Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Law Prohibiting Sports Gambling (espn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-rules dept.

The Supreme Court has struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively prevented most states from legalizing sports betting, clearing up a legal gray area and opening a door for state governments to join in what has become a lucrative industry. From a report: The court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), a 1992 law that barred state-authorized sports gambling with some exceptions. It made Nevada the only state where a person could wager on the results of a single game.

States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first. Delaware, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are among the states expected to quickly get into the legal bookmaking game.

106 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gambling is harmless. Gambling more than you can afford is not, but that is the problem of the gambler, and does not require legislation.

    2. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree it should be legal because prohibition is stupid as a concept and all it does it create unregulated black markets run by dangerous people, but also no denying that legal gambling is effectively a regressive tax on the poor and lower classes.

    3. Re:Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A tax is involuntary. No one is being forced to bet on sports or pay a fine/go to jail.

    4. Re: Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be all for banning spending public funds on stadium construction, since taxpayers are being forced to support PRIVATE sports teams. But betting is voluntary. Don't want to pay? Don't place the bet, problem solved.

    5. Re: Another one bites the dust... by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's also the problem of his or her children, family, etc. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but people do not exist in vacuums.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re: Another one bites the dust... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      States regulate gambling because it can be an extremely addictive vice a non tiny portion of the population gets hooked on.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    7. Re: Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      States can still regulate it. Better yet, tax it and use part of the tax revenue to pay for treatment programs for problem gamblers.

    8. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

      Gambling doesn't occur in a vacuum.

      Studies: Casinos bring jobs, but also crime, bankruptcy, and even suicide

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gambling is a tax on people that don't understand probability and statistics!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    10. Re:Another one bites the dust... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Meh, leaving aside the major questions about gambling and its known addictive and destructive nature, you're assuming that SCOTUS found all laws about gambling to be unconstitutional. They didn't. What they did find was that the Federal law outlawing gambling was unconstitutional because of the way it was written, essentially forcing the states to ban gambling themselves.

      Regardless of what happens now, state laws outlawing gambling will remain constitutional. And it's probable other Federal laws outlawing gambling would be upheld, as long as they don't impose any duties upon the states.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Another one bites the dust... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

      Wanna bet?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    12. Re: Another one bites the dust... by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Fuck that. Tax it and fix some bridges.

    13. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Studies can also show that virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime. But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't. This is another attempt to do just that. Good riddance.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    14. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, it's also the problem of his or her children, family, etc. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but people do not exist in vacuums.

      Again, that's not the problem of the government really....and extreme are the rare case.

      The government is not (supposed to be) here to be a nanny over the populace, and protect them from their own idiocy. Adult grown people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, and live with the consequences thereof. That's one of the things this country was founded upon.

      I don't need the government making my decisions for me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be all for banning spending public funds on stadium construction, since taxpayers are being forced to support PRIVATE sports teams.

      Are they? In what way? When they voted for a government that made the agreement? Or when they voted at the ballot box for an agreement? Oh wait, no, no, it turns not to be quite so simple, huh?

      Like it or not, we're letting it happen. We need to make a concerted effort to stop it.

      But betting is voluntary. Don't want to pay? Don't place the bet, problem solved.

      Nope. We have the issue of bets being placed. So problem created. Now you're expecting the state to endorse fulfillment of that whole contractual business. To be sure it's on the up and up.

      And now you're thinking that they'll pay for treatment programs? Not only will they not do that(for reasons including thinking that the gamblers deserve to suffer), that doesn't begin to cover the costs of the injuries resulting from the negatives of the whole industry.

      It's a nasty mess, and never gets better. But people, even honest ones, like yourself, can just write it off as "They were doing it voluntarily, it's all good" when, well, the fact is, it isn't.

    16. Re:Another one bites the dust... by gnick · · Score: 1

      It's the sort of thing I hear crackheads say.

      Or Anonymous Cowards? Very few people think gambling is a way to make $$. And it's true for even fewer. But desperation leads people to irrational acts, like blowing your milk money on lottery tickets. At least with sports betting you're betting against experts instead of against statistics.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    17. Re:Another one bites the dust... by ewibble · · Score: 1

      What studies show you can't legislate morality? What study shows virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime? I would of thought the higher employment the less crime.

      I do agree that the law probably won't make people moral, it should be there to protect people from being taken advantage of. Although there will always be people who break the law, and laws that are flawed and perhaps should be broken, they provide a guide as to what society deems acceptable. Most people follow the law most of the time.

    18. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't.

      Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement. So is "don't steal". What one can do in a contractual framework, ditto.

      The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.

      Those who forget history tend to repeat it.

    19. Re:Another one bites the dust... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      What they did find was that the Federal law outlawing gambling was unconstitutional because of the way it was written, essentially forcing the states to ban gambling themselves.

      It was even weirder than that. It forced the stats to unban gambling during a narrow window, and then closed that window for all states for all time.

      It allowed states a window to opt out of a federal law, if they pushed through legislature to do it.

      I'm more than happy seeing fucked up shit like that overturned. The justices pretty much said to congress, "If you want to ban it, do it right."

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    20. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who are hooked on drugs commit crimes to ensure their future supply of those drugs. You can say "not my problem" but eventually they will make it your problem. In the end analysis, it is often cheaper to pay to rehabilitate them than to simply keep imprisoning them and dealing with the societal damage they cause when back out on the streets. Addicts who die are actually the least of your problem.

      Drug addicts ruin (and sometimes end) the lives of innocent people. What price do you put on that? When your brother or son ends up dead because some junkie killed him in a mugging-gone-bad, are you just going to say "damn idiot junkie"

      We regulate vices because people with vices do bad things to other innocent citizens.

    21. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      You can say the same thing about every form of entertainment that is not free.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    22. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Straight from the Preamble. Nothing that suits your Nietzchean world view. Instead, rather the opposite.

      ' Funny, nowhere in that preamble, nor IN the actual Constitution, do I find where the US government (the feds) are charged with protecting you from yourself amongst the limited, enumerated roles and responsibilities it has from said document.

      The government is setup, to be minimal....to set the framework for our US citizens to have the freedom to pursue happiness, that means for the feds to protect our borders, to negotiate with the rest of the world, and the feds and the states, to have law and order, to protect against robbery, murder, etc...crimes...so that you are FREE to have that LIBERTY to pursue happiness in your life, whatever that may be, unencumbered.

      Nowhere in there do I see that the government should be telling you what and what not to do with your own freaking body, or your time or your money.

      Of course we find some things that are and have to be illegal, but for the most part, the government should keep up the framework, and then stay mostly the fuck out of the lives of its citizenry.

      Its not there set up to take care of you...but to allow you the freedom to take care of yourself and live whatever life you wish to the fullest measure you can find to do so.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why the government should stop warning people about the dangers of drugs. Stop the nanny state. If people are too stupid to realize there is a good chance they will die from using drugs, that's their problem.

      While I'm there with you about 99%, I don't see the problems with the govt. providing information, or requiring that people selling things are truthful and honest about their product.

      I don't think the govt should ban drugs, and if a person wants to use them, go ahead.

      But I don't see a problems with our tax dollars funding studies to see the benefits and detrimental effects of things like drugs, and making the info public so as to allow a more informed decision by the populace.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    24. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Look up studies on the war on drugs and tell me if that was successful? How about laws against prostitution? Have they made the problem, that was never a problem to begin with, better or worse? What is your feelings on the past about laws banning homosexuality? Was that a good thing?

      No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    25. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

      Not only a "law", but an obviously illegal one at that. The Constitution doesn't provide *any* possible authorization for Congress to be involved in such.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    26. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Honestly, what does it matter if it is rigged?

      So you support the idea that victory should go to the ones with the most money, not the ones who are the best at something. Hey, kids, don't bother working hard to be the best at some sport, the outcome of any game you play will depend on how much money is involved and which of your teammates has been bought. Discipline and sportsmanship are outmoded. Make sure you get your money while you can.

      It's of no consequence to the world at large.

      What a sad, fatalistic view you have. What you just posted is of no consequence to the world at large, yet you posted it anyway.

      If you don't like the idea that it may be rigged, don't bet on it.

      So, as long as you don't directly participate in something bad, it's ok?

    27. Re:Another one bites the dust... by isaaclascasas · · Score: 1

      And on people capable of predicting outcomes by science.

    28. Re:Another one bites the dust... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I would of thought

      Would've.

      Why is it that people expect to be taken as knowledgeable about anything when they can't handle sixth grade spelling reliably.

      Note, by the by, that a typo (hitting "o" then "i" rather that "i" then "o", for example) isn't what I'm bitching about....

      Note to self: don't post when blood-sugar is low. It makes you even crankier than the normal "pretty-damn cranky"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    29. Re:Another one bites the dust... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games.

      So, sports gambling laws actually stop all gambling on sports? Because otherwise, there's still an incentive to rig games....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re: Another one bites the dust... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      For the most part, you should have prefaced "government" with "federal" in your post.

      Also, did you know that there is no federal law against murder (or robbery) except on Federal property (i.e. military bases)? Murder and robbery are, in general, rightly dealt with at the State level....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    31. Re: Another one bites the dust... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      But I don't see a problems with our tax dollars funding studies to see the benefits and detrimental effects of things like drugs,

      And how many more decades should this be done? It's not like the government hasn't been warning people since before I was born (something something decades ago). How many more studies need to be done telling people, "Drugs are bad, m'kay?"

      How many news articles are there every day telling us how many more people died from opioid overdoses? How about the articles about someone "famous" who OD'd? Someone who thought marijuana was harmless and either killed themselves or someone else? The list goes on and on, every day, yet apparently between those articles and the government going out of its way to warn people about the dangers, all those "experts" know more than the doctors.

      There is only so much money, only so many studies, all saying the same thing, that can be put out before one has to say, "No one's listening, so what's the point?"

      As the OP said, the government shouldn't be a nanny state to protect people from their idiocy. If people don't want to listen to all the evidence showing they could die using drugs, they should be on their own without the government to help them.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    32. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The slashdot comment section is the best known proof of Sturgeon's law: "ninety percent of everything is crap".

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    33. Re:Another one bites the dust... by lexman098 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like you don't really understand gambling addiction. It's a mental condition similar to alcoholism. I don't think we should outright ban it (or alcohol), but it's naive to dismiss those negatively affected by it saying "meh, no one put a gun to your head".

    34. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So, sports gambling laws actually stop all gambling on sports?

      No more so than murder laws stop all murders or all robbery laws stop all robberies. Did you think anyone said otherwise?

      Because otherwise, there's still an incentive to rig games....

      If you remove large scale economic incentives, you reduce the motive for doing so.

      Should we do away with all laws because they do not actually stop all illegal activity? Or do we accept that criminals will still break the law?

    35. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Promote general welfare

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    36. Re: Another one bites the dust... by mnemotronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government is not (supposed to be) here to be a nanny over the populace, and protect them from their own idiocy.

      Which is exactly why the government should stop warning people about the dangers of drugs. Stop the nanny state. If people are too stupid to realize there is a good chance they will die from using drugs, that's their problem.

      While I agree with the basics, in my experience, real life gets a little fuzzy around the edges. How about if what I do might affect someone else? Like if I take drugs while pregnant and my child ends up with birth defects? Maybe it was the fentanyl or the booze. Might have been the heroin. Prove it. Society still has an addicted mother on it's hands, and now it has a very sick baby too.

      And I have a problem with the "too stupid to realize" idea. It's easy to throw stones. Most addicts know what they're doing isn't right, while they're doing it, but the power of addiction takes over the brain. Normal logic is background noise to the GOTTA FUCKING HAVE IT AND I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU GET IN MY WAY. People who haven't been addicted can never comprehend the weird mind fucks that go on and overpowering, irresistible body aching attraction.

      The same goes for publicly-funded drug rehab. It's not the government's responsibility to force other people to pay for your idiocy.

