>>> NOW, TO A HUGE AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS MARKET IN U.S. SPORTS GAMBLING.

IT HAS GROWN MASSIVELY SINCE A 2018 SUPREME COURT RULING ALLOWED STATES TO LEGALIZE IT, BUT AT WHAT COST TO PEOPLE'S LIVES?

AUTHOR OF HIS STORY, JONATHAN D. COHEN, INVESTIGATES THIS IN HIS NEW BOOK AND HE TELLS MICHEL MARTIN WHAT HE FOUND.

>> THANKS, CHRISTIANE!

THANK YOU, JONATHAN D. COHEN, FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YOU KNOW, IF YOU WATCH ANY SPORTS ON TV -- ANY SPORTS ON TV -- YOU JUST SEE BETTING, ALL OVER THE PLACE.

I MEAN, YOU SEE ADS FOR BETTING, SHOWS BUILT AROUND BETTING.

YOU KNOW, AT ONE MINUTE, IT SEEMED LIKE GAMBLING AND SPORTS WERE LIKE OIL AND WATER, THEY DID NOT MIX.

WHEN DID THIS CHANGE?

>> IT ALL CHANGED, OR IT STARTED TO CHANGE ON MAY 14th, 2018, WHEN A SUPREME COURT DECISION -- MURPHY VERSUS NCAA -- UNLEASHED THE FLOODGATES FOR STATES TO LEGALIZE SPORTS BETTING.

I WILL SPARE YOU THE LEGALESE, BUT ESSENTIALLY, STATES HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM LEGALIZING SPORTS BETTING, AND THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THAT FEDERAL REGULATION, AND NOW STATES ARE FREE TO REGULATE SPORTS BETTING AS THEY SO CHOOSE.

>> JUST BRIEFLY, IF YOU WOULD, WHAT WERE THE GROUNDS?

WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT, THERE?

>> THE GROUNDS ACTUALLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTS BETTING, IN OF ITSELF.

IN 1992, CONGRESS PASSED A LAW, THE PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR SPORTS PROTECTION ACT, THAT BASICALLY BARRED STATES FROM LEGALIZING GAMBLING, AND THE MURPHY VERSUS NCAA 2018 DECISION FOCUSED ON NOT ONLY GAMBLING ITSELF, BUT THIS COMMANDEERING STATUTE FROM THE 10th AMENDMENT, THAT BASICALLY CONGRESS CAN'T TELL STATES WHAT TO DO, AND THAT STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO LEGALIZE GAMBLING, IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

>> HOW BIG IS SPORTS BETTING IN THE UNITED STATES?

>> SO, OVER JUST THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY BET OVER $500 BILLION ON SPORTS BETTING, AND ESTIMATIONS ARE THAT OVER 20% TO 40% OF AMERICAN ADULTS HAVE PLACED AT LEAST ONE BET ON SPORTS, AND ALL OF THIS IS BEFORE THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, AND GEORGIA LEGALIZE THE SPORTS BETTING.

SO, WHEN THOSE STATES OR OTHER STATES LIKE THEM GET IN THE GAME, IT IS GOING TO GET EVEN BIGGER.

>> THE TITLE OF YOUR BOOK IS "LOSING BIG: AMERICA'S RECKLESS BET ON SPORTS GAMBLING" -- SO, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, AS YOU SEE IT?

>> AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOR OF SPORTS BETTING AND I THINK IT IS TOTALLY HARMLESS AND TOTALLY FUN FOR SOMEBODY TO BET FIVE DOLLARS ON THE CUBS TO WIN, OR WHATEVER TEAM THEY CHOOSE, TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA EXCITEMENT OUT OF SPORTS, FROM BETTING ON SPORTS.

MY ISSUE IS, THE WAY THIS WAS UNFURLED, AND THE WAY THIS WAS LEGALIZED AND ROLLED OUT, WAS THE WORD I HAVE CHOSEN TO USE IS "RECKLESS."

IT WAS SORT OF A FULL ON EMBRACE, OR AN ALL OUT BLITZ, IF YOU WANT TO USE THE SPORTS TERMINOLOGY, WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES, FOR THE AFTER AFFECTS, FOR THE CONSEQUENCES, FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT DEVELOP GAMBLING ADDICTIONS, FOR YOUNG MEN IN PARTICULAR WHO MIGHT BET MORE THAN THEY CAN AFFORD, WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION, WITHOUT ANY LENGTH OF THE GROUNDWORK FOR HOW WE CAN DO THIS SAFELY.

