Minimum age to gamble
Poll
 | 3 votes (8.33%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.77%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (2.77%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.33%) | ||
| | 23 votes (63.88%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.33%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.77%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.77%) |
36 members have voted
Quote: bigfoot66I do think that 14 year olds should be allowed to gamble, but I was not attempting to defend that position here.
I'm not so sure about that.
The reason it's 21 is because they serve alcohol without checking ID. Personally, I think it shouldn't be any higher than 18, regardless of the drinking age, even in a casino that serves alcohol. Sure it would be a logistics PITA for the casino to make it 18, but they've had other logistics nightmares to deal with and they generally figure it out.
I added 16 to the voting options because that is the age were kids start to get jobs. So if they have money, can't they spend it any way they wish?
So please vote!
IF YOU CAN DIE FOR YOU'R COUNTRY YOU'R AN ADULT
At what age do little girls start interacting with their fathers and forming pleasant memories of the events? See Beth Rayner in Lay The Favorite whose early memories were of going down to see which greyhounds had defecated before a race so her father could bet wisely and of playing her own hand of Blackjack in the Bahamas and getting a sip of his beer whenever she won with a blackjack.Quote: DJTeddyBearI added 16 to the voting options because that is the age were kids start to get jobs.
So please vote!
Age 9 if I recall correctly.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThere are a few Indian casinos in Michigan where the minimum age is 18 and they also serve alcohol. Soaring Eagle is one of them and they get a large crowd of kids 18-20 since it is practically down the street from Central Michigan University.
If you even look like you're under 30 they
card you. And you better have good ID with
your pic and b-date, more than 1 ID. Under
21 and you won't get served.
Quote: whatmeMy view is simple:
IF YOU CAN DIE FOR YOU'R COUNTRY YOU'R AN ADULT
This would only suggest that military personnel who have completed basic training should be able to gamble. There's quite a path from filling out a draft card to fighting and dying for your country, and that path will force a man to increase his maturity level to a different place. Merely being in a pool of men who could, one day, if forced, be in the military, I don't think that automatically rises to the level that you seek it to. But even if you do, that would mean only men would be eligible to gamble at age 18.
Quote: cclub79That would mean only men would be eligible to gamble at age 18.
So draft women, too, for obligatory national service.
Seriously, although I've often wondered why the US insists on making 21 the "legal" age, when it is 18 in many other places, when it comes to casino gambling I've no objections. Do you want to gamble in a casino overrun by teenagers, even sober ones?
Quote: bigfoot66Why is it my decision when some one else' kid is allowed to gamble? This is not an appropriate area for legislation, it should be regulated by community standards outside of government. Honestly though, even if there was no gambling age, how many 14 year olds have any cash? How could you profitably spread a BJ game that would appeal to someone whose weekly budget is maybe $20?
How is it not an appropriate area for legislation? Are you suggesting that good gambling policy is not a public good?
Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "community standards outside of government", but I've never known of any extra-governmental regulation to be attempted, let alone effective, in properly regulating gambling activities. I am acutely aware of the pitfalls of improper, lax, or absent gambling regulation -- I've seen it first-hand in both land-based and online jurisdictions. Wherever this occurs, the community suffers far more than it does in a gaming environment clearly circumscribed by statute or regulation. Look to Alabama and its bingo machines for an example.
Quote: bigfoot66Arg, now I have to defend my admittedly radical position! Ok, Why is it my decision when some one else' kid is allowed to gamble? If the Wizard, for example, had a 14 year old child who could help him scout lines on Super Bowl prop bets or even run in real quick and place a quick bet for Dad at the sportsbook, why in the world should this be criminal behavior? WHERE IS THE VICTIM? This is not an appropriate area for legislation, it should be regulated by community standards outside of government. Honestly though, even if there was no gambling age, how many 14 year olds have any cash? How could you profitably spread a BJ game that would appeal to someone whose weekly budget is maybe $20, most of which is being saved up to buy a bag of weed anyway?
I think, this discussion is similar to the question of statutory rape. Should adults be punished for having a consensual sexual relationship with a 14 year old?
Quote: MathExtremistHow is it not an appropriate area for legislation? Are you suggesting that good gambling policy is not a public good?
Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "community standards outside of government", but I've never known of any extra-governmental regulation to be attempted, let alone effective, in properly regulating gambling activities. I am acutely aware of the pitfalls of improper, lax, or absent gambling regulation -- I've seen it first-hand in both land-based and online jurisdictions. Wherever this occurs, the community suffers far more than it does in a gaming environment clearly circumscribed by statute or regulation. Look to Alabama and its bingo machines for an example.
