May 14, 2018

"New Jersey won a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court Monday that could lead many states to legalize betting on college and professional sports."

USA Today reports.
The justices ruled 7-2 that a 25-year-old federal law that has effectively prohibited sports betting outside Nevada by forcing states to keep prohibitions on the books is unconstitutional... Justice Samuel Alito, a New Jersey native, wrote the court's opinion in the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented....

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own," Alito said. "Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. [The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act] is not."...

During oral argument in December, several conservative justices said the law impermissibly "commandeered" states to keep their bans on the books. But several liberal justices said Congress merely pre-empted state laws, a commonplace action.

What has made the law anachronistic is the advent and rapid growth of Internet gambling. Rather than stopping sports betting, it helped push more of it underground, creating a $150 billion annual industry.....
Here's the opinion (PDF). Excerpt:

The PASPA provision at issue here—prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling—violates the anticom­mandeering rule. That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do. And this is true under either our interpretation or that advocated by respondents and the United States. In either event, state legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.

Neither respondents nor the United States contends that Congress can compel a State to enact legislation, but they say that prohibiting a State from enacting new laws is another matter. See Brief for Respondents 19; Brief for United States 12. Noting that the laws challenged in New York and Printz “told states what they must do instead of what they must not do,” respondents contend that com­mandeering occurs “only when Congress goes beyond precluding state action and affirmatively commands it.” Brief for Respondents 19 (emphasis deleted).

This distinction is empty. It was a matter of happen­ stance that the laws challenged in New York and Printz commanded “affirmative” action as opposed to imposing a prohibition. The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures—applies in either event.

Here is an illustration. PASPA includes an exemption for States that permitted sports betting at the time of enactment, §3704, but suppose Congress did not adopt such an exemption. Suppose Congress ordered States with legalized sports betting to take the affirmative step of criminalizing that activity and ordered the remaining States to retain their laws prohibiting sports betting. There is no good reason why the former would intrude more deeply on state sovereignty than the latter....

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.

98 comments:

MayBee said...

Good.

MayBee said...

There are so many things you can't do in the UK, but you can sports bet. And there are sports betting offices in almost every neighborhood, even the really expensive ones.

Kevin said...

So the federal government can't make something legal in one state and illegal in another?

Perhaps the justices can next rule on the federal government's lax drug enforcement policies in some states and rigorous enforcement in others.

mccullough said...

Harry Reid, fuck off and die. Let each state decide. The Protect Vegas Sports Book Act is dead.

Ralph L said...

The state lotteries should be all the incentive they need to suppress competitors.

It's frightening to think how much money is squandered on gambling now.

h said...

Today's SCOTUS opinion on whether the Federal Gov't can prohibit states from authorizing and regulating sports betting is based on something called the "anticommandeering rule" (don't you love a lot of this legal shorthand?) I wonder if this expression of state authority under the 10th amendment has more far reaching implications. Could it make sanctuary cities/states legal?

Ralph L said...

Do the Indian tribes like this ruling?

Seeing Red said...

It’s about the benjamins.

Etienne said...

Gambling, like sodomy, and illicit drugs, are perfectly acceptable in the New World Order™ of a borderless society.

rcocean said...

This seems to be just another BS SCOTUS decision whereby some laws are unconstitutional and some aren't - depending on the whim of the judges.

Why wasn't this law "Unconstitutional" 25 years ago?

You've seen this in immigration law, whereby any attempt by the states to enforce the law is struck down because immigration is a federal matter. However, if the states refuse to help the feds enforce the law and violate Fed law by giving aliens the vote, that's OK. And any attempt to punish those states has to be reviewed by the Courts, because blah, blah, blah.


Jupiter said...

"It's frightening to think how much money is squandered on gambling now."

Oh, I don't know. You've got to use your EBT for something.

rcocean said...

As a practical matter, everyone uses the internet to gamble on sports, and letting say Indian casinos have sports books, won't change anything.

Caldwell Titcomb IV said...

"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, ... and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution."

