| ▲ | nofriend 17 hours ago |
| It was banned most everywhere, then with no public debate on the subject, much less consensus, all of a sudden it was legal and in your face wherever you went. If it's going to be made legal, it needs to be justified, rather than there needing to be justification for making it illegal. I personally think it would have a high bar to overcome. |
|
| ▲ | erulabs 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "If it's going to be made legal, it needs to be justified" is troubling - it's supposed to work the other direction: unless justified, it should be _legal_. I agree with your sentiment that there should have been a deeper public debate here, but banning gambling seems obviously unconstitutional, regardless of how I feel about it personally. |
| |
| ▲ | HWR_14 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | gambling bans in general would be constitutional. There was a stupid technical issue with the law as written, not with the concept in general. |
|
|
| ▲ | eru 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If it's going to be made legal, it needs to be justified, rather than there needing to be justification for making it illegal. Huh, why? > It was banned most everywhere, then with no public debate on the subject, much less consensus, all of a sudden it was legal and in your face wherever you went. They didn't change any laws, did they? So it was as legal earlier as it is now, isn't it? It's just that someone found the right loophole that was always there. |
| |
| ▲ | pxeboot 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They didn't change any laws, did they? So it was as legal earlier as it is now, isn't it? It's just that someone found the right loophole that was always there. In the US, it was banned in most places until 2018. The Supreme Court invalidated the ban that had been in place until then. | | |
| ▲ | eru 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The Supreme Court invalidated the ban that had been in place until then. The Supreme Court interprets existing law, don't they? |
| |
| ▲ | nofriend 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Huh, why? The opposite change was already justified, it would obviously be ridiculous to have to constantly rejustify every law in our society. > They didn't change any laws, did they? So it was as legal earlier as it is now, isn't it? It's just that someone found the right loophole that was always there. I do not know nor do I particularly care. | | |
| ▲ | eru 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The opposite change was already justified, it would obviously be ridiculous to have to constantly rejustify every law in our society. They didn't change any laws. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | will4274 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I recall plenty of debate. Maryland voters voted to legalize gambling because politicians said the funds would go to education. It was a ballot initiative that won a majority vote. But I guess all the states in the union aren't as well governed as Maryland. |
| |
| ▲ | defrost 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well governed? Evidence suggests easily fooled voters, although some $6.8 billion USD has flowed from Maryland casinos to the Maryland Education Trust Fund since 2010, educators on the ground are still asking when the airconditioners ordered a decade past will arrive. * https://marylandeducators.org/where-did-the-gambling-money-g... * https://www.mdgaming.com/marylands-casinos/revenue-reports/ It would appear there's a major leak in the Education Trust Fund. | | |
| ▲ | bmitch3020 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It would appear there's a major leak in the Education Trust Fund. Or they redirected funding that previously went to education to other budget items. If a trust fund is created to send $7B to education, but the government cuts their previous $10B in funding, the trust fund can be perfectly followed, while educators see a $3B cut in their funding. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apparently very little of the $6 billion that came from the casino's that were approved via voting on the basis that money would go to education ended up in schools. The funding levels appear to be stagnating, there is no sign of any additional topping up. It's a dishonest sleight of hand designed to fool the voters who wanted education improvements, voted for a path of action that was promised to deliver .. and did not. It's clear how the con works, equally clear that it was a con. |
| |
| ▲ | will4274 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In general, not on this specific topic. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zoklet-enjoyer 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Here's the justification; it's my money and I'll spend it how I like |
| |
| ▲ | Alive-in-2025 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We have many restrictions on what spend our money on. You can't buy illegal drugs, you can't pay someone to kill someone else. You can't buy many different substances without permission of the govt like certain explosives. Some states have limits on buying (or using) lockpicking tools (often called pick lock tools in the law) unless you have certain permissions, like being an active locksmith. So we have limits on what you buy. Also you can't buy booze if you are underage. You can't buy a gun without a background check. | | | |
| ▲ | orwin 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If I recall correctly, the ban wasn't on you betting with your friend group, but on casino accepting your bets. | | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Try flipping it around: The question becomes when you can start a casino and accept other people's money. |
|
