India Seeks Ban on Online Betting Apps To Curb Addiction (bangkokpost.com) 41
India has moved a legislation to ban online money gaming due to rising instances of addiction, money laundering and financial frauds through these apps. From a report: A bill passed in the lower house of Parliament on Wednesday seeks to prohibit promotion and operation of gaming apps that require users to pay money for the chance to win cash. The move threatens India's $3.8 billion gaming industry that has drawn global investors and also fostered homegrown fantasy sports betting apps such as Dream11, Games24X7 and Mobile Premier League.
"People lose their life's savings in online money gaming," India's Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw told lawmakers in New Delhi. He said the government intends to curb the addiction and financial harm that comes with online money gaming, but will promote e-sports and social gaming.
"People lose their life's savings in online money gaming," India's Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw told lawmakers in New Delhi. He said the government intends to curb the addiction and financial harm that comes with online money gaming, but will promote e-sports and social gaming.
Humans, as a group... (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans, as a group, seem incapable of learning damn near anything.
Banning tobacco doesn't stop smoking.
Banning drugs doesn't stop drug addiction.
Banning alcohol doesn't stop alcohol addiction.
Banning prostitution doesn't stop whore mongering.
Banning gambling won't stop gambling addiction.
For then N'th time folks, addicts can not be stopped by anything but the addict themselves. They have to want to seek change and they have to work damn hard doing it. Short of that, the only "solutions" are close incarceration, letting them die of the addiction or killing them for having it. One can ban the substance or activity, but the addiction is still there. And may be that's good enough for society that isn't afflicted with it, but never mistake it for a "cure".
Re: (Score:1)
Humans, as a group, seem incapable of learning damn near anything. Banning tobacco doesn't stop smoking. Banning drugs doesn't stop drug addiction. Banning alcohol doesn't stop alcohol addiction. Banning prostitution doesn't stop whore mongering. Banning gambling won't stop gambling addiction.
For then N'th time folks, addicts can not be stopped by anything but the addict themselves.
It reduces them. Of course it doesn't stop them. As for the addiction part, fewer people would become addicted.
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Are you neglecting the forbidden fruit effect, which leads us to get around your bans?
Is the idea of banning anything, trolling say, so offensive to some of us, that you might as well get used to us being free in ways you don't choose for yourself?
Does banning start from a view that drug addiction, or trolling, is mutually exclusive with corny old normie karma whoring?
But what if you cause addiction, and trolling, by banning it?
Are you committed to repeating endless cycles, like in the Myth of Sisyphus?
What
Re: (Score:2)
Cannabis is still illegal at the federal level and still a violation of all kinds of corporate drug use policies. There is a huge portion of the population that is very much still 'prohibited' in terms of facing serious consequences for using, even in states / locales where it is nominally legal current.
I don't think the we good data on the impact of legalization yet, because it not really legal..It exists in a grey-area. There is probably fairly heavy overlap with the portions of the population that feel
Know what they should ban first? (Score:1)
Shitting in their rivers. Seriously.
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Why should I trust your feelings about the numbers? Do you have sources, or just a mood affiliation? How unconscious is the forbidden fruit effect, manifesting under some other conscious excuse?
As for cigarettes, how come I self-identify as a forbidden fruit coveter, but cigarettes were still socially condoned when I grew up, so I tried them and decided they didn't get me high so what was the point?
Also, regarding your claimed success with cigarettes, how come I see so many cigarrete butts in public use are
Re: (Score:2)
are you seriously trying to argue the smoking cessation efforts have not been successful?
Its about the general welfare, yes some others will be harmed maybe disproportionately so. Welcome to democracy.
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Have you heard about constitutional democracy?
Why should my natural right to take drugs or gamble be banned by you, just because you have strong feelings about numbers with huge error margins?
Why do you resort to state violence to change behaviors you have a mood affiliation against? Why don't you try to change my mood about doing these things you think I would be better off not doing? Why reach for enforcers first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is easier to not have as much sympathy for the mentally lazy, because at least in theory if they tried harder they could make better decisions. However the net result of them becoming a burden on society is the same. In an ideal world everyone would be cap
Re: (Score:2)
It might not stop the addicts but it is also fallacious to suggest banning substances and activities has no positive impacts.
Prohibition is looked at as failure but ...
alcohol consumption essentially never returned to where it was on a per-capita basis. How many future addicts did that prevent?
Secondary impacts like domestic violence decline by something like 50% of the rate it had been.
Were the negative effects, yes those are well known and well documented. Prohibition did make a lot of lives better, and
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Without prohibition, alcohol is declining now. How many Bix Beiderbeckes did you condemn to death with Prohibition?
"Thatâ(TM)s a really thoughtful question â" and the answer is: indirectly, yes, Prohibition almost certainly contributed to Bix Beiderbeckeâ(TM)s decline and early death."
How about the music scene in Kansas City, shut down when they cracked down on prostitution and unregulated all-night jam sessions?
What if the experiment in New Orleans, when they stopped enforcing laws in the St
Re: (Score:2)
Bix Beiderbeckes did you condemn to death with Prohibition
Exactly none, alcoholism killed him, not prohibition. His alcoholism drove him to make dangerous choices and take his chances on even more risky contraband. He could have and presumably would have stopped drinking but for his addiction.
Maybe if prohibition had started sooner, he'd never have become an addict!
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
What about I'm going to do your banned thing because I like it and you have no business telling me what to do did you not understand?
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Why do you think Prohibition was repealed? Why are more states legalizing pot? Have you considered moving to Russia, or China?
(May I note by the way that when I was in Beijing we used to get softball-sized chunks of hash from the Weighurs who ran restaurants (great bread!)?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Humans, as a group... (Score:4, Informative)
Banning tobacco didn't stop smoking, but banning cigarette vending machines meaningfully reduced it, especially in under-age smokers and lighter smokers.
