Sports gambling should be legalized 100%

In order to provide a rebuttal to your argument, allow me to quickly paraphrase your points.1. Sports betting already happens, might as well legalize it.2. Provide safe / regulated avenues for gamblers3. Sports betting doesn't affect integrity of game more than PEDs4. Tax revenue1. "Sports betting already happens, might as well legalize it."Simply because something illegal continues doesn't mean the answer is legalization. The consequences of legalization have further reaching implications than your desire to drop a benji on the Super Bowl next week. We'll touch on these aspects a little later.2. "Provide safe / regulated avenues for gamblers."While yes, it seems like a no brainer to remove the organized crime element from sports betting, we must first examine the circumstances related to this argument.3. "Sports betting doesn't affect integrity of game more than PEDs."Really, an apples to oranges comparison to the issues facing organized sporting events.4. "Tax Revenue."As I'll explain shortly, the perceived benefit of tax revenue, and to a lesser extent, job creation, are not the economic boosts they seem to be on face value.Ok, on to my points:First, a problem gambler that's already having trouble with the local bookie will not benefit from legalization. That person's problem is real, and creating a legalized arena for them will only serve to further exacerbate and exploit the problem. You don't treat a problem drinker by placing a treatment facility next to a bar, now do you?Next, is the regulation nightmare that is involved in legalizing sports betting. You can't just expect to open the floodgates and let every Tom, Dick, and Harry open betting parlors. Prospective operators will need oversight and licensing to conduct business. And where is the oversight going to come from?That's right, sports betting in prospective jurisdictions will be regulated on both a federal and state level, which only serves to adds another couple arms of the government bureaucracy that we've all grown to love and adore. Because jurisdictions advanced as Nevada exist, with their long standing expertise on both gambling and sports betting, it'll create another logistical nightmare in trying to normalize policy across the country. Each state will want their own say in regulation in their own states, whether they have the acumen to properly oversee the industry.So now that we've lightly covered two costly results from legalization of sports betting (social costs of problem gamblers and governmental costs of regulation), we'll dig a little deeper into the monetary aspect regarding legalization.Its been cited that the cost of introducing gambling to is about $3 for every $1 they realize through taxation. Costs associated include infrastructure costs, regulatory cost, criminal justice costs, and social welfare programs associated with problem gamblers.Two other aspects to consider are:1. Problem gamblers are said to make up 30%-50% of gambling revenue.2. Gambling is seen as a regressive tax on the poor.Neither of these costs don't directly appear on the bottom line, but they do strain the the jurisdictions social welfare programs.Finally, in reference to the integrity of the game issue you brought forth, I'll explain why legalized sports betting is not an apples to apples comparison to PEDs. On one hand, we have PEDs. Its not an exaggeration to note that the various sports leagues and organizations have taken steps to regulate / outlaw the use of PEDs. Also, in theory, each athlete that does bend the rules to gain an edge is doing so in the name of increasing their level of competition. In other words, athletes are looking to gain an edge to win.This is a far cry from the increased potential of game fixing / point shaving that presents itself with legalized betting. Sure, Tom Brady likely won't be swayed to shave points in a mid-September romp of Miami, but Joe Schmo, point guard for UC - Santa Barbara might have trouble turning down $10,000 to keep an otherwise non-descript conference game in January a bit closer than it should be.Allowing sports betting into more jurisdictions means many more struggling athletes will have their moral compass tested more often. These occurrences, however uncommon, create an uneven playing field for potential bettors.In all, the arguments against legalization of sports betting are far more compelling than those trivial and misleading points brought forth in PRO's first argument.http://blogs.baylor.edu...http://www.pbs.org...