>> OKAY, SO, LET'S KIND OF WALK THROUGH WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS, AS FAR AS YOU SEE IT?

>> THE PROBLEMS, AS FAR AS THE EFFECTS THAT THE CURRENT VERSION OF SPORTS BETTING -- AND I WILL SAY SPECIFICALLY, ONLINE SPORTS BETTING -- HAS ON PEOPLE.

AND IN MY PEOPLE, I DISPROPORTIONATELY MEN YOUNG MEN, AGES 18 TO 35, WHO HAVE BOARD THE BIGGEST CONSEQUENCES FROM THE LEGALIZATION OF SPORTS BETTING.

AND THESE VERY SORT OF SPECIFIC, CONCRETE CONSEQUENCES ARE RISING RATES OF ECONOMIC INSECURITY -- YOU KNOW, HUGE PREVALENCE OF YOUNG MEN, IN PARTICULAR, BETTING MORE MONEY THAN THEY CAN AFFORD OR MONEY THAN THEY HAVE.

A LARGE PERCENTAGE HAVE ADMITTED THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PAY ONE OF THEIR BILLS BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY BET EVERY MONTH.

RISING RATES OF BANKRUPTCIES, OF CREDIT CARD DELINQUENCIES IN STATES THAT HAVE LEGALIZED ONLINE SPORTS BETTING, AS WELL AS, THE MOST DRAMATIC EVIDENCE, WHICH WOULD BE RISING RATES OF PROBLEM GAMBLING.

IS THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT INDICATORS OF THIS, CALLS TO HOTLINES, TEXTS TO GAMBLING HOTLINES, AND SOMETHING CALLED "SELF EXCLUSION."

SO, IF I DECIDE I CAN'T CONTROL MY BETTING, I NEED TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE, THE STATE WILL CUT ME OFF, THEY WILL NOT LEGALLY LET ME BET ANYMORE.

THE RATES OF PEOPLE IN STATES LIKE PENNSYLVANIA THAT HAVE SELF EXCLUDED, JUST IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, OUTPACED THE ENTIRE 12 YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO LEGALIZATION'S.

WE'RE GETTING MORE SELF EXCLUSIONS JUST IN THE LAST 12 YEARS THEN WE SAW FOR A DECADE, PLUS, PRIOR TO SPORTS BETTING LEGALIZATION.

>> YOU PROVIDE A COUPLE PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN MAKING, HERE.

ONE WAS A YOUNG GUY NAMED KYLE.

WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT HIM?

>> YEAH, SO, KYLE WAS REALLY EXCITED FOR COLORADO TO GET IN THE GAME AND LEGALIZE SPORTS BETTING, AND WHEN THE STATE DID SO, IN 2020, HE DOWNLOADED EVERY SPORTS BOOK APP, TOOK ADVANTAGE OF EVERY BULLISH OFFER.

HE QUICKLY RAN INTO ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I DESCRIBED WHERE HE DIDN'T REALIZE HOW MUCH HE WAS BETTING AND COULDN'T PAY HIS RENT ONE MONTH AND HAD TO ASK HIS PARENTS TO HELP HIM OUT BECAUSE HE HAD BET MORE THAN HE COULD AFFORD.

AND HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO STOP, AND HE WILL GO SIX MONTHS, AND YOU WILL FALL DOWN INTO THIS REALLY INTENSE GAP GAMBLING RABBIT HOLE, WHERE GAMBLING BASICALLY CONSUMES HIS WHOLE LIFE.

HE LOST A JOB BECAUSE HE WAS IN ONE OF THESE GAMBLING HOLES, WHEN HE IS UP, WINNING, HE WOULD GET THIS OVERCONFIDENCE AND WHEN HE WOULD LOSE, IT JUST SORT OF SHATTERED HIS SENSE OF SELF, HIS MENTAL HEALTH, AND IT WOULD LEAD TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER PROBLEMS.

SO, HE HAS SINCE MOVED BACK WITH HIS PARENTS OUTSIDE OF WICHITA, BUT IS STILL GOING THROUGH THESE EXACT PHASES, WHERE HE WILL GO FOR A FEW MONTHS WITH NO GAMBLING, THEN LO AND BEHOLD, THE NFL SEASON STARTS AND HE CAN'T WAIT TO BET ON THE CHIEFS, AND HERE HE GOES AGAIN, HE HAS BEEN SORT OF UNABLE TO BET SAFELY.

AND THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE IF IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE, LEGALLY, ON HIS PHONE.

WHEN HE WOULD GO TO A CASINO, HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONTROL HIMSELF.

THIS IS NOT A GAMBLING PROBLEM, IT IS AN ONLINE ACCESS PROBLEM THAT IS THE ROOT OF HIS ISSUE.

>> INTERESTING.

WHY IS THAT?

YOU ARE SAYING IT IS BECAUSE OF THE ONLINE ACCESS, THAT IT BECAME SO CONSUMING.

WHY WOULD THAT BE?

>> YEAH, THERE ARE MANY REASONS.

ONE OF THEM, IS THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU ARE BETTING ONLINE, YOU CAN BET ON ANYTHING.

AND I DON'T JUST MEAN YOU CAN BET ON ANY GAME, BUT YOU CAN BET ON ANY RESULT, WITHIN ANY GAME, AND SORT OF MICRO BETTING.

YOU CAN BET ON, OF COURSE, THE RESULTS OF THE GAME ITSELF, BUT INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS AND THE RESULTS.

THEN, WHEN THE GAMES ARE OVER -- LET'S SAY 1:00 IN THE MORNING OR SO -- YOU CAN BET ON MALAYSIAN DOUBLE WOMEN'S BADMINTON.

PEOPLE LIKE KYLE, WHO DEVELOPED GAMBLING ADDICTIONS, THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY LOOKING TO BET ON SPORTS BECAUSE THEY LOVE SPORTS AT THAT POINT, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR ACTION, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A CHANCE TO RISK AND WIN MONEY AND SORT OF SATISFY THEIR NEED FOR ACTION, WHICH IS WHAT PROBLEM GAMBLERS ARE ACTUALLY ADDICTED TO.

>> I HAVE TO ASK, THOUGH, IS IT, IN YOUR OWN REPORTING, IT INDICATES THAT ONLY SOMETHING LIKE 3% OF AMERICANS FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY, OF A PROBLEM GAMBLER.

AND I THINK SOME REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT SAY, "WELL, I'M SORRY, THAT'S 3%, THIS IS ACTUALLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED WHO FALL INTO THIS PROBLEM CATEGORY."

SO, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I WOULD SAY A FEW THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, PROBLEM GAMBLING IS THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT HAS A LOT OF SOCIETAL SIDE EFFECTS.

THERE IS A STUDY FROM AUSTRALIA THAT EVERY PERSON WHO IS ADDICTED TO GAMBLING, EITHER THROUGH THEIR FINANCIAL NEEDS, OR THEIR PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, THEIR ADDICTION WILL AFFECT FIVE OR SIX OTHER PEOPLE.

SO, IF YOU CAN DO THE MATH, 3% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION, EACH OF THEM AFFECTING -- OR, THE ADULT POPULATION -- EACH OF THEM AFFECTING FIVE OR SIX OTHER PEOPLE, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BY PROBLEM GAMBLING.

>> SAY MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK SOME OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS ARE, AND ANOTHER GUY YOU PROFILED, NAMED ARTHUR, WHO WAS EMBEZZLING MONEY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS GAMBLING HABIT, AND THAT WAS A WHOLE, YOU KNOW, CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT I THINK PEOPLE COULD ANTICIPATE.

BUT, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER NEGATIVE EFFECTS YOU HAVE SEEN?

>> GAMBLING ADDICTS, PEOPLE WITH A GAMBLING PROBLEM, HAD A HIGHER RATE OF SUICIDE AND SUICIDAL IDEATION THAN ANY OTHER FORM OF ADDICTION, BECAUSE IT IS A -- IT IS A DEEPLY, SORT OF SHAMEFUL ADDICTION, THAT WE HAVE NOT SOCIETALLY TO STIGMATIZE.