The Founders put "Regulate Sports Gambling Directly;" right there in between

"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"

and

"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

but it was written in invisible ink, only recently made visible by some kind of sciencey stuff which nobody other than government lawyers can understand.

rcocean said...

The prohibition against state gambling was not only to help Nevada, but was to make it easier to police corruption - due to gambling - in Sports.

Today, does anyone care if Pro Sports are "Fixed"? The players are millionaires.

Also, the Brits have legalized betting forever - and their sports seem relatively clean.

rcocean said...

These SCOTUS always attract idiots who read the constitution then issue their off-the-top-of-their-head opinions.

Its like religous threads where someone will pick up the KJV Bible - ignore 2,000 years of Christian thinking and the fact that its a TRANSLATION - and pronounce that "The Bible says..."

Listen Charlie, it doesn't matter what *you* think the Constitution says, all that matters is what 5 SCOTUS judges think it says.

John Tuffnell said...

Odds were good this would happen. Feds were 6 1/2 point underdogs going in. SCOTUS covered the spread.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I thought of the "commandeering" argument against states having to cooperate w/Federal immigration law enforcement activities too, rocean.
If that's impermissible then it seems like a whole lot of other coercive actions by the Feds, like this one, ought to be similarly impermissible. That's ok with me! Just kind of a big change.

traditionalguy said...

Gambling challenges men to beat the odds no one else can beat. Like spending one enchanted evening with Stormy Daniels. Winning is possible but throwing away money is the usual result.

The guys in Vegas call Gambling "playing" by players.

Larry J said...

Kevin said...

So the federal government can't make something legal in one state and illegal in another?

Perhaps the justices can next rule on the federal government's lax drug enforcement policies in some states and rigorous enforcement in others.


Several states have legalized recreational marijuana and several more allow for the (often fictitious) medical marijuana. Why don't the members of Congress from those states work to decriminalize marijuana by the federal government, leaving it up to states to decide if they want to keep it illegal or not? It might take a while to get this passed, but Congress does have the ability to write new laws and change old ones. Stranger things have happened.

rcocean said...

This seems to be just another BS SCOTUS decision whereby some laws are unconstitutional and some aren't - depending on the whim of the judges.

Why wasn't this law "Unconstitutional" 25 years ago?


For all practical purposes, the Constitution only means what a majority of supreme court justices say it means, actual text notwithstanding. As to your second question, did this law ever get challenged in federal court before? If it did, did the supreme court rule on it? As I understand it, the supreme court doesn't just rule on any old law whenever they want.

robother said...

This could restore college sports to a more gentlemanly code: its not whether you win or lose, its how you cover the point spread.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I thought of the "commandeering" argument against states having to cooperate w/Federal immigration law enforcement activities too, rocean.
If that's impermissible then it seems like a whole lot of other coercive actions by the Feds, like this one, ought to be similarly impermissible. That's ok with me! Just kind of a big change.


There have long been limits on what the feds can tell states to do regarding immigration ( and anything else. ) The usual way around that is the power of the purse. The feds dangle a big chunk of cash, but only if the states do what the feds want. There are limits to this: in general the thing the feds demand must be related to the general purpose of the funds being offered. For example, federal highway funds can be contingent on the state setting a 55 mph speed limit. Highway funds cannot be contingent on states enforcing immigration laws.

School lunch money could not be contingent on enforcing immigration law, but probably could be contingent on ensuring that the lunches were not going to illegal immigrants.

readering said...

Writing on the wall when pro hockey and football set up shop in Vegas.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

When I go to Vegas, I do all my gambling at the 7-11, and I buy a sucker and slushie to go.

tcrosse said...

BTW here in Vegas if you want to buy a lottery ticket you have to go to Arizona or California to do it. Thousands do.

Francisco D said...

The law of unintended consequences seems to apply the most when government tries to protect us from ourselves.

Laws against gambling, drugs and prostitution fueled the rise of the Mob. I don't gamble or use prostitutes, but see no reasons for their prohibition.

