Should gambling be regulated if it was proven to be commonly addictive?
Gambling is addictive and should be regulated tightly.
Governments have a responsibility to regulate things that are harmful to the members of their societies. Addictive substances are regulated because addiction causes great harm to those affected by addiction and their friends, families and communities. Those addicted to gambling can lose all of their money to this addiction and end up homeless, as well as driving their families and friends to bankruptcy as well.
Posted by: babyuniqhIt should be regulated because of addictive nature.
Gambling is highly addictive. It often makes people lose their hard earned money. Though it is considered a form of entertainment, it ruins so many lives. Gamblers who gamble for high stakes often lose everything. I have heard that people come to Vegas with their cars and money, and they go home in a greyhound. This is very sad. I think legalized gambling is good for the state and local counties. So, regulating gambling is the best thing to do.
Posted by: N4rrGetIt causes nothing but troubles.
Gambling out of control brings nothing but chaos to your life. It will ruin your life and future. Also, it is a complete waste of time. This hobby, as any other addiction, has no sense. Tell me, why are you going to risk yourself, your things, your family and your future for the opportunity to get some money?
Posted by: AnonymousGambling is addictive- people often go into huge amounts of debt because they are addicted.
There should be no debate that people can be addicted to gambling. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have lost their families, pushed their spouses into a divorce, and have gotten themselves into tons of debt. An addiction is something that you cannot control without outside help, and people that ruin their lives because of gambling often don't realize it until it is too late. There is a thrill that people get from gambling, and some people's brains become addicted to that feeling, or "high." Because gambling is often addictive, this would be a good reason to regulate it.
Posted by: experteasedGambling is a recreational activity, and should not be regulated. But help should be offered to addicts, every bit as much as drug addicts.
Gambling itself is not harmful if used for fun only. It is only hurtful to those who play it often, and suffer financially from spending more money than they should. Therefore, help should be offered to addicts. Those who are successful at gambling would be unnecessarily restricted with a regulation if the government stepped in.
Posted by: JamesonFGambling should be regulated if it is proven addictive because addictions are dangerous to a persons health.
Alcohol is an addiction along with smoking. While these are both not directly regulated the government tries to prevent excessive use of both of these things. They try to prevent smoking by putting high taxes on cigarettes. They try to prevent alcohol by passing laws about consumption of alcohol and age restrictions so as to try to have maturity so that it doesn't become an addiction. Logically if this is the case for these two things and if gambling were proven addictive then it should also be regulated.
Posted by: T RichmondGambling should be regulated, because it is known to be addictive.
Gambling should be highly regulated, because it is absolutely addictive. There are many documented cases of individuals ruining themselves financially by throwing away most of their money on gambling. Las Vegas and Atlantic City thrive on this, as do many casinos across the nation on Native American reservations. When grown adults are capable of such reckless self-destruction, government intervention is necessary to protect those people, while allowing those with self-control the entertainment option of gambling.
Posted by: FlakyHerb64Gambling should be regulated, because it could bring in valuable tax revenue.
Gambling is going to be done by people, regardless of its legal status. So, by not regulating it, the government is missing a key chance to make some tax money. In gambling, the establishment always makes money by not offering the true odds on an event. So, if the government would regulate the establishment, then we would make money for our country and stop wasting money prosecuting harmless people.
Posted by: LongBo86Although gambling is not addictive to all persons who participate, the industry should be regulated to protect the consumer.
Although gambling is not addictive to all persons who participate, the industry should be regulated to protect the consumer. Particularly with internet gambling exploding, it needs to be regulated to protect gamblers from fraud. Also, with regulations, they can earn money for the states instead of having it go to offshore illegal companies.
Posted by: JeffP4ri5
I oppose regulating gambling because people should choose how to spend their money.
In my opinion, I believe there should be no regulation on gambling limits. Although some may find it addictive, most just see it as a game of fun with a chance to win extra cash. Some people are irresponsible and don't know when to stop, but that is their own choice to blow their money on the addiction.
Posted by: OIi0IymPicGambling should not be regulated, it is a persons right to decide how and what to spend their money on.
I agree that gambling can be an addiction, but it is up to the individual to seek help, not have the government force it upon them. Many things in this world are addicting, what grabs a hold of one person might not have any affect on another. Personally, I am addicted to reality TV, my friends and I wager bets on who will win The Bachelor or who will be the next American Idol and March Madness is my favorite time of year. I gamble with my life everyday I get on the California freeways! Point is, even if the government wanted to regulate gambling, it would be impossible to do. People gamble on so many different things and in so many different ways.
Posted by: 5h4bbyHaIeyGambling should not be regulated because it is addicting, and has many negative consequences that regulation won't solve.
There are many negative effects and problems that come from gambling, but the solution is not to regulate it. People should have the ability to make personal decisions about whether or not to gamble, and it isn't the government's place to say whether or not they can gamble. Many addicting things are not regulated, such as caffeinated soft drinks.
Posted by: M0r3FireGambling should not be regulated, because it is a legal activity and adults should be able to use good judgement.
Gambling is a legal activity in many states, and I feel it should not be regulated. People should be responsible for making good decisions, and the government and other regulatory agencies should stay away from getting involved in people's personal choices. Many things are addictive, but they aren't regulated. Things such as food, video games, alcohol, and television are addictive to many people, but it's not our place to step in and tell people how to live their lives.
Posted by: SilentIgnacioIt is not the government's job to curb addiction.
"Regulation" is an ambiguous term that could apply to almost anything. Gambling shouldn't be regulated, because casinos and other venues aren't making people bankrupt. Cigarettes and alcohol are not regulated, except on a store-to-store agreement. Similarly, gambling should not be regulated to stop people, unless these people cannot pay the venue or person involved.
Posted by: NineLester37There's no reason to regulate gambling. Any behavior can be addictive.
If the government would start regulating gambling, they may as well regulate video games, too, since they can become addictive. Some people are even addicted to the Internet, should that be regulated? Some people are addicted to sex, how do you regulate that? Sex only on Tuesdays and Thursday nights?
Posted by: RayEarNo, I don't believe the government should be able to regulate people's free will even if they chose something that will hurt themselves.
From the development of the constitution, the people were given freedoms. I think it is important to continue to protect these freedoms that do not infringe on the rights of others.
Gambling is a personal choice and does not infringe on other unrelated people. I think that the government can't possibly regulate everything they think might be harmful to someone. I don't see why they should even try. In fact, many people can gamble responsibly and the fund help local communities. Why should those who can gamble in a reasonable manner be punished because some people abuse it and hurt themselves.Posted by: P4tGuantoIts not their addiction its ours!!!
its not the governments resposibility to make sure every single citizen does not get a gambling addiction. and yes i think thAT IT SOULD be regulated. even though u may get an addiction its their fault if they want it not the government. I say let it be i for one just do it for the heck of it.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, gambling should not be regulated even if it was proven to be commonly addictive.
Even in the unlikely case that it were proven to be "commonly addictive", it should still not be regulated. It should be up to the individual to limit their own habits of gambling. Any activity can be addictive if used to excess - including food, sex, video games, even reading books or playing sports. Gambling should not be treated any differently than the rest of these, and the responsibility should lie in the hands of the user.
Posted by: 5c4ryOgdonI oppose regulating things like gambling, which is a simple and harmless pastime for some.
While there are many people with gambling addictions, it would be silly to regulate gambling any further than it already is. People can be addicted to very nearly anything(sex, alcohol, shopping), and we can not fix this just by adding more rules and regulations to things like gambling. It would keep those who are definitely not addicted from having some fun with it, and those who are addicted will just find another vice, anyway.
Posted by: SherwChunky