East German Judge

November 10th, 2015 at 6:52 PM ^

I am by no means an expert on gambling and people's gambling problems and addictions, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!  Seriously, we have casinos in many if not most states, most states run lotteries, you can buy powerball drawings, and horse racing is also everywhere - so gambling is EVERYWHERE.

So by stopping these daily sports betting platforms, will these people stop gambling totally or will they spend money via one of the other gambling venues, I would guess no.

go16blue

November 10th, 2015 at 7:11 PM ^

People say this all the time, but do you honestly think the availability of gambling opportunities has no impact on how often people gamble? Yes, there are plenty of opportuntiies to gamble already - that doesn't mean reducing those opportunities has no impact. Sites like Fan Duel are exceptionally visible and accessible. Do you really think that they drew in zero people who didn't already gamble, and that 100% of the poeple who used them will gamble just as much someplace else? 

Nobody is saying that getting rid of those sites will get rid of gambling on the whole, but if it can reduce it, then the rationale behind this law is the same as with any other gambling regulation.

MI Expat NY

November 11th, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^

I think you make a solid point.  However, I wonder if that "good" is counteracted by the continuation of illegal gambling through bookies, illegal poker rooms, etc.  Places that might give a gambling addict credit beyond what a person is capable of paying back and then demanding payment.  I would have to think that if sports gambling and poker were legal, reputable online companies would drive the underworld variants out of business.  I don't know if the "good" of limiting gambling is worth the "bad" of essentially allowing a far worse mechanism for gambling for the true addicts to use.  

On the whole, I don't really mind NY's actions, even though I have on occassion participated in DFS and will no longer be able to do so.  I think DFS is clearly a form of gambling that is currently illegal.  I'd prefer the solution to be legalize sports gambling and poker (if you still want to limit pure games of change, by all means go ahead), but we're not there yet.  Perhaps with as much legitimate money that was backing these sites, sports leagues and eventually politicians will come around on legalizing sports books.  

bronxblue

November 10th, 2015 at 7:59 PM ^

Well, we have alcohol available at stores and bars in most towns, and one of the biggest complaints recovering alcoholics say is that it can be very difficult to get away from the temptations when they are ever-present.  So no, getting rid of DFF probably won't halt gambling addiction, but if it makes it a bit harder for a guy not to lose $500 he can't afford to lose, and maybe helps a couple of people stay clean, then it seems like a win.

And again, if what you like here is the "winning" aspect of DFF and not the money, then just keep it going as it is but hand out, I don't know, karma or something.

Fhshockey112002

November 10th, 2015 at 7:05 PM ^

No offense but how do you know if that "hurt" him? I know guys who will drop three that on a bar tab, or night out with friends because he can.

Like others have said taking away one platform of betting won't stop addicts. At some point they will simply use an overseas (less legitimate) website if they truly are addicts.

go16blue

November 10th, 2015 at 7:14 PM ^

As I said above, nobody is saying that this will stopp all gambling addicts from gambling. You'd have a hard time convincing me that it will have absolutely no effect, however. It seems pretty obvious that the availability of these things (i.e. supply) has a large impact on how much of it people end up getting their hands on.

I mean, if addicts are just going to get their stuff one way or another, why not sell heroin over the counter? It would help with tax revenue.

go16blue

November 10th, 2015 at 8:02 PM ^

Not to get too far into politics (who am I kidding, we're already there), but places like Amsterdam have had a huge amount of success curbing overdoses and addition rates by handing out heroin for free. It's actually pretty cool how it works, you can google it if you're interested. That's still a bit different from selling it per se.

Stu Daco

November 10th, 2015 at 11:23 PM ^

To be eligible for the Amsterdam program, users must prove an existing long-term addiction, must prove that they've tried to quit many times, must be over 30, and must appear at scheduled times to receive heroin at a municipal health institution.  And even after successfully reducing drug-related crime and curbing addiction rates, what they found was that people in the program still had really shitty lives.  Why?  Because they were still addicted to heroin.  

Anyway, that's a far cry from selling OTC and has almost nothing to do with DraftKings, so I'm going to the MACTION thread.

MichiganTeacher

November 10th, 2015 at 9:23 PM ^

I hate my state government.

It is the worst. I once had a NYSED report on a kid, it said give the kid a stapler to play with to occupy his hands.

Later in the same report, it said that if the kid became agitated, take away any classroom utensils because he had previously assaulted another kid with a stapler.

I stopped reading after that. 

 

CarrIsMyHomeboy

November 10th, 2015 at 6:27 PM ^

I've never used these sites either, though I am initially skeptical toward any idea that a given form of gambling "doesn't hurt anyone." It's either blatantly untrue or premature to conclude.

mgokev

November 10th, 2015 at 6:55 PM ^

No politics rule but what if taxes were increased to pay for more people in poverty due to gambling addiction?

Or what if the persons family is having to skip meals or not have school supplies?

Not saying that's probable but it COULD impact others beyond those directly engaging in it.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad