Neither do I. This isn’t a rhetorical question. I don’t know the answer myself but do you think it is better for sports betting to be legal and safe or illegal and ran by bookies/crime syndicates? To me it is similar to drug legalization. Meth sucks and is awful but it isn’t clear to me that it being illegal helps anything. Now pro-meth billboards on the highway I would be against so I see your point.
This is what CalMaters says
"### Here’s what happens if they both pass
California occasionally ends up with ballots that have multiple initiatives on the same topic.
If one passes and the others don’t, then there’s no problem: The one that passes goes into effect, the others do not.
If they all pass and don’t conflict with one another, they can all go into effect.
But, if more than one pass and they are in conflict with each other, the one that passed with the higher margin of ‘yes’ votes goes into effect and the other does not, per California’s constitution.
The initiative backed by FanDduel, DraftKkings and BetMGM asserts that it does not conflict with the measure allowing sports betting on tribal lands, and that if both pass, both go into effect. The measure backed by the tribes doesn’t say anything about whether it conflicts with other measures."
Most likely, the tribes will balk that 27 doesn’t interfere with 26 (which states that sports betting would be the sole domain of the tribes) and would take things to court, where the courts will likely decide in favor of the initiative with the most votes if they both happen to pass. So, while I said it definitively upthread without that being the case, it does seem to be the most likely outcome.
1 Like
Are we really going to have discourse about the difference between not prohibiting and state promoting?
Usually that’s a statement I see by deeply conservative religious zealots talking about banning porn or whatever
legalizing drugs certainly has a potential to open people up to abuse that otherwise wouldn’t have - but if you also increase resources to help people with a problem, I think this effect is a bit mitigated, if not a large net positive
1 Like
Right, which is why it seems like it would make sense that once we get to legalizing most drugs, those that remain on some kind of federal schedule where they are the worst of the worst should have similar restrictions on advertising that tobacco does now.
1 Like
I assume the average person here has spent way more time in casinos than the average person. So of course we are all aware of how damaging casinos and gambling can be. It’s been going on for thousands of years though and so my take is that having widely legal and regulated casinos is better than the addicts seeking it out in a gangster’s basements and the like.
I wouldn’t be against a ban on casino advertising either though.
This is a very ignorant post.
One of my oldest friends turned to bookies gambling during a downturn in his life. He lost his flat, “borrowed” tens of thousands from various friends/family, became an alcoholic and after a few years died. And despite people talking about how to help him continuously, there was nothing anyone could do.
1 Like
I appreciate you calling me ignorant jal. Can always count on you.
You think sports betting is worth than slots or meth? Otherwise you are just strawmaning it up here.
1 Like
I didn’t call you ignorant and don’t think you are.
My point was that out of all the vices you could get addicted to it is one of the least likely ones to completely destroy your life even though it can. How is that actually ignorant. I am sorry for your friend by the way. I have also had friends destroyed by sports gambling addiction. Way more by other addictions though.
If you had to pick between a parlay addiction and a meth addiction it doesn’t seem particularly close.
1 Like
You said “you won’t die”. Of course no one died directly from losing a bet but it’s the resultant loss of money and somewhere to live that bring death.
I’d fancy my chances of survival more as a smack addict than a gamblaholic - some junkies live relatively normal lives,
Bookies are everywhere and Guy always complained he couldn’t get away from them. Same goes for pubs of course.
This is a good point, obviously I think if we are talking about the “Who deserves what” portion of things, Im going to vote in favor of the tribes over fucking Fanduel every day of the week, but Im also leaning towards No on both
I respect your opinion but I don’t think sports bettors die at the same rate as heroin addicts and I don’t think it’s particularly close.
I doubt anyone has any reliable data on how many people are addicted to it, and as I’d guess you haven’t had any contact with people afflicted in that way I question your confidence on your opinion of its danger.
Go look up my 2+2 logs. I’m going to guess I have bet more money on sports than anyone you have ever known. 10m+ easy. Acting like I am the ignorant one here is insane.
I was saying you don’t seem to have had any exposure to gamblholics. If you just want to argue for the sake of it I’m not interested, but you made a strong and incorrect statement about something quite close to my heart and should expect pushback.
Betting 10M doesn’t make you an addict. Most gamblers know that’s mainly churn anyway.
Again. I have spent my entire life in a community of sports bettors, casinos, playing poker for a living and around gambling addicts. I also was a criminal defense attorney for years in the US. If you think betting on sports is the same as being addicted to meth/crack/etc I don’t know what to tell you. Neither is especially good.
I’m curious that you say this after saying it won’t kill anyone.
The act of betting on a sports game doesn’t kill anyone. The act of injecting yourself with heroin could. Hope that helps. And yes I know there are knock on effects from gambling addiction. I was talking about direct effects.
I think you’re confused. I’m watching porn right now and wouldn’t dream of banning it.
I’m saying there’s a difference between the state making something illegal and and the state saying something is great and should be done. Do you disagree?