwing up the bat signal for DVaut. Feel like he would likely be in favor of gambling prohibition, and have some compelling arguments behind it to provoke debate.

But they are not necessarily doing that if they increase taxes on people who don't do harmful things to themselves so they can take care of those who do.

Seems like kind of a non sequitur, you're talking about the "how" of government operations, I was talking about the "what".

Racist ban. Probably a Republican, advocating for red like that...

You can be a gambling addict and completely ruin yourself and your family through online poker.

You can also ruin your own life and family even if you are a breakeven or profitable online poker player.

A poker player, arguably, could make $10,000,000 lifetime dedicating himself to poker, but could've made $100,000,000 in that same time dedicating himself to something else.

also

Are scratch offs and lotteries a tax on the poor, or are they a tax on stupidity and ignorance?

I would only ban cigarettes. I think society will eventually leave it behind as a relic of the past anyway. I'd prefer now, though.

As it stands in this country, I would rather explicitly legalize all forms of gambling, privatize all lotteries (there should be a national lottery imo), and in conjunction have strong government oversight on all aspects. Also in conjunction I'd like a complete renovation of rehabilitation systems for all forms of addiction and mental stability. An increase in funding and expansion to all areas where gambling is prevalent.

Would be nice if we did the same for drugs...

I raise you one Mitt Romney: "Corporations are people."