this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
409 points (98.6% liked)

Not The Onion

20845 readers
1025 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

Prohibition on vices never works, it just sends the money to criminal organizations that kill people instead of capitalist companies that kill less people.

The solution is to have it be state run, remove the profit motive, and send any money gained from it to education and social services.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

I don't care about the gambling, my issue is with the advertising. They are enticing people, mostly young men, with visions of excitement and LOTS of money. They don't show any ads of a guy losing the rent money, and having to break the news to his wife.

I don't mind vices being legal, but I strongly object to them being marketed. Cigarettes are banned in most media, and liquor is heavily controlled. I wouldn't mind if all marketing for all vices were prohibited.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Oohh yeah, let the state run the "gambling on genocide" and "gambling on child murder", that sounds awesome!

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago

Not saying it's the best situation but if the choice is between the mob running it, capitalist corporations running it, and the state running it, I'd pick the state.

The state has an incentive to decrease problem gambling. Even if you ignore any democratic pressures from the people who don't like gambling being pushed, the state also has to bear the cost of addicts with social services so it's monetarily incentivized to reduce problem gambling.

[–] FredFig@awful.systems 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Removing the profit motive of gambling is exactly prohibition, what????

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Remove the profit motive from "the house" side. The house is taking a cut of every bet as profit, which encourages them to advertise and increase their market and market share to get more money. Which in the end means them trying to push gambling on those with a problem because they make them the most money.

If it's run by the state it's not beholden to share holders who want as much profit as possible, social costs be damned. The state is at least nominally beholden to the people in a democratic system and the people generally don't want gambling advertising to be pushed on gambling addicts.

Gambling addiction has one of the highest suicide rates out of any addiction, so I'm pretty sure the capitalist gambling companies right now cause more death than illegal organizations could.

[–] gworl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 hours ago

No it can work just fine if the state doesn’t become captured by those criminal profit seeking elements and we properly provide for people along the way

Not buying it