This past week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling which will allow individual states to write their own laws with regards to sports betting. Many states have already added laws to allow for sports betting to take place within their state. In this episode, I share my reaction.
This is episode 20 of the Gambling Still Sucks podcast. In this episode, I share my reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that’s going to expand sports betting here in the United States.
Hey there and welcome to the Gambling Still Sucks podcast. My name is Jamie. I am a compulsive gambler and I’m also the host of this show.
Now, I know I promised more guests, and we’re going to kick those off next week with some new guest episodes, but this week I wanted to kind of insert this one because it’s newsworthy.
This past week, the Supreme Court here in the United States decided on a case that’s been brewing for a while. One of the states sued to say that a law keeping Nevada as the only state allowed to offer sports betting was unconstitutional. And as many people expected, the Supreme Court’s ruling was that, yes, this is unconstitutional.
While they didn’t legalize sports betting—probably a misconception of most people—what they said is that it’s not their choice or the federal government’s choice to decide what states do. Congress can make laws and regulations if they want, but basically, the decision has been left to the states to determine if they want to offer sports betting to their residents.
So while they opened the door for expanded access, which is probably the biggest decision that will increase sports betting in the United States, they didn’t make it legal—they just allowed states to make it legal if they choose. States have been proactive in getting laws on the books, so when this happened, they’d be ready to open up sportsbooks and start making revenue from taxes.
States are hurting for revenue, and I think many see sports betting as another way to generate tax income, much like they do with alcohol and tobacco.
Conflicting Thoughts
The ruling has been a hot topic, especially in sports media, and I’ve listened to a lot of different takes from ESPN to CBS. There are a lot of interesting takes, and I’ll just leave it at that. I wanted to use this episode to share my reaction and what I foresee happening.
First of all, this is a bit conflicting for me because, as I’ve mentioned in previous episodes, I don’t like to be a hypocrite. I go to a bar and have a drink socially with friends. I understand that there are people for whom alcohol is an addiction, and they can’t have a drink like I can. For them, any expansion of access to alcohol would seem dangerous because of the harm it’s caused in their lives and the lives of people they know.
And I can’t necessarily disagree with the ruling. It aligns with the principle of allowing people their freedoms, and some see it as giving back rights to decide what they can and can’t do. I get that. In the U.S., we have extreme freedoms, and some of those come with a cost. I think there is a cost to expanding gambling, and I’ll talk about that in a bit. But I can’t argue that this ruling expands freedoms, which can be good.
So, I’m conflicted. I don’t want to be a hypocrite, and I don’t disagree that this is an expansion of freedoms. At the same time, my goal has always been to increase awareness of problem gambling and compulsive gambling. My approach is that while I can’t stop this from happening, I can still push to ensure that awareness about the risks is out there.
“Will People Gamble More?”
Now, let’s move on to some of the hot takes I’ve heard on the radio—some of which are comical. One of the most common questions is, “Will people gamble more now that it’s legal?” Will people start to bet more on sports because it’s now legal in their state?
The answer is, of course, they will. I like to use this analogy: At the holidays, do you eat more sweets? I love sweets, and if they’re around, I eat them. It’s the same with gambling. Availability absolutely increases participation. That shouldn’t even be a question. If something is easily accessible, people will partake more often.
Another argument people make is that those who want to gamble will find a way. I completely agree. I was one of those people who found ways to gamble. I drove out of my way, played online, and did whatever I needed to play poker.
However, when they cracked down on online gambling, I had far fewer opportunities to play. The restriction made it harder, and so I gambled less. Sure, I had bigger sessions when I went, but it wasn’t as frequent. Availability matters.
The real point is that while compulsive gamblers will find a way to gamble if they want to, availability will still increase participation overall. So yes, expanded access will lead to increased gambling, and that is one of the big negatives of this ruling.
Awareness is Growing
On the flip side, I think it’s cool that this ruling provides an opportunity to educate people and raise awareness about problem gambling. It has brought problem gambling into the spotlight in a way that we haven’t seen before. March was Problem Gambling Awareness Month, and having this decision around that time would have been great for pushing the conversation further.
It’s important to reach out to lawmakers and say, “We know you’re going to expand gambling. Just make sure that as we expand access, we also expand resources and outreach for compulsive gambling.” We need programs in place to help people understand the risks.
People see sports betting as fun and entertainment, but they don’t often see the dark side—the potential for destroyed families, financial ruin, and even suicide. We need to educate the public on both sides of gambling, especially as access continues to grow.
Final Thoughts
In summary, the Supreme Court ruling isn’t a surprise, but I think it’s critical for us to be proactive. Other countries like the UK and Australia have expanded gambling significantly, and they have dealt with the fallout, often struggling to regulate things after the fact.
We need to learn from their experiences. We need to make sure we get laws in place to support those who might struggle. And above all, we need to tell our stories—share the realities of compulsive gambling—so that people understand the risks.
Thanks for listening to Episode 20. Next week, I’ll be back with some guest episodes, which I think are going to be more powerful because you get to hear different perspectives. If you want to be on the show, please reach out. I think the more stories we share, the more awareness we can create.
This is Jamie, and you’re listening to the Gambling Still Sucks podcast.
Now, before you go, I’d like to go over a few very important things.
First of all, I think it’s important to remember that problem gambling is a treatable disorder. There’s no scientific evidence or study that suggests that this is just a terminal condition and that we’re going to be forced to deal with the negative side effects and results of our actions for the rest of our lives. Recovery is real, but we need to seek out treatment.
If you or someone you know needs help, call the hotline number at 1-800-522-4700. They’re available 24/7 across the U.S. and can guide you to local resources.
In addition to the hotline, there are numerous places where you can find gambling support and information online. If you go to gamblingstillsucks.com/help, you’ll find a list of resources that I update as I discover new information—whether it’s chat groups, online forums, or helpful information.
Disclaimer: This podcast does not provide legal or medical advice. I’m not a doctor, therapist, or attorney. I’m just someone who struggled with gambling. Please seek professional help from a lawyer, doctor, or therapist for issues related to gambling. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any reliance on the information discussed here is at your own risk.
The music for this podcast is Something Elated by Broke for Free and licensed under Creative Commons.
Thanks again for listening. I’ll see you next time.