Community standards outside of government are all around us. Take burping at the dinner table. We do not do this, but I have heard that it is rude not to in some cultures (did not double check to see if this is actually acurate but the fact that we can imagine such a culture is all I need to prove my point). How about men cheating on their wives? Surely this is detestable behavior, but most people agree it should not be criminal (or maybe its not criminal because lawmakers themselves are the most likely to cheat on their wives!). I am suggesting the same thing here. I can't imagine a casino that took an 8 year olds lunch money would be in business very long, would anyone here patronize such an institution?
The government is based on force. Do what we say or our armed goons will come arrest and cage you. Want to resist? We have no problem killing you and your dog.
I mostly agree with your other point about being "acutely aware of the pitfalls of improper, lax, or absent gambling regulation -- I've seen it first-hand in both land-based and online jurisdictions. Wherever this occurs, the community suffers far more than it does in a gaming environment clearly circumscribed by statute or regulation". If the market is expecting the government to regulate and it fails that is the worste possible outcome. However if the market is not expecting the government to regulate, then other regulatory institutions will arise--and do a much better job.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe reason it's 21 is because they serve alcohol without checking ID. Personally, I think it shouldn't be any higher than 18, regardless of the drinking age, even in a casino that serves alcohol. Sure it would be a logistics PITA for the casino to make it 18, but they've had other logistics nightmares to deal with and they generally figure it out.
Also, if they feel the need to check ID to see if you are old enough to drink, why don't they feel the same need to check ID to see if you are old enough to gamble?
(And if they don't check ID but just assume that if you are in a gambling area, you are at least 21, doesn't that open the door up to some major lawsuits? I don't see "Well, he was in a gambling area, so we just assumed he was 21," as a particularly successful defense if some 20-year-old drinks a little too much and then runs his car into a mass of people trying to cross East Harmon.)
Race tracks in California serve beer and allow 18-year-olds to bet; why not casinos?
Quote: bigfoot66Community standards outside of government are all around us. Take burping at the dinner table. We do not do this, but I have heard that it is rude not to in some cultures (did not double check to see if this is actually acurate but the fact that we can imagine such a culture is all I need to prove my point). How about men cheating on their wives? Surely this is detestable behavior, but most people agree it should not be criminal (or maybe its not criminal because lawmakers themselves are the most likely to cheat on their wives!). I am suggesting the same thing here. I can't imagine a casino that took an 8 year olds lunch money would be in business very long, would anyone here patronize such an institution?.
It's a bit specious, don't you think, to compare belching at dinner to a casino accepting wagers from an 8-year-old? First, while belching may or may not be polite, it is inarguably not dangerous to those around. But we do have laws against smoking at the dinner table (in a restaurant). Your signature implies you're a libertarian -- do you believe that laws against smoking in public eateries should be repealed and we should let the free market sort out who patronizes which restaurants, and who works there?
And as detestable as adultery may be (or may not be to some), it is nevertheless a relationship between roughly equal powers. The relationship between a casino and its patron is not; neither is the relationship between an employer and an employee, nor a landlord and a renter. Laws exist in all those scenarios to mitigate the imbalance of power and to protect the rights of the weaker party from being trampled upon. I am not suggesting that these laws get it right all the time, but I *am* suggesting that a political philosophy that argues no such laws should ever exist is flawed. Government coercion via threat of force (e.g. laws, statutes, and regulations) is an entirely appropriate tool for that job. That's why laws against smoking in public places exist, that's why restrictions on landlords exist, and that's why gambling regulation exists.
Quote: bigfoot66If the Wizard, for example, had a 14 year old child who could help him scout lines on Super Bowl prop bets or even run in real quick and place a quick bet for Dad at the sportsbook, why in the world should this be criminal behavior? WHERE IS THE VICTIM? This is not an appropriate area for legislation, it should be regulated by community standards outside of government.
You're on to something, but you're missing the point. True, there is no crime and no victim. But that's not the rationale for restricting minors from gaming. Rather think about what rights children and minors have and should have. One area that's very constant is contract law. A minor may not enter into a contract without parental consent. A bet is, in essence, a contract between the player and the casino. Money changes hands in response to outcomes.
As contracts go, it is one of the worst forms, as not all the rules and clauses, or even definitions, are written down. And not only is much of it unwritten, a lot of it is even unspoken (you can play almost any game at any casino without uttering a single word). nevertheless it si a contract and both sides often do abide by the rather nebulous terms.
