It should either be illegal or not. This idea that the state has a monopoly on getting money from doing a thing that you are saying is bad doesn't make sense.

If it is bad and yet the government is allowed to use it to make money then is the government evil? Why does the government get to do it if we can't? It just makes the whole thing seem ridiculous and makes underground betting seem like I guess it isn't really that bad since the government is allowed to do it. The operators are just people fighting for their freedom to operate the same business the government operates.

> This idea that the state has a monopoly on getting money from doing a thing that you are saying is bad doesn't make sense.

It makes a lot of sense. Here in Idaho, hard alcohol can only be sold in state run liquor stores. The stores aren't advertised and the staff is all well trained. People that want booze can still get it, but at the same time it's not being ran like a business (It still turns a profit). That is to say, there's no advertising or marketing for it.

> If it is bad and yet the government is allowed to use it to make money then is the government evil?

People are going to gamble if they want to. Making it illegal just pushes them to underground gambling. Making it state ran allows the state to better control the gambling, including doing things like having the ability to provide recovery options and interventions.

> Why does the government get to do it if we can't?

The government isn't motivated by (just) money. They don't have to advertise for gambling and they don't have shareholders to make happy. They could even operate the gambling at a loss if they wanted to.

> It just makes the whole thing seem ridiculous and makes underground betting seem like I guess it isn't really that bad since the government is allowed to do it.

Completely the opposite. The government doing it happens to stop underground gambling from happening. You can sue the government and expect them to treat you fairly. Underground gambling, on the other hand, has no reason or motivation to treat it's participants fairly.

Because any addictive thing is on a spectrum and you don't want the people with incentives to go all the way up the spectrum to be the operator of the harmful thing, a là the dose makes the poison. (See alcohol, cigarettes, any class of drugs etc.)

Some things are just wholly harmful where no small amount provides any benefits, some are harmful in large doses, but not so harmful in small doses that they cannot provide other uses.

Governments (ideally) don't exist to maximize profit so they are (generally) not incentivized to increase the addictions of their populace.

Harm reduction. In the US, state lotteries have reduced illegal gambling. Illegal gambling would increase under a total ban.

Some markets fail. If the government can step in and provide a service that doesn't end in a failed market, that's not an imposition on anyone's freedom.

I think of it is the level of regulation I'd require / desire in an endeavour.

On one side there's things with very little regulation required, private companies go crazy (and they will!:).

On the other hand, there's things I want high regulation on - use of violence (army / pokice / security), medicine, key infra utilities, alcohol/drugs/gambling, etc.

We can discuss whether we agree those things need regulation, and if so, what form that regulation takes.

(To me, some things I want so highly regulated there's no benefit in private ownership, just risk of runaway loop exploitation)

It reminds me of state-run liquor stores in some US states.

>It should either be illegal or not. This idea that the state has a monopoly on getting money from doing a thing that you are saying is bad doesn't make sense.

So no nation in history should have been allowed to have a military to defend its loot or to acquire more loot.

Some things are better left in control of the government _because_ they are dangerous. You either:

* Outlaw gambling, and gamblers will just go towards shadier options, putting their own lives in even more risk.

* Allow private operators whose goal is to extract as much money from possible from gamblers as possible and ensure that you will inevitably have people abusing the system up to the limits to which it can go and testing out if they can go further, over and over again

* Government ran gambling organisations that can ensure they also offer proper systems to wean yourself off, offer healthcare, and make use of the money "made" from operating it to improve your health care systems.

Only one of those options is sensible.

>The operators are just people fighting for their freedom to operate the same business the government operates.

HAHAHAHAHA. No. Absolutely not. Some people are truly as caricatural as movies and books make them appear, and casino owners truly live up to it. I worked for them, for "betting rooms", anything you want: they are thieves, mafias, manipulators and bring nothing but misery on the world. They're not "fighting for their freedom", they have found a legal way to abuse human misery and addictions.