Addiction Markets

>> It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty

No.

If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty.

I want to restrict individual liberty, I have voted against gambling when it has come up for a vote in my state over and over.

You want to appear to be the type of person who wants to maintain individual liberty, but you in fact are not. You want to restrict individual liberty in the area of gambling.

I would also like to appear to be the type of person who wants to maintain individual liberty, and I will vote against gambling every single time it comes up.

No gambling.

Gambling vs advertising gambling are two different things.

Equating them as exactly the same doesn't serve your argument justice even if you do have a point with respect to the OP's "have their cake and eat it too" rhetorical flourish.

If you want to restrict advertising on gambling you want to restrict individual liberty.

I want to restrict individual liberty.

Do you want to restrict advertising on gambling?

> If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty.

No.

An organization's liberty to advertise is not individual liberty.

Let individuals gamble. Do not let organizations advertise gambling services. Organizational liberty is not individual liberty.

Advertising isn’t “individual liberty” — it’s paid psychological manipulation.

Banning gambling ads isn’t banning gambling. It’s just stopping corporations from pushing addictive behavior on people who didn’t consent to see it.

We banned cigarette ads for the same reason — harm and addiction.

Limiting corporate ad power protects individual liberty. I can choose to gamble if I want, but I shouldn’t have to fight off brainwashing every time I watch a game.

As with many things, the degree matters. It is both an imposition on your liberty to require identification when boarding an airplane and an imposition on your liberty to ban everyone from flying altogether. But one clearly restricts your liberty more than another. I think when choosing between different solutions to a problem, choosing the one that limits your freedom the least is a reasonable rule of thumb.

"If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty."

I grant that, but I never claimed the contrary. I never suggested that banning advertising reduces ALL harm or preserves ALL individual liberty. I just believe an ad ban is a good compromise position.

I'm a former smoker. I would have been outraged had the government tried to ban cigarettes while I was addicted to nicotine. But there's a difference between allowing people to have their vices and allowing people to spend hundreds of millions in multi-media advertising campaigns convincing others to pick up a new one.

To ban gambling would be to limit individual liberty (see also: smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, self-harm, suicide).

To ban advertising of gambling is to limit a liberty too, but the kind that substantially affects others. See also: dumping a bucketful of water on a passer-by, smoking in a crowded subway car, blaring super loud music outside at night time.

That second kind of liberty is and will always be limited in a society, voluntarily most of the time, because people want to be good neighbors, not harm each other.

Another problem here is the addiction. Advertising applesauce is one thing, advertising cocaine is another. For some people, gambling is more like cocaine, hampering their reason and forcing their hand in making choices. The freedom to advertise cocaine (and tobacco, alcohol, etc) inevitably gets limited in a society; if it does not, the society likely unravels.

Makes sense. If something is harmful to people, government should

1. Ban advertizing of it. (because it provides no benefit for the nation as a whole)

2. But allow people to do it. (because they will then do it illegally, which is bad for the nation as a whole)

I think it's that simple.

Serious question, is everything black/white to you?

Extreme example: I don't have individual liberty to murder or take things that aren't mine. So I'm ok with giving up at least 1 or 2 individual liberties. How many is enough, and who decides?

Or do we all just decide and that is the point of voting, not sure what you're trying to say.

Devils advocate:

You're restricting my liberty to consume those advertisements. I want to see them and you are restricting them.