If I were internally consistent, I would also favor legalizing drugs. However, I have had too many patients with serious drug and alcohol problems. In most cases, they are well beyond help until their world comes crashing down and they recognize the problem.

Vance said...

So this doesn't legalize gambling in states that prohibit all gaming, right? Utah and Hawaii ban all gambling, I believe. This doesn't override those laws does it?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Vance said...

So this doesn't legalize gambling in states that prohibit all gaming, right? Utah and Hawaii ban all gambling, I believe. This doesn't override those laws does it?

It doesn't legalize gambling anywhere. It allows states to legalize gambling, or not, as they wish.

rehajm said...

A good ruling. Now, like with pot, the states will over regulate, over tax, shift corruption from the private to the public sector and incentivize the 'illegal' forms of sports gambling we've been using all along.

mikee said...

College athletics just became professional sports, and all participants are gonna want their pay.

Sam L. said...

Underground? So, not getting taxed?? The HORROR!! The horror...

Unknown said...

I've got no dog in this hunt, not being a betting man, but this sounds correct to me. If it leads to college athletes getting paid that's a good thing. Colleges have exploited those people to the schools enrichment for too long.

MadisonMan said...

Harry Reid's bosses aren't going to like that.

Now College Students will be more easily able to bet on the games they're playing in.

Char Char Binks said...

Good. I want poor people to get poorer.

Kevin said...

It might take a while to get this passed, but Congress does have the ability to write new laws and change old ones.

In the meantime, perhaps we shouldn't go about enforcing laws in some states and not in others. Perhaps that might make the legislators in states which want to make marijuana legal actually do the work of making it legal.

Congress wants the power to write laws, but not the responsibility to live by the laws they've written. This is a fundamental threat to our democracy and the rule of law.

tim in vermont said...

I wonder if there is any power of the Federal Government that RGB would not rubber stamp, as long as it isn't seen in the papers as a Republican agenda item. She must be like Tennessee Coates, she decides beforehand her conclusion, be examining her jerking knee, then the hard part is coming up with the rationalizations, intellectual slight of hand, etc.

Trumpit said...

"I love gambling because I own the house," says Trump. "If you can't feed your family after losing your shirt and your house that not my problem," says Trump. Trump, a casino owner, feeds off of losers like you. Let's make scum like Trump President of the United States. Let's double down and reelect Trump in 2020. After all, there is still your car and your wife to lose to him. After Trump wrecks the economy with GOP tax cuts for the rich like himself, and his billionaire cronies, you can rejoice in watching your job, go down the crap-chute, too. Most Americans need to go on a diet, anyway. Trump got elected because so many fat people voted for him.

https://www.inverse.com/article/33016-trump-voters-more-likely-to-be-fat-no-college-education

tim in vermont said...

Every college athlete should get money put into a pension fund, if you ask me, that they can begin to collect at 50, after having grown for thirty years, when their body is totally worn out from the abuse it took for our entertainment,It's not like they don't earn it.

tim in vermont said...

Trump got elected because so many women voted for him, so many blacks voted for him, hispanics, etc, etc, etc.

Hillary, on the other hand, there was a svelt physical specimen! If only she could have appealed to fat voters!

Is that what you wanted Trumpit? President Hillary?

bagoh20 said...

"It's frightening to think how much money is squandered on gambling now."

It's not wasted to the community in general. It simply changes hands. The time spent doesn't produce anything useful, but that's true of all entertainment and most art. You just have to make sure you're one of the winners. It's a form you sign at the border of Nevada. Be sure to check the box that says "Winner".

I live in Vegas, and I do gamble all the time when out for drinks or dinner. I know it's just chance and pure luck that can change, but I have not paid for dinner or drinks in weeks. Between me and my lady we have won almost $10,000 in the last month, and lost maybe $1,000.

We typically go to one of the local bars that serves good food, which is often surprising good and low-priced in Vegas. Avoid the casinos: very expensive, bad odds, few freebies. The best local places have great service, the drinks are free, and often they will even comp the meal. We will typically have a few drink, dinner and walk out with a couple hundred more than we walked in with. Lately, my girl has been bagging $2-5K wins every week. She would immediately put it all back in, but I drag her out.

