> "Today it's gambling advertising, tomorrow it's alcohol, then it's sugary drinks, fast food, critical minerals and who knows what else comes next," chief executive Kai Cantwell said.

We have already learned our lesson. Prohibition doesn’t work. But advertising does work. Banning advertising also works. We should allow people the freedom to participate in vice, but ban all advertising for it. Anything harmful to society should not be advertised. No ads for cars, guns, recreational drugs including alcohol, unhealthy food, fossil fuels, or gambling.

Who knows what comes next Kai? Hopefully everything.

▲

Tarsul 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I gotta admit I laughed heartily at the quote. I expected the slippery slope argument, I did not expect it to be made so clumsy :)

btw. what followed is worse: <<He accused the government of blindsiding a sector that supports 30,000 jobs and "provides critical funding to sport, racing and broadcast industries".>>

Gambling business is not a positive force. It's not even zero sum. It's a negative sum game. I hope no one is nodding along to these kind of arguments, they are nonsensical.

▲

Smoosh 4 hours ago | parent [-]

“provides critical funding to sport, racing and broadcast industries”

I foresee that the amped-up sports gambling will destroy professional sports as all results will be tainted with the probable interference from the gambling industry and those trying to “game the system” (irony noted).

	▲	smackeyacky 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s too late. Professional sports is already ruined by gambling. You don’t always see it in the results but in the weird side bets (how many tackles, home many metres). It should be more heavily regulated and the advertisements are so blatant and intrusive they ruin any pleasure you might take from watching sport in Australia.

▲

matthewfcarlson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Today it’s a ban on gambling ads, but tomorrow it’s a ban on mosquitos, cancer, and discrimination.

Listing a bunch of things a lot of people don’t like isn’t a winning argument.

▲

daemin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I like the way he included "critical minerals" in this list, sounds like the mining industry also has contributed money to his pocket.

	▲	SturgeonsLaw 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You laugh, but thanks to those critical minerals ads during cartoons, my kids are now begging me for praseodymium and scandium. Prices for rare earths are through the roof but my 10 year old just won't accept that she can't refine advanced alloys in this economy.

▲

Gigachad 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If there were ads promoting breeding mosquitos or deliberately inducing cancer, we could look at banning them. But there aren’t so this is a pointless take.

	▲	Dusseldorf an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Advertised or not, you can take my breaded mosquitos from my cold, dead hands!

▲

jmyeet 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Prohibition doesn’t work.

Actually, it did work [1]:

> Courtwright’s The Age of Addiction has the statistics: “Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption — although that was less than the initial effect, as people figured some ways around the law.

> We should allow people the freedom to participate in vice.

There is literally no individual upside to gambling and don't say "winning". For sites like FanDuel and DraftKings, you get banned or your bet sizes severelyl restricted if you consistently win [2]. Why? Because it discourages the marks if they don't win occasionally.

Suicide rate is highest among gambling addicts than any other form of addiction [3]. Gambling measurably increases credit score drops, debts and bankruptcies [4]. The entire business is predatory.

At least back in the day when you had to go to a casino there was some barrier to gambling. Now? Just pull out your phone.

[1]: https://archive.ph/l8m4E#selection-885.0-889.319

[2]: https://www.elitepickz.com/blog/do-sportsbooks-ban-winners-a...

[3]: https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/problem-gambl...

[4]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/online-sports-gamb...

	▲	josephg 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> For sites like FanDuel and DraftKings, you get banned or your bet sizes severelyl restricted if you consistently win Can confirm this in Australia too. They give you progressively worse odds if you win. And they give you progressively better odds if you keep losing, to keep you coming back.

▲

Blikkentrekker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The thing with “harmful to society” is that in practice it's so arbitrarily decided what is “harmful” and in practice it comes down more to “arbitrary moralist reactions”.