THERE IS A SENSE THAT BECAUSE IT IS A FINANCIAL ADDICTION, IF A PERSON WERE TO, YOU KNOW, BEGONE, THAT THEIR ADDICTION WOULD BE GONE, AND ALL OF THEIR PROBLEMS WOULD BE GONE, AND SO, THAT, I THINK, FOR THE GAMBLER THEMSELVES, IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

AND SOCIETALLY, I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD ALL WONDER, OR ASK OURSELVES, IF -- SPORTS BETTING WAS NOT ONLY LEGALIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING STATE REVENUE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY FOR GOVERNMENT.

I THINK IT IS WORTH ASKING OURSELVES, IF IT IS WORTH EXPLOITING OR PRAYING ON THESE VULNERABLE PEOPLE OR ADDICTED PEOPLE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA MONEY FOR THE GENERAL FUND.

>> AND WHY DO YOU SAY THAT?

ARE YOU SAYING IT IS BECAUSE THE BULK OF THE REVENUES COME FROM A VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE?

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

FOR THE CASE OF NFL BETTORS, THE 3% YOU MENTIONED, THE TOP 3% OF NFL BETTORS IN THE 2023- 2024 SEASON ACCOUNTED FOR 83% OF SPORTS BOOK REVENUE, SO IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT PEOPLE ARE DEVELOPING GAMBLING ADDICTIONS, IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BUSINESS MODEL.

A DECLINE IN PROBLEM GAMBLING GAMBLING RATES WOULD DRAMATICALLY IMPACT THE BOTTOM LINE OF SPORTS BETTING AND SPORTS BETTING COMPANIES.

THEY HAVE A DIRECT FINANCIAL INCENTIVE AND NEED, ALMOST, FOR THE PERPETUATION OF PEOPLE BETTING MORE MONEY THAN THEY CAN AFFORD.

>> AND WHEN YOU TOOK THAT DATA TO THE SPORTS BETTING COMPANIES, AND YOU PRESENTED THESE FINDINGS, YOU SAID, "HEY, YOUR BUSINESS MODEL DEPENDS ON PEOPLE PROBLEMATICALLY GAMBLING, IT IS NOT YOUR CASUAL, HEY, I'M HAVING A SUPER BOWL PARTY, LET'S THROW SOME MONEY," IT IS A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY HAVE A PROBLEM, WHAT DID THEY SAY?

>> SO, THEY -- WELL, THEY INSIST, FIRST OF ALL, THAT IT IS NOT IN THEIR SHORT-TERM FINANCIAL INTEREST, TO EXTRACT MONEY FROM BETTORS.

OF COURSE, IT ACTUALLY IS, BUT THEY INSIST THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, IS A LONG-TERM, SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS, WHERE PEOPLE ARE BETTING COMFORTABLY, AND THEY ARE NOT EXTRACTING MONEY FROM KYLE, AND EXTRACTING MONEY FROM ANDREW, AND SORT OF MOVING ON.

POINT OF FACT, THAT IS, OF COURSE, WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND WHAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY BUILT, BUT THEY INSIST THAT WHAT THEY WANT IS SOMETHING THAT IS LONG-TERM AND SUSTAINABLE.

AND THESE COMPANIES REPEATEDLY LOOK UP TO THIS IDEA OF RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING OR RESPONSIBLE GAMING, WHICH IS THEIR PITCH, WHERE THEY TELL PLAYERS IN ADVERTISING OR ON THE APPS, TO PLAY RESPONSIBLY, WHICH IS THERE SORT OF -- THEY SEE IT AS A "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" CARD.

THEY TOLD YOU, WE TOLD YOU TO BET RESPONSIBLY, WE ARE CAMPAIGNING ON BETTING RESPONSIBLY.

THE FLIPSIDE OF THAT, OR THE IMPLICATION OF THAT, IS IF YOU DIDN'T BET RESPONSIBLY, IT IS YOUR FAULT, AND THAT WE TOLD YOU TO BET RESPONSIBLY, AND THEREFORE, ACTUAL, RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR IS IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BETTER, NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE BILLION-DOLLAR CORPORATION ENTICING THEM TO BET.

>> THE COMPANIES, I THINK, WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW, THAT THEY ARE RAISING REVENUE FOR STATES, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GAMBLING ARE ADULTS, WHO ARE MAKING THE DECISION, IT IS JUST ENTERTAINMENT, LIKE ANY OTHER FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT IS TRUE.