I've been told by owners that the machines at the bar pay for the rent and most of the expenses of a bar or even a bar and grill, but they are not getting it from us this year.

Jim at said...

Good. Let the states decide.
Pretty simple.

William said...

Can they legalize gambling on Supreme Court decisions and perhaps even which cases the Supreme Court will take up. This would heighten interest in a somewhat neglected branch of government and give knowledgeable lawyers a chance to pick up a few bucks by betting against the rubes. Many here will say it can't be done because it's too easy to put the fix in. Sotomayor places a few discreet bets and Roe vs Wade is overturned. But I'm confident that many-- probably most --Supreme Court Justices would not place underhanded bets on their decisions and the Supreme Court would offer a fair venue to place your bets on the vicissitudes of fate.

Chest Rockwell said...

@bagoh20

Do you have some local recommendations?

Daniel Richwine said...

States want to tax what's being done anyway

Achilles said...

This is awful.

Regulating Gambling is totally listed as a federal power in the constitution right under the section about abortion and just above the section about campaign finance law.

Ginsburg and Sotomayer know this. How could the other 7 justices lies that?

Ginsburg Isn’t going to be around for 6.5 more years...

Francisco D said...

Tim in Vermont said ... "Every college athlete should get money put into a pension fund,"

Good idea! Big universities make a ton of money off their "student-athletes."

Except for faculty who are extremely adept at writing grants, athletes arguably make a lot more money for their universities than professors do.

My grad school advisor (a Bernie type socialist) makes over $100K per year for his state-funded pension and he never wrote a single grant in his career.

Molly said...

Trumpit: "Trump got elected because so many fat people voted for him."

Ah: This explains why those damned Democrats are trying to force Congress to accept cuts in the food stamp program.

Ralph L said...

It's not wasted to the community in general.
Most often from the poor to the rich, formerly the filthy, criminal rich.
Like drinking, drugs, and sex for profit, terrible costs may be incurred on those least able to pay.

Yancey Ward said...

If I understand this ruling, then it means the federal government has the power to ban sports gambling, but it would have to pay to enforce the law since it could not commandeer the state law enforcement apparatus to do so. The law at issue, though, demanded the state keep their own bans on it which is the same as requiring the states to enforce a law that the state itself might want to eliminate.

tim in vermont said...

Gambling is a tax on the stupid. Go to Las Vegas! Earn 9,000 a month! Last I heard though outlawing stupid was a pretty heavy lift.

Sally327 said...

I always assumed that anti-sports betting law was a Harry Reid special, to protect the Nevada casinos and theirs sports books. I don't know that for sure, just assumed it. Harry's gone from the Senate and now the law is gone and other states can allow the sports betting business if they want to, which it would probably be a great source of tax revenue, yes?

Fabi said...

"Odds were good this would happen. Feds were 6 1/2 point underdogs going in. SCOTUS covered the spread."

Hahaha!

rhhardin said...

If you want to gamble with better odds, buy out-of-the-money stock futures.

tim in vermont said...

New York State has had off track betting for decades. Ready to go.

lgv said...

Many comments are from anti-gamblers, but that is not what the case was about. The law was indeed a specific protection of a part of an industry in order to aid the home state of a lawmaker, which was deemed unconstitutional, correctly so.

Yancey Ward said...

Igv,

I am not sure that is the right interpretation. What seems to be the case is this- Congress in 1992 wanted regulate sports betting, which was already illegal in all forms except in 4 states at that time- Nevada being the biggest legal market. Rather than enact a ban, though, Congress decided the easier path would be to simply enact a freeze on all the state laws in force at that time which already had ban in 46 states.

I think it was just a case of political laziness and path of least resistance.

mockturtle said...