Now, any minor can enter into a contract with parental consent. In fact most minors do just that. How amny apretns cover their children in their insuarance, or take out abnk aboutns for them, etc? It's a common state of affairs. But contracts such as gaming are too diffuse to simply, say, allow a 14 year-old to carry a permission slip from his mother letting her gamble. Besides, in most contracts involving minors, the aprents are guardians of any moneys, even that earmarked for the child in, say, a trust fund. In gambling that wouldn't work.
Quote: NareedYou're on to something, but you're missing the point. True, there is no crime and no victim. But that's not the rationale for restricting minors from gaming. Rather think about what rights children and minors have and should have. One area that's very constant is contract law. A minor may not enter into a contract without parental consent. A bet is, in essence, a contract between the player and the casino. Money changes hands in response to outcomes.
As contracts go, it is one of the worst forms, as not all the rules and clauses, or even definitions, are written down. And not only is much of it unwritten, a lot of it is even unspoken (you can play almost any game at any casino without uttering a single word). nevertheless it si a contract and both sides often do abide by the rather nebulous terms.
Now, any minor can enter into a contract with parental consent. In fact most minors do just that. How amny apretns cover their children in their insuarance, or take out abnk aboutns for them, etc? It's a common state of affairs. But contracts such as gaming are too diffuse to simply, say, allow a 14 year-old to carry a permission slip from his mother letting her gamble. Besides, in most contracts involving minors, the aprents are guardians of any moneys, even that earmarked for the child in, say, a trust fund. In gambling that wouldn't work.
This is an interesting legal theory but I am not sure it is actually true. How is gambling really any different than a Chuck E Cheese arcade arcade game where tickets for prizes can be won? There are no problems here with even very young children playing these games which have the same problematic rules as casino games.
Quote: IbeatyouracesExactly. I'm near 40 and get ID'd everywhere I play. Even by security that know me.
An old trick that every generation thinks is
original is for the guy who's 21 to buy a drink
a give it to the kid who's not 21. That would
get you kicked out of a bar when I was a kid,
now it'll get you arrested and charged with
supplying booze to a minor.
Quote: bigfoot66This is an interesting legal theory but I am not sure it is actually true. How is gambling really any different than a Chuck E Cheese arcade arcade game where tickets for prizes can be won? There are no problems here with even very young children playing these games which have the same problematic rules as casino games.
Actually, there's a huge regulatory difference. For starters, almost all games in Chuck E Cheese are dexterity or skill games, not purely determined by chance like craps or roulette. Second, the merchandise value of the tickets is swamped by the entry fee; normally it's 50c or $1.00 to play a game, while you might get 5c or 10c of value in tickets.
Such arcade games would absolutely be illegal in a Nevada casino floor, for at least two reasons: the skill element, and the optimal house edge. Conversely, a game like roulette would be illegal in Chuck E Cheese. Regulations vary from state to state. See also:
Woman sues Chuck E Cheese for promoting kiddie gambling
1. There's no doubt that poker is a game of skill, at least when some time is provided for luck to even out.
2. Nothing of value is wagered once the entry fee is paid.
3. It can be played for free with monetary prizes, some rooms don't even require a deposit. When made, a deposit functions as a refundable lifetime membership fee.
Quote: MathExtremistActually, there's a huge regulatory difference. For starters, almost all games in Chuck E Cheese are dexterity or skill games, not purely determined by chance like craps or roulette. Second, the merchandise value of the tickets is swamped by the entry fee; normally it's 50c or $1.00 to play a game, while you might get 5c or 10c of value in tickets.
Such arcade games would absolutely be illegal in a Nevada casino floor, for at least two reasons: the skill element, and the optimal house edge. Conversely, a game like roulette would be illegal in Chuck E Cheese. Regulations vary from state to state. See also:
Woman sues Chuck E Cheese for promoting kiddie gambling
From the article:
Quote:
that the traditional games of skill, such as skee-ball and whack-a-mole, were being replaced by machines she thought resembled kiddie versions of slot machines.
I do agree with this, actually. The "light" ones where you have to stop the dot exactly in the right place, maybe not (but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it isn't skill, as the light will only "be available" to land on the Jackpot every 100 turns.) But we know that the "crane games" and the ones where you have to push a rod into a hole very often are programmed where it would be impossible to win except for the designated times when the computer allows it.
From a different article:
Quote:
Our investigative journalists got curious and spent days and our collective life savings researching this, and we have found out the dark truth, due to the ACC-1 Arcade Crane Controller manual.
