The deluge of gambling ads on TV during Friday night footy is absolutely appalling. There’s a very robust conduit for normalising sports gambling through advertisements around the broadcasts and it’s clearly influencing young adults. I’ve noticed a dramatic uptick in how common it is compared to when I was that age.
An argument I've heard is that by legalizing betting, it can be more easily monitored with regulation and reduce the amount of black market betting. People still bet when it's illegal, it just becomes harder to track, which makes it easier for gamblers to interfere with outcomes without detection.
It sounds kind of similar to the legalization of certain recreational drugs. For example, alcohol prohibition resulted in a massive black market with organized criminal gangs, and many places realized it's better to regulate it rather than prohibit it.
I think for gambling, we need better regulations, and the Australian government seems to think so too.
The ads are going to continue from 8:30pm on, NRL has a game starting at 8pm this evening, the gambling ads will hit just before half time under this new legislation
> "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.
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.
> 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.
The ability for Sportsbet to deluge your feed with gambling remains unhindered. Their TikTok/Instagram ads are clever and unrelenting.
As a consequence there is a quiet crisis in young people, 18-30, deeply in debt, working second and third jobs so that they have a bit more money to gamble.
Maybe split the difference and raise the purchasing age for cigarettes 6 months every year. Takes longer to get to nobody can smoke, but you'll get there eventually.
The (NZ) government that changed the approach is heavily loaded with Tobacco friendly Ministers - the expectation is that when the government is voted out (no government lasts forever) the age based approach will be bought back in.
US has gone to a minimum age of 21. I actually think that’s enough, along with raising the price and reducing the number of places people can smoke.
People generally start smoking by their teens or not at all. Making it hard for kids to get exposed to nicotine will stop a lot of addiction.
Also way fewer parents have cigarettes in the house so it’s harder for kids to grab them at home. And there are pretty strong taboos nowadays about giving random kids stuff they’re not supposed to have.
Can we please not keep trying to redo prohibition. Yes it costs public health. No you can’t stop adults imbibing the drugs they want, the only thing you can do is criminalise it which makes criminals of sick people. Great work.
Why stop there? Government mandated fitness programs too. Government meals. Calories in and out perfectly controlled by government scientists. Start getting over weight your food ration is cut and you have double duty in the fitness camp. Caught with illegal unaccounted for food? Straight to jail. Obesity solved in probably 6 months. Trillions saved in healthcare costs and hundreds of millions of early deaths avoided.
Admittedly, I'm not arguing it any one way or another. I'm just presenting what I think is perhaps an interesting argument that highlights how the whole concept is somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous, resting more on ones personal moral positions towards a thing in particular than any real underlying logical justification shared across similar concepts.
Obesity does too. You are consuming sometimes twice as many calories as what is needed to survive. You put strain on medical facilities as well, and increase pooled costs of healthcare. Same social ills a smoker puts on you. Second hand smoke isn't really a thing anymore with indoor smoking bans.
Someone being obese doesn't impact my health directly. Second hand smoke impacts the kids/family of smokers. Second hand smoke impacts everyone walking past the front of an office building.
Some companies now make advertisements of news websites that it is clear are also part of betting companies. For example, https://www.admiralbet.news/ has as other Google result the betting website. However, I do have to say it is still less than before and it's much better
This is all I see on ad supporteed TV at night here in the UK. And half the time during the day. It's a serious problem coupled with, I assume, serious lobbyists here in the UK.
Finally.
The deluge of gambling ads on TV during Friday night footy is absolutely appalling. There’s a very robust conduit for normalising sports gambling through advertisements around the broadcasts and it’s clearly influencing young adults. I’ve noticed a dramatic uptick in how common it is compared to when I was that age.
I see absolutely no upside for a society to allow sports betting. The tax revenues don't justify the addiction, debts and devastated families.
An argument I've heard is that by legalizing betting, it can be more easily monitored with regulation and reduce the amount of black market betting. People still bet when it's illegal, it just becomes harder to track, which makes it easier for gamblers to interfere with outcomes without detection.
It sounds kind of similar to the legalization of certain recreational drugs. For example, alcohol prohibition resulted in a massive black market with organized criminal gangs, and many places realized it's better to regulate it rather than prohibit it.
I think for gambling, we need better regulations, and the Australian government seems to think so too.
I nicknamed ESPN in the US EBetPN
The ads are going to continue from 8:30pm on, NRL has a game starting at 8pm this evening, the gambling ads will hit just before half time under this new legislation
Ireland needs this. I don’t live there anymore, but the amount of ads literally everywhere you go there these days is insane.
