Thread

ER visits for gambling disorders doubled after expanded online gambling market

164 points · 157 comments · geox

tt24 · 1789582679 · focus · HN ↗
Let me guess - because some people are unable to consume this form of entertainment responsibly, we have to make it illegal for everyone?
Makes sense. While we’re at it let’s kick the war on drugs back into high gear, reinstate prohibition, and make other higher risk behavior illegal.
1. superb_dev · 1789582902 · focus · HN ↗
  We don’t have to fully outlaw gambling or other forms of high risk entertainment, but we absolutely should be outlawing the pervasive advertising these companies are doing. You can’t enjoy sports these days without dodging tons of ads for betting platforms
  1. tt24 · 1789583966 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t see why advertisement for gambling is any more offensive than advertisement for any other form of entertainment
    ImJamal · 1789585681 · focus · HN ↗
    Watching a TV show or a movie that you saw a commercial for isn't going to bankrupt you and cause you to lose your house.
    tt24 · 1789586965 · focus · HN ↗
    Should we ban advertisement for skydiving and other such high risk behavior?
    ImJamal · 1789587741 · focus · HN ↗
    I haven't looked much into the Canadian levels, but I assume they are similar to the US. Some stats might not be quite right, but...
    Something like .15% of the US population skydive a year. Almost none of them die.
    I've seen estimates that over 5% of the US population gamble at a "problem" level and about 0.5% to 1% are outright addicted. About 20% of those addicted have a suicide attempt.
    Americans who skydive in the US will be about the same number of Americans who attempt suicide due to gambling issues. Skydiving is quite safe so the death rate is so minimal.
    The scale between the two is just so different.
    toomanyrichies · 1789657420 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a terrible analogy. Skydiving isn't addictive, the risk falls on the participant, and a skydiving company doesn't make more money from the customers it hurts.
    Gambling apps get a large share of their revenue from the small group of users who can't stop. Meanwhile they cap the bets of people who win too much, so arguing that "betting is just entertainment in a free market" is false on its face. These are predatory companies and they should absolutely be regulated as such.
    tt24 · 1789692078 · focus · HN ↗
    > Skydiving isn't addictive
    Skydiving is absolutely addictive. Adrenaline chasing is addictive behavior
    > the risk falls on the participant
    Same with gambling
    > a skydiving company doesn't make more money from the customers it hurts
    Yes they do.
    It's shocking how you managed to construct the most flatly incorrect string of words ever
    toomanyrichies · 1789699000 · focus · HN ↗
    > Adrenaline chasing is addictive behavior
    Gambling disorder is a recognized diagnosis in both the DSM-5 [1] and the WHO's ICD-11 [2], with a $14 billion annual social cost [3] in the US alone. Show me the equivalent DSM entry and social cost for "skydiving addiction".
    The word "addiction" has an actual clinical meaning. It's not just vibes. The person has lost control over the behavior, and they keep doing it despite harm. There's no "Skydivers Anonymous".
    With gambling, spouses and kids lose savings, debts don't get paid, and the public bears the cost of the ER visits in the headline. Gambling externalizes the costs in a way that skydiving doesn't. That’s the difference.
    > Yes they do.
    An injured skydiver is a net loss for a skydiving company: insurance, lawsuits, lost business, bad press. You gave no evidence for how they'd profit. You just said "Yes they do". Cue Hitchens's Razor: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    1. <a href="https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disorder/what-is-gambling-disorder" rel="nofollow">https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gambling-disord...
    2. <a href="https://icd.who.int/browse/2025-01/mms/en#1041487064" rel="nofollow">https://icd.who.int/browse/2025-01/mms/en#1041487064
    3. <a href="https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/faqs-what-is-problem-gambling/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncpgambling.org/help-treatment/faqs-what-is-prob...
2. bryanlarsen · 1789582933 · focus · HN ↗
  Because there is a significant amount of externalized costs we should increase the impedance: taxes, banning/regulating advertising, cooling off periods, limits, et cetera.
3. Georgelemental · 1789583297 · focus · HN ↗
  We can go back to how it used to be, when you had to go to a gambling establishment in person
  1. tt24 · 1789583881 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would we do that? I’m perfectly capable of using a gambling app responsibly.
    toomanyrichies · 1789588339 · focus · HN ↗
    Consider the possibility that your brain chemistry is different from that of other people, and that this could affect the level of responsibility people bring to bear here.
    stickfigure · 1789593046 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, but you can say the same about alcohol, drugs, sweets, red meat, sex, motorcycles, base jumping... pretty quickly we're going to end up in a pretty milktoast world.
    I met someone recently who filed bankruptcy over tens of thousands of dollars of debt incurred obsessing over baseball cards (!) There is always going to be someone.
    Capricorn2481 · 1789601596 · focus · HN ↗
    I think if you could drink alcohol through your phone, people would probably pause on whether that's a good thing.
    Surely you can use your imagination a bit and imagine the difference between baseball cards and connecting your bank account to a gambling app, especially with all the paid endorsements from companies and celebrities telling young people they will make a lot of money using these apps.
    Georgelemental · 1789604532 · focus · HN ↗
    We also restrict which establishments can sell all those things! Some more than others. E.g. liquor licenses
    tt24 · 1789605650 · focus · HN ↗
    That's fine that my brain chemistry is different from that of other people, but I don't see why that should prevent me from using gambling apps.
    toomanyrichies · 1789657378 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    stackskipton · 1789588353 · focus · HN ↗
    Because it's harm reduction. Sometimes you can reduce a vice impact by putting in friction. Too much can end with poor results for sure.
4. AlexandrB · 1789585809 · focus · HN ↗
  I'd settle for making these apps play fair at least. Being able to effectively ban users who are good at sports betting by limiting their wagers to trivial amounts[1] is a "heads we win, tails you lose" situation and contradicts their marketing claims.
  [1] <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/sports/opinion-sports-betting-morgan-campbell-nov24-1.6662775" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/sports/opinion-sports-betting-morgan-camp...

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.