This upgrade board controls nearly every element of a crane game, from how long you have to play to how much strength the claw "grabs" with. The board comes with something called a "Guarantee Loser" option. To quote the manual, "this helps ensure that a prize is dropped on the transition from closed claw power to loser claw power."
In other words, the grip strength of the claw slowly drops to 0 percent, low enough that it couldn't hold on to a wet napkin, much less that prized stuffed Pikachu. The conclusion? The next time you're at a restaurant and you want to play the claw game, do what we do and spend the money on hard liquor instead.
http://www.asylum.com/2009/12/15/claw-crane-games-vending-machines-secrets-rigged/
If you are able to program the game to not win most of the time no matter what the skill level, that's gambling. And a lot of those prizes (even in the crane games) are little boxes that say "5000 tickets". So yeah. I think there's at least an argument to be had here.
Quote: P90This inevitably raises a comparison with tournament poker.
1. There's no doubt that poker is a game of skill, at least when some time is provided for luck to even out.
2. Nothing of value is wagered once the entry fee is paid.
3. It can be played for free with monetary prizes, some rooms don't even require a deposit. When made, a deposit functions as a refundable lifetime membership fee.
I was making a moral argument. It is immoral to throw a peaceful kid or his parents in a cage for gambling regardless of age. I would like to see anyone who voted for anything other than "all ages" or "all ages w/parental consent" address this argument and tell me what gives you this right. It is equally immoral for the government to do it.
I cannot speak to the legal ramifications of various types of gambling, but I will say the market seems to have spoken and kids seem to prefer the types of games at Chuck E Cheese so it appears that in a world where children were free the kids gambling landscape would looks much like it does now except the prizes might have some real value instead of being worthless stuffed animals. or maybe the flip it games could drop coins instead of tickets.
Quote: bigfoot66I was making a moral argument. It is immoral to throw a peaceful kid or his parents in a cage for gambling regardless of age.
What about throwing the casino that allowed a kid to buy in and gamble?
Quote: bigfoot66I would like to see anyone who voted for anything other than "all ages" or "all ages w/parental consent" address this argument and tell me what gives you this right.
Let's see... Well, I wouldn't want my son and his middle school friends to go to a casino, dare each other to bet bigger, and martingale away my credit card limit. How's that for a reason? Yes, he can buy an ex-bawks with my card, but an ex-bawks doesn't make you chase your losses.
As to my position, I believe the minimum age for draft and foreign military deployment should be raised to 21. Can enlist earlier, but can't deploy, have the right to ELS/UC discharge any time before 21. That will bring things a little more in line with one another.
General gambling age then should be set at 21 federally. Not the way it's now - rather, in any state, adults over 21 can not be blanket prohibited from gambling, drinking, voting, hiring prostitutes, and whatever else is rated as vice. Think of it as pursuit of happiness. Let individual states set a lower permitted age if they want to, or a lower permitted age with restrictions, no lower than 16.
I actually think certain other vices, alcohol and marijuana included, should also be allowed starting at about 18 with restrictions. Beer and wine only, licensed premises only, no serving if intoxicated, no serving past 12 PM, etc, whatever the locals decide.
Certain games despite having payouts shouldn't be considered gambling at all IMHO. Tournament poker with 10+ participants and 10+ rounds starting stacks, games of skill, machines that have NOT been programmed to guarantee loss or win rates, etc.
I think that 18 is appropriate, because you are an adult. I'd even be OK with younger, as long as there's parental consent. Protecting Contract rights is one proper function of the state, and gambling constitutes a contract, so minors should at very least, have parental consent, or at worst, a State should just restrict the age to 18. I also think most casinos would still require you to be 21, based on different business models. Since there's a drinking age, the market would likely result in some casinos that either don't serve alcohol (very few, I'd imagine) some casinos that let 18 year-olds gamble and ID heavily, and others that only let you gamble if you are 21 or older, if the state allows them to serve anyone 18 and up.
Quote: bigfoot66This is an interesting legal theory but I am not sure it is actually true. How is gambling really any different than a Chuck E Cheese arcade arcade game where tickets for prizes can be won? There are no problems here with even very young children playing these games which have the same problematic rules as casino games.
Uh huh. And such places are commonly referred to as "kiddie casinos." In a way that is so. In another way not. Kids play for the fun of it as much as for the prizes. So it's not much different than an arcade. There is a set fee to play, too, which again is more akin to arcade games. There is plenty of adult supervision available as well (can you imagine the Wynn with trained child care personnel looking after 10 year-olds at the craps tables?) And as has been mentioned, the games often involve skill.
I won't comment on who has the worse house edge ;)