Gambling ruins lives.
> "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.
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.
> 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...
Bold move limiting gambling ads to just three per hour. Next up light-touch bans on cigarettes where you can only smoke during ad breaks.
The ability for Sportsbet to deluge your feed with gambling remains unhindered. Their TikTok/Instagram ads are clever and unrelenting.
As a consequence there is a quiet crisis in young people, 18-30, deeply in debt, working second and third jobs so that they have a bit more money to gamble.
I'd strongly support a year-based ban on cigarette purchases.
Set the purchase birth year to the current age 18. So DOB 2008 if done today, if you're born 2009 or later you can't buy smokes at all ever.
Within two generations we'd largely eliminate smoking. Within three cigarettes would be amongst impossible to get. Great public health initiative.
NZ tried that cigarette ban, but walked it back so they could get juicy tax revenues. https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban...
Maybe split the difference and raise the purchasing age for cigarettes 6 months every year. Takes longer to get to nobody can smoke, but you'll get there eventually.
We’d just end up in the same situation as Australia - where up to one third of all cigarettes consumed are purchased on the black market.
The (NZ) government that changed the approach is heavily loaded with Tobacco friendly Ministers - the expectation is that when the government is voted out (no government lasts forever) the age based approach will be bought back in.
US has gone to a minimum age of 21. I actually think that’s enough, along with raising the price and reducing the number of places people can smoke.
People generally start smoking by their teens or not at all. Making it hard for kids to get exposed to nicotine will stop a lot of addiction.
Also way fewer parents have cigarettes in the house so it’s harder for kids to grab them at home. And there are pretty strong taboos nowadays about giving random kids stuff they’re not supposed to have.
I smoke maybe a pack a year at best. I can’t buy smokes because some nuffies don’t like it? Take a hike.
So it would be a small personal sacrifice for huge societal benefit, and you wouldn’t even do that?
The societal downside of providing yet another revenue stream for criminal organisations seems like it might be worth taking into consideration.
Would you support the same ban for alcohol?
The UK is supposedly doing exactly this. As are a few other places.
Can we please not keep trying to redo prohibition. Yes it costs public health. No you can’t stop adults imbibing the drugs they want, the only thing you can do is criminalise it which makes criminals of sick people. Great work.
Why stop there? Government mandated fitness programs too. Government meals. Calories in and out perfectly controlled by government scientists. Start getting over weight your food ration is cut and you have double duty in the fitness camp. Caught with illegal unaccounted for food? Straight to jail. Obesity solved in probably 6 months. Trillions saved in healthcare costs and hundreds of millions of early deaths avoided.
Why stop there? Because we decided to stop there. It's really that simple.
Seatbelts, speed limits, laws against property and personal crime, workplace safety regulations,
All government overreach, eh?
Admittedly, I'm not arguing it any one way or another. I'm just presenting what I think is perhaps an interesting argument that highlights how the whole concept is somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous, resting more on ones personal moral positions towards a thing in particular than any real underlying logical justification shared across similar concepts.
It's not interesting at all, you're just choosing to ignore externalities.
Smoking affects surrounding people much more than the above
Obesity does too. You are consuming sometimes twice as many calories as what is needed to survive. You put strain on medical facilities as well, and increase pooled costs of healthcare. Same social ills a smoker puts on you. Second hand smoke isn't really a thing anymore with indoor smoking bans.
Someone being obese doesn't impact my health directly. Second hand smoke impacts the kids/family of smokers. Second hand smoke impacts everyone walking past the front of an office building.
People that consume more are carbon sinks...
How ludicrous is this argument going to get?
I'm from italy where we have a ban.
Some companies now make advertisements of news websites that it is clear are also part of betting companies. For example, https://www.admiralbet.news/ has as other Google result the betting website. However, I do have to say it is still less than before and it's much better
"TV ads from betting agencies will be capped at three per hour, between 6am and 8:30pm"
-----------
And thus, the ten minute Australian gambling ad was born.
Gambling ads are to Australia what Pharmaceutical ads are to the USA.
This is all I see on ad supporteed TV at night here in the UK. And half the time during the day. It's a serious problem coupled with, I assume, serious lobbyists here in the UK.
Let's hope that they don't burn someone else's house.
https://youtu.be/ZI3zaHUsgXg
https://youtu.be/jZivPIRvi0U