      At some point society draws a line that says "We'll do something about it if you are this sick or this bad, but not before". Everyone has their own idea of where the line goes; who gets covered; who doesn't; which criminals get locked up; which go free; which get a promotion and fat bonus check. In the end we get a line drawn by representatives whose real motivations we can only guess at. Then the rest of us get to complain about how unfair the line is while avoiding an honest examination of our own motivations.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    37. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      Taking advantage of humanity's general fundamental inability to truly comprehend and internalize consequences of statistically foolish behavior is harmless? Or were you under the impression that that was not how bookies and casinos make money?

    38. Re: Another one bites the dust... by pedz · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Steve Wright monotone:

      people do not exist in vacuums.

      they couldn't breath.

    39. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

      Indeed! But then there is that money thing. Money, and the billions that this represents means that point shaving will become the norm. The people who run gambling now that it is intrenched and given blessing and support by the Supremes, simply will not suffer a loss. They won't. This is going to turn out as well as dark money, and the corporation being a super person.

      And just like state lotteries, the poor will use it as a last ditch retirement plan. But don't worry, the billionairs will add a lot to their personal wealth - and that is the most important thing.

      Just let someone win big once in a while, and the lemmings will pray at the alter of the betting machine.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    40. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Gambling is harmless. Gambling more than you can afford is not, but that is the problem of the gambler, and does not require legislation.

      Gambling is God's will.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    41. Re: Another one bites the dust... by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      We regulate vices because people with vices do bad things to other innocent citizens.

      To some degree, yes. But overwhelmingly we seem to regulate vices because we're hypocrites who would rather ignore someone than help them, to the point where we'd rather spend money to lock someone up than rehabilitate them.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    42. Re:Another one bites the dust... by youngone · · Score: 1

      You don't understand. I got a system, man!

    43. Re: Another one bites the dust... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > limited, enumerated roles and responsibilities

      The Feds get to regulate interstate commerce. That easily covers this, especially once consumer and provider are in different states.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You don't need morality to justify banning gambling. You can make an entirely economic argument for the ban. Normal economic transactions are win-win for both parties - positive sum. The seller gets paid more than the item or service cost them to acquire, the buyer gets something they value more than how much they paid for it. It's this positive sum nature of beneficial transactions which causes economic growth.

      Likewise, criminal activities are negative sum. A burglar gains the value of the loot he stole, the homeowner loses the value of the loot plus extraneous damage to the home. Hence burglaries are negative sum and criminalized in the interest of fostering economic productivity (encourage the burglar to pick a different activity which is productive, instead of weighing down the economy by burglarizing).

      Gambling is zero sum. What one person gets, another person must lose. You could even argue it's negative sum due to inefficiencies (some of the money is spent on consumables like betting slips, travel to gambling venues, etc., while no productivity is generated). So on a strictly monetary level, gambling is bad for the economy. That said, it can have beneficial qualities due to its entertainment value. Entertainment is monetarily negative sum (due to loss of consumables), but the enjoyment and relaxation it provides can encourage people to be more productive later when they're working. If the encouragement value exceeds the cost of consumables, then entertainment ends up being net positive sum for the economy.

      I don't know if the entertainment value of gambling (and sports for that matter) offsets the economic losses. But it can be judged without bringing morality into it.

    45. Re:Another one bites the dust... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That is based on the moral principle that economics should define what matters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    46. Re: Another one bites the dust... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well it would be nice to have some non-biased studies. Judging by your rant, you could be a lot better informed along with most people. This is due to years of biased studies put out to push a pre-concieved answer, namely that drugs are bad.
      It's true, some drugs are killers. Aspirin killing thousands a year, Tylenol always being one of the top causes of death for young children, and a horrible way to die as well (total liver failure). Then there's the drugs that are unregulated and often tainted.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    47. Re:Another one bites the dust... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Can be a tax is more accurate. I very occasionally gamble, well aware that I'm not going to win anything much, it can be fun and occasionally I come out a dollar or two ahead

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    48. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Promote general welfare

      I do not think that means what you think it means....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    49. Re:Another one bites the dust... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Better comparison would be phones, computers or even slashdot, though slashdot at least is cheap.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    50. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Most everything you mention for your arguments are all STATE level in management, not federal......the US Constitution covers federal, not state.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    51. Re: Another one bites the dust... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      I'm going to say "Damn drug war" because its prohibition that makes black market prices so high people rob, steal, and kill. A dose big enough for any habit currently costs only a few dollars at a pharmacy. Heroin maintanence programs where addicts get free heroin virtually eliminate acquisitive crime. Like most of what you want to blame on junkies and drugs, muggings are 100% a consequence of prohibition.

    52. Re:Another one bites the dust... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, who cares. Spectator sports and dying slowly but surely and the corruption that gambling will bring into localised sports will just accelerate the process. All sorts of crap, can not buy a player to throw a game, pay someone to cripple them for that match, pay off referees, all sorts of crap will happen and trying to monitor and control it at that level, impossible, so it will get right out of hand. They fought to remove the legislation not for simple equal odds gambling but for purposefully corrupted gambling. What a shit show it will be but I hate spectator sports, so this crap is a great idea, more power to the corrupt so they destroy themselves faster.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    53. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.

      Since you're cherry picking subjects I assume this means you'd like to repeal the 13th amendment, or is it a moral issue only when you want to lift the ban? That it's illegal to show kids porn, is that a moral issue? To me the line in the sand of what laws deal with "moral issues" and not seems rather arbitrary...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    54. Re:Another one bites the dust... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement.

      You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient. There are economic effects to murder.

      The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.

      Sure, but that's not morality either. Attempts to rig those games lead to expensive court proceedings. It's cheaper for society if that doesn't happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re: Another one bites the dust... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      promote the general Welfare,

      See, the constitution contains two blank checks to government. One of them is here, you quoted it. Basically anything can be construed to promote the general welfare. The other, of course, is the ICC.

      Nowhere in there do I see that the government should be telling you what and what not to do with your own freaking body, or your time or your money.

      If it promotes the general welfare of the nation, it can be justified using the constitution as written.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re:Another one bites the dust... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't think we should outright ban it (or alcohol), but it's naive to dismiss those negatively affected by it saying "meh, no one put a gun to your head".

      If someone does put a gun to your head and make you do something for their benefit, then that's slavery. But if they don't, then it's just taking advantage of you. It's a fundamentally different thing, however you feel about it.

      Taxing things is cool so long as the revenues are spent on fixing the problems with the thing. When the money goes into the general fund, everything goes into the toilet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Another one bites the dust... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient. There are economic effects to murder.

      And why do economic affects matter? There is no universal truth of correctnes, ultimately it comes down to you assigning some sort of value to that. And that is entirely equivalent to a moral judgement. And there's nothing wrong with that.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    58. Re:Another one bites the dust... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient. There are economic effects to murder.

      And why do economic affects matter?

      Because we live under capitalism, and capital controls the means of production.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Type44Q · · Score: 2
      With this in mind, we need to scrutinize and regulate every fucking purchase and transaction that anyone can make, to be certain that one party isn't taking advantage of the subconscious state of the other party.

      Or you could shoot yourself; I'm all for the latter.

    60. Re: Another one bites the dust... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Legalize drugs, then regulate and tax them just like alcohol and tobacco.

      Columbian Druglords have nothing on big corporations...

    61. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Rigging a game does not mean it is unenjoyable. Look at the WWE as an example. Predetermined, yet tons of fans.

      Is that the best you can do? WWE is not a sport, it is scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people who are paid to get the desired result. You would never call a Jackie Chan movie "sports", would you? Maybe you would -- it's scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people (which includes Jackie himself) paid to get the desired result.

      You destroy your own argument by using this as an example -- you turn all honest sporting contests into crap media events by trying to equate them.

      Rigging only hurts people dumb enough to bet on it.

      Rigging hurts everyone who participates, and everyone who supports those who participate.

      As for saying a game is of no consequence to the world is fatalistic, melodramatic much? It's an effing game.

      That's the fatalistic attitude writ large. Learning sportsmanship and teamwork is a lifetime achievement for many people. It seems to have gone over your head.