Gambling, like prostitution, is very hard to stop. In my opinion, laws that cannot be enforced should not be enacted. While I neither gamble [never been in a casino in my life] nor have ever been a prostitute, I think these activities have appealed to some facets of human nature since the beginning of human existence and it is futile to legislate against them. Gambling on sports events has never ceased. It's just a question of legality. Now, if a player is gambling against his own team, that's another issue.

LincolnTf said...

I work in Sports, amateur and pro, and am ambivalent about the change, should it come to pass in many/most States. Not so much at the pro-level, but at the college level. Much like the "shoe guys" influence college signings/brand commitments, etc., I can see Sports Books using money through intermediaries to not just influence play in individual games, but actual school-signings. If a book in Mobile takes 80% of their college action on Alabama on a weekly basis, they have a professional interest in influencing who plays there, versus say, at Clemson. Or maybe it's small fish shenanigans, Wake Forest vs. BC hoops in December, shed a couple points, your home-skillets make 500 bucks at the DMV/Bookie Office. As a Federalist, I applaud the change.

Bricap said...

"But it turned out to be the last time that street guys like us were ever given anything that fuckin' valuable again..."

I like that the decision gives states the opportunity to legalize, regulate, and tax something that has long operated as a black market outside of Nevada. As for whether or not I agree with the ruling, I haven't gotten that far yet.


Birkel said...

Congress must either take direct responsibility (fat chance, that) or the power remains with the states (maybe, but unlikely).

More likely: If Congress wishes to exercise power it will attach strings to federal benefits (SD v Dole) and the states will accept regulations, avoiding responsibility at 6he state level.

Like calling an 800 number and repeatedly learning that no decision maker exists. It is just policy.

rehajm said...

Or maybe it's small fish shenanigans, Wake Forest vs. BC hoops in December, shed a couple points, your home-skillets make 500 bucks at the DMV/Bookie Office

The pro sports leagues and the NCAA will be looking for their cut of the action. All that extra time, money and effort ensuring the integrity of the games, dontcha know.

gilbar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gilbar said...

"After Trump wrecks the economy with GOP tax cuts"
that is So True! Look at the disaster of an economy we have!
Back b4 trump, everything was humming right along. Now there's millions of people who can't even collect unemployment insurance (since they are now working).

And here in iowa, you can barely see the roads, through all the help wanted signs.
That darn trump! He's even making my capital gains taxes skyrocket!!!

rehajm said...

"After Trump wrecks the economy with GOP tax cuts"

I can't even begin to fathom the mechanism of how this is supposed to happen. Put more money in people's pockets and...what exactly? It's underpants gnomish™.

tim in vermont said...

I don't really think it's the government's job to keep sports clean. Never bet on a contest between human beings.

tim in vermont said...

Or at least take the probability of a fix into account. Watch the player's social media and Venmo, see who is having money problems, spending big on whatever Whose baby mama's baby needs a new pair of shoes. It would be like 12 dimensional chess, great fun for everybody!

tim in vermont said...

Was this considered part of baseball's anti-trust exemption? Baseball used to be central to American life.

bagoh20 said...

Do you have some local recommendations?

I don't have fancy tastes. Luckily, it seems that in Vegas all bars have food and gaming.

I like:

1) Village Pubs on Sunset (there are two) Great ribs, shrimp, steak, and salads, and the nicest bar tenders anywhere.
2) Brandos Sports Bar, on Blue Diamond. Delicious deep dish pizza.
3) In the big casinos, I don't like many places, but I like La Borracha in Green Valley Ranch. (Great Mexican food, attractive bar tenders, and good drinks)

I may be biased in that these are places I usually win at, which can make me a generous tipper, which then makes the bartenders very helpful. It's a vicious cycle of greed, hunger, satisfaction, and intoxication right down the drain of life.

Coming from L.A. everything here seems nearly free by comparison. For example: We were at a Village pub the other night after work for dinner:

TOP SIRLOIN STEAK SPECIAL*
A ten-ounce, aged, center cut top sirloin steak, accompanied with our garlic green beans or sautéed vegetables and your choice of roasted garlic mashed potatoes, rice pilaf, seasoned steak fries or a baked potato (available after 4pm) served with your choice of house salad or a cup of the soup of the day: $11.99. That would be $50 in L.A. plus $12 drinks.

