They've 'gotten away with' it by for example winning cases deciding they offer commodities trading, not gambling. (You can disagree with it, it's in the open and explicit is my point.)

▲

throwaway0665 2 days ago | parent [-]

They've had people in their corner who've overturned state law. There are federal lawsuits in progress.

▲

OJFord 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I have no horse in this race, that's sort of exactly my point - they haven't mysteriously 'gotten away with' it like done something illegal and nobody noticed; there have been cases, there will be more, it's so far been allowed. I don't call that 'getting away with' is all.

▲

charlieyu1 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate the stigma and laws against gambling. They don’t stop gambling, they create a higher barrier of entry leading to monopoly, and gamblers are paying more because lack of competition

	▲	rickydroll 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The stigma against gambling exists because of the fallout when the gambler crashes and burns. The primary concern is for the dependents that the gambler is financially responsible for. The second order is the gambler's vulnerability to blackmail. I feel that once a person starts gambling, they've just demonstrated they are not fiscally responsible. There should be a hard stop on increasing debt through loans or credit cards, and any income should go directly to the dependents and not pass through the gambler's hands. Gambling is as destructive as DUI and should be treated with the same level of severity.
	▲	brendoelfrendo 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Buddy, it's gambling; the gambler decides how much they want to bet. I'm struggling to see how gambling monopolies make things worse for gamblers when the very nature of gambling is that the house always wins.