      It's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

      I thought you could not demonstrate a complete lack of understanding before, but you've outdone yourself here. To those who watch, it may be entertainment. To those who participate, it is a goal and a lot of hard work.

      The only way any bad comes from anything with a game is if there's assholes who take it way too seriously and hurt other people.

      Like the 79 people on a college football team who spend hours working to be the best they can be, practicing until they hurt, just to lose the game because one person accepts money to throw the result? You mean that asshole and those other people? You mean like the 8 people on a baseball field that are playing their hearts out to win a game, only to be stymied by the cheating shortstop who drops the ball during one crucial play so they lose? That asshole and those other people?

      And the last one, sorry, what? I seriously can't put together a coherent response because what you said is literal nonsense.

      You mean "So, as long as you don't directly participate in something bad, it's ok?" It's simple English. The suggestion was that if I think rigging is bad, I shouldn't bet on the game. Rigging sports games is bad for other reasons than just rigged gambling results, and I'm supposed to ignore all of that just as long as I don't personally bet on the game. In other words, it's ok to rig sports as long as you don't participate in the rigging. That's the nonsense.

      I get it. You don't see anything in sports other than your personal enjoyment. It's all about you. You can enjoy a sporting event even if the outcome isn't based on skill. You even think that WWE is a sport, you're so into your own enjoyment. But it's not all about you. It's about a team, which is a concept you clearly don't get. You gave it away earlier -- an asshole who hurts other people makes it bad, and yet you can't grasp the concept that one person on a team being bought to throw a game hurts all the other players. And it hurts the fans who paid to see an honest game. It hurts a lot of other people -- just not the ones who don't actually care about anything other than their own enjoyment. Like you.

    62. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it can be thought of as paying for entertainment. Over my lifetime, I've gambled enough that I'm down about $20 overall, so I haven't really paid that much to discover firsthand how the games work.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    63. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Well yes, it is my cherry picked subjects because there would be to many to list. It was actually the list I pulled off the top of my head.

      But the point is still valid. Government shouldn't try to legislate these issue.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    64. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Why is it that people expect to be taken as knowledgeable about anything when they can't handle sixth grade spelling reliably.

      Seriously, why is it important for someone to point out every little spelling and grammar mistake someone makes? It is not important in an informal discussion, which slashdot is. You don't even know if English is a 1st, 3rd or even 4th language of the original poster. Hell you don't even know if the original poster is human. He could be a incredibly talented gibbon.

      In days of Usenet it was actually considered very rude to point out grammar and spelling mistakes.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    65. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That is based on the moral principle that economics should define what matters.

      No, his argument was that you don't have to consider moral values, you can also consider economic ones. He didn't say you should define "what matters" in any specific way, only that there is more than one way to get to the same answer.

      Yes, there is entertainment value to gambling. When it is rigged it is a negative sum game for everyone but the cheater, so there can be no economic value to them. If they discover the cheating, then they lose the entertainment value, too.

    66. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient.

      Murder is an inconvenience. Wow. Lots of things that are perfectly legal are inconvenient. It's inconvenient that the mailman comes at noon. It would be convenient if he came at 6AM. Should there be a law?

      Attempts to rig those games lead to expensive court proceedings.

      Only because it was illegal. It was illegal for moral reasons.

  2. Makes sense by slapout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because if there's anything that will keep politicians honest, it's gambling

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Makes sense by slapout · · Score: 1

      In the stock market, you are buying a piece of a company, even if the value of the company goes down, you still own it.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    2. Re: Makes sense by fonos · · Score: 1

      Unless the company goes bankrupt. The company is sold off to pay creditors and shareholders are the absolute last in line to get paid, assuming anything is left. Usually thereâ(TM)s no money left over, and youâ(TM)ve lost your ownership.

  3. Banned to "protect integrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >"Our most important priority is protecting the integrity of our games," MLB's statement said.

    Yeah, I think steroids ended any claim to "integrity" in professional sports a long time ago.

    Fuck Manny "Scared of Needles" Pacquiao, farce of the century, with 1990s Roy Jones being the farce of the previous century.