We play a little, have a drink, order dinner, eat, and have a few more drinks - playing in between. She wins $2000. I won $200. They give her a gift certificate for $200 in cash redeemable the next day. Then they comped us all our drinks and our meals! It's like they can read my mind and must obey.

dreams said...

"And here in iowa, you can barely see the roads, through all the help wanted signs.
That darn trump! He's even making my capital gains taxes skyrocket!!!"

Well, he did warn us that he was going to MAGA.

rcocean said...

I got a gambling tip:

"Always bet on black".

rcocean said...

To be honest, I've always fond gambling a bit dull. I don't know why peeps go to LV and spend hours in front of a slot machine.

The only exception is the crap table. If you go late at night, you can get with a crowd and roll the dice, and it can be fun and communal - if you're winning.

However, its always fun to stroll around and look at Humanity on parade.

LincolnTf said...

Just talked to a bookie in NC. He's looking to open a legit shop, but expects that he'll be priced out initially, so he'll vulture one of the inevitable failed ventures.

robother said...

John Tufnel; Feds were 6 1/2 point underdogs going in. SCOTUS covered the spread.

Or did they? I read Breyer's opinion as agreeing only on the narrow ground of holding the section of the law that prohibits State action to legalize gambling. He, like the dissent, would uphold the section that says individuals (bookies or bettors) that gamble in a state (not named Nevada) still are subject to legal sanction. Which would have the effect of prohibiting sports betting even another state authorized it. Which makes the decision 6-3, meaning SCOTUS didn't cover the bet.

This is another reason why making book on SCOTUS decisions is a mug's game.

bagoh20 said...

I don't play the slot machines or any table games much, but playing at the bar where I would hang anyway having conversation and drinks. It's just a side thing that occasionally gets exciting. It adds to the experience of hanging out where I would anyway, and it's better than sitting at home for me. They work me too much at home.

tim in vermont said...

Just went to my youngest's graduation where all of the kids entering a full employment economy bashed POTUS the whole time, unlike when the oldest graduated into a lousy economy and praise for then POTUS was mandatory. Kids don't know how lucky they are.

rcocean said...

"We play a little, have a drink, order dinner, eat, and have a few more drinks - playing in between. She wins $2000. I won $200. They give her a gift certificate for $200 in cash redeemable the next day. Then they comped us all our drinks and our meals! It's like they can read my mind and must obey.'

Sounds fun.

If everyone quit gambling while they were ahead, LV Casinos would go out of business. Fortunately for them, most peeps keep on gambling while they have a dime in their pocket.

rcocean said...

College BB has always been tainted with crooks and gamblers. Reading Wooden's bio about his days at UCLA. Seems there was a big UCLA Booster who would "take Care" of Lew Alcindor, Walt Hazzard, etc. and keep them happy with Jobs, $$, and who knows what else.

Author of the Wooden's Bio, treats this "Booster" as a nice guy and a jock Sniffer but there's every reason to believe he was doing all this charity work to get inside dope on College BB and no doubt laying down some big bets. Guy later got convicted for MJ smuggling in early 1980s.

Now that Sports betting might be legal all across the country - watch for some "funny" things to happen in College sports.

Bob Loblaw said...

It's frightening to think how much money is squandered on gambling now.

Is it frightening how much money is spent on perfumes, or clothing, or SUVs?

Why are you frightened by what other people spend their own money on?

Howard said...

Blogger Bob Loblaw said...
Why are you frightened by what other people spend their own money on?


It is a social and economic version of the tragedy of the commons.

Skookum John said...

It is a social and economic version of the tragedy of the commons.

The easy solution to that is to let them starve in the gutter when they blow the rent, instead of giving them government handouts so they can do it again next month.

tcrosse said...

If everyone quit gambling while they were ahead, LV Casinos would go out of business.

How do you know when you're as ahead as you're going to be ? A lot of the house's gains come from those who think they're on a roll.