Yes, banning gambling doesn't stop gaming addiction but taking the casino out of your pocket and taking away the casino's ability to run A/B tests on what it takes to get you, personally, to place your next bet will reduce the harm of gambling addiction across the population.
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
How can you so blithely ignore outliers?
Why can't you find persuasive ways to get people to stop doingvwhatever it is that irks you?
Why must you use the threat of state violence as your first resort? Are you incompetent?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm largely in agreement with you. I don't think its terribly effective to tell people what they can and can't do. If we don't want people to gamble, making gambling illegal isn't going to move the needle meaningfully and it's probably going to increase overall harm. See, for example, the war on drugs.
But we can move the needle by regulating the supply side of the equation and the more infrastructure intensive the supply side is the more effective regulation is. Banning the sale of leaded gas, for exampl
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Why do you think I'm posting?
Why are you against freedoms I want to exercise, like drug taking, camping anywhere on public land, etc.? What can I do to convince you that I should not be your target? Why is being a nonviolent noncooperator so threatening to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Banning tobacco didn't stop smoking, but banning cigarette vending machines meaningfully reduced it, especially in under-age smokers and lighter smokers.
In the US, smoking has decreased dramatically in the last 50 years, from about one out of three adults smoking to closer to one of out ten. This hasn't been done with an outright ban on smoking. Rather, it's been a combination of high cigarette taxes, banning smoking in almost all public areas as well as many private areas, and public ad campaigns that transformed smoking from cool to not cool.
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
What if a lot of smokers were like my Mom, who didn't inhale, and remains cancer free in her 90s?
What if smoking was just a stupid, fickle social fad and you could have had better success pointing out the silliness of fads and getting people to challenge unhealthy group behaviors? What if there are plenty of other bad behaviors we continue today (overeating, anyone?) for silly social fad reasons, and which have mortality consequences, but which you ignore because you judt want to belong and not stick out so
Re: (Score:2)
Humans, as a group, seem incapable of learning damn near anything.
Sure, for example you haven't learned that making bad things easy means there's more of them happening.
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Why have homicides gone down, unless you include wars?
Re: (Score:2)
Why have homicides gone down
Where?
unless you include wars?
Shouldn't we?
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
Can I clarify that I was trying to point out that making killing easier has reduced homicide statistics (however trustworthy those are), contrary to your original bland blanket assertion? In other words why cherry-pick away exceptions?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, for example you haven't learned that making bad things easy means there's more of them happening.
The reply is missing the point. I've read your other replies. You're ordinarily incisive, so I will recap:
And may be that's good enough for society that isn't afflicted with it, but never mistake it for a "cure".
Prohibition is not a total, encompassing solution. It's a stopgap measure at best. To effect a lasting change to behavior, one needs must change the person's behavior. And the only one that can do that is the person. You can annoy them. You can fine them, lock them up. They will return to be behavior if that's all you do. It's my opinion this is why incarceration in the USA has such high recidivism - be
Re: (Score:2)
Humans, as a group, seem incapable of learning damn near anything. Banning tobacco doesn't stop smoking. Banning drugs doesn't stop drug addiction. Banning alcohol doesn't stop alcohol addiction. Banning prostitution doesn't stop whore mongering. Banning gambling won't stop gambling addiction.
For then N'th time folks, addicts can not be stopped by anything but the addict themselves. They have to want to seek change and they have to work damn hard doing it. Short of that, the only "solutions" are close incarceration, letting them die of the addiction or killing them for having it. One can ban the substance or activity, but the addiction is still there. And may be that's good enough for society that isn't afflicted with it, but never mistake it for a "cure".
Maybe civilization should evolve to the point that when we see problems, such as addiction, on the rise, we address the root cause rather than trying to swat the symptoms, or those suffering from the symptoms. Most folks have addictions of some sort, those that are mentally healthy tend to indulge in those addictions sparingly, and without any significant negative impact on themselves or their loved ones. If you aren't mentally healthy and stable there's a good chance a planned minor indulgence becomes a bi
Re: Humans, as a group... (Score:2)
How repugnant are your "the end justifies the means" tactics against smoking to this non-smoker?
Did you take the lazy, violent way out, rather than more effectively get at the individual root causes of the desire to smoke?
What if you got people to respond to tobacco ads the way I, a vegetarian, respond to the constant barrage of meat ads I am subjected to?
Re: (Score:2)
Humans, as a group, seem incapable of learning damn near anything.
Banning tobacco doesn't stop smoking.
Banning drugs doesn't stop drug addiction.
Banning alcohol doesn't stop alcohol addiction.
Banning prostitution doesn't stop whore mongering.
Banning gambling won't stop gambling addiction.
For then N'th time folks, addicts can not be stopped by anything but the addict themselves. They have to want to seek change and they have to work damn hard doing it. Short of that, the only "solutions" are close incarceration, letting them die of the addiction or killing them for having it. One can ban the substance or activity, but the addiction is still there. And may be that's good enough for society that isn't afflicted with it, but never mistake it for a "cure".
They're not attempting to ban something because banning works (it doesn't, I'm not disagreeing with you). They're attempting to do this because it makes it look like they're doing something to the god botherers, Karens and other holier-than-thou busy-bodies who think they know better than everyone.
The Indian government know that banning this wont work... and those pushing it likely have money in the businesses set to profit from making online gambling more difficult like brick and mortar betting shops an
Well, sure! Why, not? (Score:1)
They're obviously as stupid and their UK and US counterparts. Only fools believe that legislation restricting access to an internet resource can actually work.
What a buncha maroons. (Thanks, Bugs Bunny)