  4. Re:Trump wasn't going to prison for this though by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Unless they're taking bets on who he'll marry next.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  5. New Jersey was self-inflicted by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first

    The law that was just overturned was written in such a way so that NJ could get exempted along with Nevada (so could any other states that wanted to), they just had to fill out paperwork/legalize it before a deadline. It was obvious Atlantic City would want sports betting, so the federal law assumed NJ would make it legal. But the state legislature really fell down, and hence for 26 years it's been trying to undo that mistake.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:New Jersey was self-inflicted by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It would have been at the casinos. Where else do you expect sports betting in 1992?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:New Jersey was self-inflicted by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

      The deadline was arbitrary....

      The ruling this week makes that clear.

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Addiction for taxation FTW by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    They're already projecting that this will net $6B in taxable revenue for states by 2023.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Addiction for taxation FTW by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Except, you know, for the one state it was already legal in...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Addiction for taxation FTW by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was okay there either. Nevada and its residents (former resident speaking here) reap huge financial rewards for legalized gambling.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. Climate Bet by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    This is a good step in the direction of legalizing climate bets. If those who deny climate change were willing to place money on global temperatures stabilizing or falling, the rest of us could retire early!

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Climate Bet by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2

      Can they adjust the raw data last... after the Government does ?

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    2. Re:Climate Bet by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you make a condition of the bet to not allow NOAA to modify the data, I'll take the bet any time.
      If you allow NOAA to make adjustments, its not gambling, its just handing over money because you know the outcome.

      All current increases in temperature match NOAA adjustments 100%. Warmest year without adjustments is 1936.

      So here's the thing, and please keep in mind I'm a human-induced climate-change skeptic: NOAA absolutely need to adjust the data, otherwise it will always show a warming trend.

      The Urban Heat Island effect is well known. As urban areas expand and the amount of concrete (and other structured) increase, nearby weather stations become contaminated with these changes. To counter this, the readings are modified by a series of "known good" stations that are (relatively) nearby. The effectiveness of that particular process is disputed by AGW skeptics; but the need for it is well-established.

      I don't know where you get 1936 from; the unadjusted global mean clearly shows 1998 was the warmest year ever.

  9. Blatant corruption? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm more concerned that the swamp managed to pass a law giving Nevada exclusive rights to sports gambling! How doe$ that happen?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Blatant corruption? by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      It appears that because Nevada already had established sports betting pools, it was grandfathered in. Or it might just have been an exception that lawmakers had to concede to get enough votes to pass it. Who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  10. Re:Trump wasn't going to prison for this though by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Trump: one of the few entities that that could LOSE money on gambling! (Did he lose money on the money laundering his casinos were doing as well?)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. The law was kind of sneaky by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it didn't ban sports gambling, it make it illegal for the States to lift their existing bans. That way Nevada (who lobbied for the law) could keep right on gambling.

    I'd love to see gambling fully legalized. The Casino operators are crazy rich and use their money to buy all kinds of influence. It'd be nice to see some of that power broke up even a little bit.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The law was kind of sneaky by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      "There can be only one Lord of the Rings, only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!"

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  12. indian casinos will push hard even if the state th by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    indian casinos will push hard even if the state they are in says no.

  13. Re:That's odd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You kid, but I'm surprised something like this doesn't already exist as a way to profit/lose according to the movement of the line or the odds even before the game is underway.

  14. Damn it, I betted against this by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My hobby. Betting on the outcome of Supreme Court cases.

    1. Re:Damn it, I betted against this by gmiller123456 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately gambling on politics is illegal in the US. Lots of people have pointed out this would remove a lot of the BS from politics. If someone wanted to claim law x would have y effect they could back up their claim by putting money on it, if they don't bet, they obviously don't belive it that much

    2. Re:Damn it, I betted against this by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      There's illegal gambling in the US?? Shocking!!

  15. Where's Biff Tannen? by Heebie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wasn't it Biff Tannen who was supposed to get these laws overturned? Several years ago?