Bob Loblaw said...

It is a social and economic version of the tragedy of the commons.

So is excess spending on clothing and SUVs. Who gets to decide how much is too much?

D 2 said...

Springsteen's Atlantic City was a good song.

As somewhat stated upthread: I dont think making gambling, prostitution and drug use more accessible is being driven forward in the spirit of freedom. Maybe at the highest levels (Supreme Court), it can be thought of on higher terms, but not on the ground of pushing policy.

Rather, it is the spirit of requiring new forms of government revenue to feed the beast. Here in Canada, we have provincial budgets suggesting added income for 2018 re: marijuana. Who knows what's next - there isnt much more wiggle to tax.

John Pickering said...

Ann is no longer blogging, only linking to things she thinks encourage her incorrigibles into the vituperation they love so well. Hard to read anymore

david rieck said...

I worked at Caesers Palace and retired with a nice pension. Thank you to all those people who thought they could beat the odds!

Rahula said...

D 2 is right. The future of US State and local governments predicted by libertarian and conservative economists is here: starved for revenues by their anti-industrial policies and desperate for funds to feed their public employee union masters (esp. the retirees defined benefit pensions).

So State and local governments are now taking a look at the biggest organized crime profit centers and saying cut me in for a part of the action: gambling and drugs. Benefits are two-fold, since the whole funding of law enforcement and prisons driven by criminalization largely goes away, while a new tax revenue stream is created. Early adapters like Colorado reap an additional gain, by becoming suppliers to neighboring "dry" states' citizens.

Wonder which state will be the first to legalize opiods? Talk about a reliable revenue stream.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sally327 said...

"So State and local governments are now taking a look at the biggest organized crime profit centers and saying cut me in for a part of the action: gambling and drugs."

I think it's been a few decades since organized crime has controlled gambling (aka gaming), at least in those states where it's already legal. The corporations, mostly all publicly traded, run the show in those places now, which might be just another version of organized crime, depending on one's point of view.

Bricap said...

When it comes to Vegas, I only have two rules.

1. Never go on weekends, only during the week.

2. Lose your money at the dinner tables, not the gaming tables.

Curious George said...

"rcocean said...
College BB has always been tainted with crooks and gamblers. Reading Wooden's bio about his days at UCLA. Seems there was a big UCLA Booster who would "take Care" of Lew Alcindor, Walt Hazzard, etc. and keep them happy with Jobs, $$, and who knows what else.

Author of the Wooden's Bio, treats this "Booster" as a nice guy and a jock Sniffer but there's every reason to believe he was doing all this charity work to get inside dope on College BB and no doubt laying down some big bets. Guy later got convicted for MJ smuggling in early 1980s.

Now that Sports betting might be legal all across the country - watch for some "funny" things to happen in College sports."

What a load of crap. Boosters do players favors happened at every school, but nothing nefarious about it. And actual know cases of point shaving are few and far between and stopped in the 50's.

$100 billion is spent annually on illegal sports betting. Why do you thing legalizing it would cause "funny things" to start happening? When your case is based on "there's every reason to believe" and "no doubt" it should be followed up with "you are an idiot."

Birkel said...

Stopped in the 1950s? Um, no.

I sincerely suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts.

Freeman Hunt said...

Althouse and Meade have been driving to New Jersey, I guess.

Birkel said...

Still more statues remover, Freeman Hunt. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Birkel said...

removed

Curious George said...

"Birkel said...
Stopped in the 1950s? Um, no.

I sincerely suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts."

Ok, there've been a few since. My point stands, legalizing sports gambling will not increase point shaving or fixing of games.

Birkel said...

On that, we are probably agreed.

Neha Rany said...

Another important difference is that waste pipes must slope downwards at the rate of at least 20mm in every metre to ensure the water runs away freely.

apofraxeis

Bob Loblaw said...

How do you know when you're as ahead as you're going to be ? A lot of the house's gains come from those who think they're on a roll.

I suspect most of it comes from people who are behind and are starting to get crazy in an effort to recover what they've lost.