Charles Fain Lehman

Toronto Raptors forward Jonte Porter has been banned from the NBA for life.

I mean look, we say that and my response to that is 1992 is not a million years ago, right? It's not a different universe. Joe Biden was an important political figure in 1992 and he's an important political figure today. I will make the argument for the virtues of prohibition and the argument for it is in essence that prohibition is big and dumb and it works.

I mean look, we say that and my response to that is 1992 is not a million years ago, right? It's not a different universe. Joe Biden was an important political figure in 1992 and he's an important political figure today. I will make the argument for the virtues of prohibition and the argument for it is in essence that prohibition is big and dumb and it works.

I mean look, we say that and my response to that is 1992 is not a million years ago, right? It's not a different universe. Joe Biden was an important political figure in 1992 and he's an important political figure today. I will make the argument for the virtues of prohibition and the argument for it is in essence that prohibition is big and dumb and it works.

When you try to set up a regulatory system, you run into the risk of what's called regulatory capture, or in less fancy terms, the entities that are being regulated will have a lot of incentive to spend as much money as possible influencing the regulators. Prohibition seemed to work pretty well, and it avoided precisely the problems that regulatory capture can bring up.

When you try to set up a regulatory system, you run into the risk of what's called regulatory capture, or in less fancy terms, the entities that are being regulated will have a lot of incentive to spend as much money as possible influencing the regulators. Prohibition seemed to work pretty well, and it avoided precisely the problems that regulatory capture can bring up.

When you try to set up a regulatory system, you run into the risk of what's called regulatory capture, or in less fancy terms, the entities that are being regulated will have a lot of incentive to spend as much money as possible influencing the regulators. Prohibition seemed to work pretty well, and it avoided precisely the problems that regulatory capture can bring up.

That said, I think we could certainly do a heck of a lot better than we're doing right now. You could basically ban advertising. You could severely restrict the usage of or altogether ban app-based betting. You could try to limit the ability of sportsbooks to discriminate against that 5% of players who are taking money out because that ends up being obviously unfair.

That said, I think we could certainly do a heck of a lot better than we're doing right now. You could basically ban advertising. You could severely restrict the usage of or altogether ban app-based betting. You could try to limit the ability of sportsbooks to discriminate against that 5% of players who are taking money out because that ends up being obviously unfair.

That said, I think we could certainly do a heck of a lot better than we're doing right now. You could basically ban advertising. You could severely restrict the usage of or altogether ban app-based betting. You could try to limit the ability of sportsbooks to discriminate against that 5% of players who are taking money out because that ends up being obviously unfair.

You could put caps on how much they're allowed to solicit deposits or other targeting methods for sort of bringing in those addicted users. The thing is that I think all of those would make a difference. And also because I think they'd make a difference, I suspect that the sports gambling corporations will fight them tooth and nail. Right.

You could put caps on how much they're allowed to solicit deposits or other targeting methods for sort of bringing in those addicted users. The thing is that I think all of those would make a difference. And also because I think they'd make a difference, I suspect that the sports gambling corporations will fight them tooth and nail. Right.

You could put caps on how much they're allowed to solicit deposits or other targeting methods for sort of bringing in those addicted users. The thing is that I think all of those would make a difference. And also because I think they'd make a difference, I suspect that the sports gambling corporations will fight them tooth and nail. Right.

And the current political track record is that they will win. You know, there's the sort of strong argument for the prohibitionist position is trying to reach a half measure may actually be harder than just going all the way. If you can convince people that sports gambling isn't worth it. Whether or not you convince people, I don't know. But I'm trying.

And the current political track record is that they will win. You know, there's the sort of strong argument for the prohibitionist position is trying to reach a half measure may actually be harder than just going all the way. If you can convince people that sports gambling isn't worth it. Whether or not you convince people, I don't know. But I'm trying.

And the current political track record is that they will win. You know, there's the sort of strong argument for the prohibitionist position is trying to reach a half measure may actually be harder than just going all the way. If you can convince people that sports gambling isn't worth it. Whether or not you convince people, I don't know. But I'm trying.