  16. one less reason to watch/bet on sports... by slew · · Score: 1

    With wide spread betting, I'm guessing it will be easier for small-time point shaving rackets to operate...
    It'll even be less important who will win, but the line will be closely watched. I'm sure you'll see more than more coach or ref taken for task for actions during garbage time.

    As if it couldn't get any worse, right now you need to go off shore to bet on High School sports (was offered at 5dimes for a while)... I'm guessing it won't take long for that to change...

  17. Re:Trump wasn't going to prison for this though by jwhyche · · Score: 1

    You poor SOB's with TDS really need to get some professonal help. You are so fixated with your hatred of the man that you have to work him in as a negative issue on every little thing. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with this but yet you feel the need to bring him up and find some reason to bash him with it. This is not healthy, please seek medical help as soon as possible.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  18. Re:Trump wasn't going to prison for this though by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    Are you sure he hasn't tweeted a claim of responsibility yet? A bit like ISIS claims every attack was from one of their supporters, just to keep their name in the headlines.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  19. Re:Trump wasn't going to prison for this though by jwhyche · · Score: 1

    I don't follow his tweets and I don't see why any else would. I actually have better things to do with my time. But I did a search and there are none on the issue. The only thing that came up is where the Supreme court asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the issue. Which is common practice.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  20. I bet you didn't see that one coming! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    See Comment Subject.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  21. The Phrase the GP is looking for by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    is this:

    Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math.

    The proper quote is not wrong. It's just that there's a disproportionate amount of poor people who are bad at math since, well, math is a valuable skill and if you're good at it you're probably not poor (though I wouldn't bet on it :) ).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. States' Rights by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    It looks like the issue is actually States' Rights, and not that a Federal Law regulating (or maybe even banning) gambling is necessarily unconstitutional. Last sentence of the majority opinion, partially quoted in TFA:

    The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA "regulate[s] state governments' regulation" of their citizens, New York, 505 U. S., at 166. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.

    Makes sense to me. Also, I'm always interested in the breakdown whenever one or more of the justices "defect" (liberal justice going with a conservative majority opinion or vice versa). For anyone who's curious: Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part (counts as dissent), and Thomas concurred but wrote a separate opinion. Kagan was the "defection".

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    1. Re:States' Rights by stinerman · · Score: 1

      It's actually commandeering rather than states' rights. The feds were trying make the states enforce federal law.

      In the quote you mentioned, Congress can, tomorrow if they wish, outlaw all gambling under interstate commerce power. They can't pass a law stating that the states can't change their laws.

    2. Re:States' Rights by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's another way to look at it.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  23. So is drinking, should we... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    ...try Prohibition again? Every place I've worked at has had a pool on one sport or another whether it be legal or not.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  24. Coaches by brunnegd · · Score: 1

    How many coaches will be fired because they win games but don't beat the point spread, costing big alums big dollars?

  25. Yay, another way to launder money! by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Gambling is a one-way function on funds, allowing them to be laundered. Now we can expect more efficient bribes - no more going to Nevada or other jurisdictions, you can bribe your official in any state.

    I like how we are promoting local business (as long as it's in the family).

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  26. Morality isn't what this is about by swb · · Score: 1

    This is about the major for-profit sports industry (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, NCAA) getting pissed because someone else is making a profit off their sports they can't get a piece of. Every sports book will be "using" their IP (team names, player names) to make money and they won't get a dime of it.

    The leagues also worry about it harming the "integrity" of their sport. They need the public convinced that the outcomes are purely driven by competition and that there's no manipulation driving outcomes. I think this is *mostly* true now, but all these leagues are constantly manipulating rules and given the amount of money involved in media deals, etc, it's hard to know at what point "fine tuning" of the sport isn't driven by some kind of for-profit agenda on someone's part.

    It will really threaten the NCAA, which doesn't pay its players. The pro leagues can at least pay their players enough money that the stakes are high enough to dissuade most of them from compromising outcomes. The NCAA has to be terrified that its free labor force won't give in to the temptation to throw games and make a buck on the side.

    I don't care for gambling at all, but the best part of this deal is that it chips away at the special status the sports leagues that not only want to be exempted from most of the laws of capitalism, they want the public to underwrite their leagues at the same time.