Should all gambling be legalized?

[© tweed]

Vote

[Gabu]

Define "all".

[KillerPollo]

Of course!

[© tweed]

Define "all".

Every form of gambling imaginable that does not break laws already in place other than the laws banning gambling, which we are discussing a potential repeal of.

That's more confusing than 'all' but I hope it helps.

[John Dibble]

Define "all".

Every form of gambling imaginable that does not break laws already in place other than the laws banning gambling, which we are discussing a potential repeal of.

That's more confusing than 'all' but I hope it helps.

Would a member of a sports team betting against his own team be considered among the 'all'?

[© tweed]

Define "all".

Every form of gambling imaginable that does not break laws already in place other than the laws banning gambling, which we are discussing a potential repeal of.

That's more confusing than 'all' but I hope it helps.

Would a member of a sports team betting against his own team be considered among the 'all'?

Sure.  But what likely would happen (and what hopefully would happen) is that leagues would disallow their players from gambling on their own sport.  It wouldn't be against the law, but against the rules of the league itself.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Define "all".

Every form of gambling imaginable that does not break laws already in place other than the laws banning gambling, which we are discussing a potential repeal of.

That's more confusing than 'all' but I hope it helps.

Ah, that clears it up     Yes.

[Nation]

Of course!

[Gabu]

Define "all".

Every form of gambling imaginable that does not break laws already in place other than the laws banning gambling, which we are discussing a potential repeal of.

That's more confusing than 'all' but I hope it helps.

In that case, sure, why not.

I just wanted to make sure that "all" didn't include something like betting a guy he can kill some guy on the street or something.

[Ebowed]

Yes.

[nclib]

Yes, though I do not support state-sponsored lotteries.

[Platypus]

I voted yes, but, i've reconsidered. In Australia, gambling is quite common-and so is gambling addiction. You'd struggle to go 5 klilometers anywhere in melbourne and not find a pokie; and basically a mini-casino on your doorstep. My closest is about 500m down the street. Then you have the big casinos, like Crown about 10 minutes away.

When I catch the tram in the mornings, you always see someone get on at crown who has lost everything. Often, they're old Chinese males, but every group is affected. They'll be wearing an old beanie, dirty clothes, be wrinkled all over and quite often, crying.

Then, you have a look at any pub, whether it has pokies or not, and there'll be old blokes betting on the dogs, or the horse racing, and they'll lose more then they win too.

Gambling is a huge problem when it's a common occurrence-and compared to allowing 'all gambling', melbourne's positively totalitarian about it. I must retract my vote, and put it in the no column. Gambling should be significantly reduced, not given the means for more people to lose everything. Games of pure chance should be banned, like Pokies. Only games of some sort of skill (card games, sports betting) should be allowed.

[The Constitarian]

All gambling should be legal.  It is none of governments concern what we do with our money.

[FerrisBueller86]

I can't believe I'm one of only two people who voted "No".  I can understand why libertarians would answer "Yes", but I thought that at least the populists (like Gov. Harry of Mississippi, Democratic Hawk, and Cosmo Kramer) would be against gambling.

This nation has too much gambling.  I'd like to turn the clock back to the days before gambling became mainstream in America.  The riverboat casinos, the Gulf Coast casinos, and the casinos on every Native American reservation should never have been approved.  State lotteries should never have been implemented.  What I really decry is the dependence of local/state economies and budgets on gambling.  It's a VERY regressive tax because most of the gambling is done by those who can least afford it.  Gambling promotes social problems like crime and broken families.  And for all the talk about getting people off welfare, gambling INCREASES the need for social welfare programs.

[Emsworth]

Yes. Gambling should not be illegal just because some consider it "immoral" or "harmful."

Of course, I do not mean to include gambling on something that would otherwise be illegal anyway. Judges should not be allowed to bet on the outcomes of cases, for example.

[Everett]

Gambling is like drugs. Even if you make gambling illegal, people are still going to gamble, just as people still sell/buy/ingest illegal drugs. If gamblers become addicted to the point where they lose everything, then that's ultimately their problem, not the government's.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Legal and regulated.

[A18]

Judges should not be allowed to bet on the outcomes of cases, for example.

Um, who would take that bet?

[Emsworth]

Judges should not be allowed to bet on the outcomes of cases, for example.

Um, who would take that bet?

Not just cases before them, I mean.

[The Constitarian]

I can't believe I'm one of only two people who voted "No".  I can understand why libertarians would answer "Yes", but I thought that at least the populists (like Gov. Harry of Mississippi, Democratic Hawk, and Cosmo Kramer) would be against gambling.

This nation has too much gambling.  I'd like to turn the clock back to the days before gambling became mainstream in America.  The riverboat casinos, the Gulf Coast casinos, and the casinos on every Native American reservation should never have been approved.  State lotteries should never have been implemented.  What I really decry is the dependence of local/state economies and budgets on gambling.  It's a VERY regressive tax because most of the gambling is done by those who can least afford it.  Gambling promotes social problems like crime and broken families.  And for all the talk about getting people off welfare, gambling INCREASES the need for social welfare programs.

I would like you to tell me when was the America before gambling.  Was it before thousand of European companies gambled their money to send ships to America, or the colonists who gambled their lives for a better future.  Or was it earliar befor Columbus gambled his life and Spain gambled its money in finding America.

[Platypus]

there is a huge difference between a 'gamble' on settling a new continent and putting $200,000 a year into a pokie, half of which goes to the government, the other half to a casino, none to you.

I have no major problem with games of skill-poker, sports betting, etc. But [pure chance, like pokie...it's just plain out BAD. It's just bad. that's all there is to it. And whilst generally i'm not a huge supporter of government intereference, pokies should be banned, destroyed, obliterated. It'll never happen of course, because governments are hooked on the revenue, and don't really try to stop people becoming addicted.

Gambling is one of the main reasons I don't support legalisation of hard illicit drugs. Besides their bad qualities, the government will get hooked on them and make no real effort to lessen usage.