Devils advocate argument:

I work at an e-commerce company that is designed and incentivized to sell as much product as possible. Are we taking advantage of "shopping addicts"? Where is the line drawn between capitalism and morality?

Sidenote: Casinos also exist to provide entertainment value. I don't mind spending $20 on blackjack just to play with my friends and talk with new people. Just because there is a subset of individuals that can't handle that entertainment responsibly doesn't mean that the business itself is immoral.

> I work at an e-commerce company that is designed and incentivized to sell as much product as possible.

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? That's why regulations regarding advertisement and fair pricing were created, even though they're not very effective in the digital world. Still, it could be a lot worse.

Very good point. The distinction may be that a casino operates on the premise that playing will make you rich some lucky day - whereas when you shop, financial loss is not obfuscated away as a means to your big payday.

Yes, but the marketing machine still makes you want that shiny thing that you don't need. It will make you happy for about 5 minutes.

I'm sorry, but your appeal to morality is a fallacy, and thus a bullshit argument. I, and everyone I know who has gone to one, has enjoyed our trips to Vegas and Atlantic City. We've played moderately, and see it as entertainment. Now, if you have evidence/empirical data that shows that gambling causes more misery than joy, by all means, present it!

Alcohol is not bad because some small percentage of people get addicted. Neither is online gaming, neither is sex, neither is marijuana, neither is gambling.

Now, nicotine... THERE you might have an argument. But even that is fraught with difficulty: http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix