If someone opposes regulation on X, the first line of rhetoric defense seems always to be "oh, what is 'X' even? Does it even exist? Is Y also 'X'? You don't want to ban Y, do you?"

In this case, if the focus is on the psychological mechanisms that underly gambling (varying rewards) in connection where they are used to compel people to spend vast amounts of money for nothing, I don't see how the question whether or not there could be a monetary payoff is relevant. The psychological mechanism and potential damage is the same.

> Lootboxes are not slot machines or FBO terminals. If they can't be "cashed out", they are more like collectible card games... which are also IMHO a plague on humanity, but not the same level of destructive activity as gambling for cash. They do need regulation, given how prevalent they are in games popular with teenagers, but need different regulation from casinos.

Even if they can't be cashed out officially, there are often other unofficial ways. Like selling the accounts in question.

In almost all US states, children can legally be given alcohol by their parents. The specifics vary by state, but its not the hard and fast "Puritan" rule you seem to think. The uniform 21 years old law is to buy alcohol, not drink it.

Anyway, in my estimation the threat of gambling addiction is far higher for teenagers than young children, since teenagers may often have sources of revenue other than their parents, so they can feed a budding gambling addiction longer without supervision, increasing the risk of addiction. 16 year olds don't belong in casinos, nor should they be engaging with loot box gambling.

> and you can buy alcohol at 18 or be given it with a meal by your parents at younger ages, because we didn't have puritans making motorway funding contingent on passing strict drinking laws like the USA did.

16 if you're buying wine or beer with a meal, at least in Scotland. This means that when you go to your mate's mum's pub for a pub lunch on a Friday you need to watch out for your teachers also going for a lunchtime pint.

Man, the 80s were wild.

> but not the same level of destructive activity as gambling for cash

... are you sure?

That would require extra work to pass more legislation which has a chance to fail. I think it's better to do it all once instead of having to revisit the issue every couple years.

So what's the issue then? The minimum is 16 - or are you proposing kids 15 and younger have the right to gamble?

So much that could be done with those. Mandating age checks. Covering at least 80% of them with warnings about gambling. Maybe plain packaging and only allowing them from behind counter or unmarked automated systems. Treat them as tobacco products.

Pokémon can probably have it's immense (and insane) secondary market attributed to its gambling-esque qualities. It'd be perfectly fine if people could play with decks they chose and cards were sold at a uniform price, provided the game itself is balanced - which is to say gambling elements in these things are probably by design.