AND AGAIN, I AM IN FAVOR OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GAMBLE, GAMBLING.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD THEIR DOPAMINE PATHWAYS REWIRED, AND ARE ON THE ROAD TO ADDICTION, BEING BOMBARDED WITH ADVERTISING, OR WITH VIP HOSTS SORT OF TEXTING THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT ASKING THEM IF THEY WANT TO BET OR KEEP BETTING.

I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO KEEP DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

BUT, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE, AT THE SAME TIME.

>> ARE THESE BETTING APPS REQUIRED TO ISSUE WARNINGS, FOR EXAMPLE?

LIKE, YOU KNOW, ON A CIGARETTE PACKAGE, IT IS REQUIRED THAT THEY SAY, THIS IS ADDICTIVE, IT CAN BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH.

DON'T THESE SPORTS BETTING APPS HAVE SIMILAR PRODUCT WARNINGS, NOW?

>> I MEAN, OF COURSE, SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF YOUR FANDUEL APP, YOU WILL SEE THE NUMBER FOR THE RESPONSIBLY GAMBLING HOTLINE FOR YOU TO CALL.

THEY WILL PUT THEIR RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING TOOLS FRONT AND CENTER, BUT TO ME, THAT SPEAKS TO THE POINT OF, THEY KNOW THAT THESE RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING TOOLS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE, AND DATA SHOWS THAT THEY -- THAT ONLY A FRACTION OF PLAYERS ACTUALLY USE THE RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING TOOLS THAT LIMIT THEIR OWN PLAY.

SO, ALL THESE TOOLS ARE OPTIONAL.

THE COMPANIES LIKE TO POST THAT ALL OF THESE PLAYERS LOOKED AT THEIR BETS OVER THE LAST MONTH, OR LAST YEAR, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING TOOLS.

BUT, THE REAL TOOLS, THAT ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE GAMBLE RESPONSIBLY, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON THE APPS, ARE THINGS LIKE TIME LIMITS, LIKE DEPOSIT LIMITS, LIKE LOCKING YOURSELF OUT AT CERTAIN HOURS, AND IT INDICATES THAT A FRACTION -- IN SOME CASES, A FRACTION OF A FRACTION -- OF BETTORS, HAVE EVER USED THESE TOOLS BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.

NOT TO MENTION, ONCE YOU HAVE ENCOUNTERED SOME HARM, ONCE YOU HAVE DEVELOPED A SORT OF BORDERLINE ADDICTION, YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO SORT OF LIMIT YOURSELF, ARTIFICIALLY, AND PREMEDITATED.

IT IS JUST NOT REALISTIC, ABOUT HOW THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK.

YOU KNOW, THE COMPANY IS SORT OF HANGING THERE HATS AND THEY ARE SAYING, WE ARE GOING ABOVE THE LAWS, ABOVE THE REQUIREMENTS FROM STATES BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING ALL OF THESE TOOLS AVAILABLE, BUT THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY MAKING THEM APPEALING, OR MAKING THEM INTERESTING, OR MAKING THEM IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE THEM.

>> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THOUGH, I THINK WHAT YOU SAID, IS THAT ACTUALLY, THE STATES HAVE SOME -- BASICALLY, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF FIRING YOURSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN SOME OF THESE APPS, YOU ARE SAYING SOME PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT?

WHY IS THAT?

>> RIGHT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS I AM IN FAVOR OF A FEDERAL FRAMEWORK, I CAN EXCLUDE MYSELF IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, BUT THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE EXCLUDING MYSELF IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

SO, A FEDERAL FRAMEWORK OF SOME KIND WOULD SAY, OKAY, JOHN HAS DECIDED HE CAN'T CONTROL HIS BETTING, HE IS NOW BANNED IN ALL 39 STATES THAT LEGALIZED GAMBLING, FROM LEGALIZED GAMBLING SERVICES.

AND I THINK THAT IS A -- OH, ON A STATE-BY-STATE APPROACH, IT IS HELPFUL, TO AN EXTENT, BUT IT ONLY TAKES US SO FAR.

>> IT IS SO INTERESTING, JONATHAN, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE -- IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE HAVING A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS, AS A CULTURE, WITH HOW WE NAVIGATE THIS WORLD OF LIKE, SOCIAL MEDIA AND, YOU KNOW, JUST THE ONLINE EXPERIENCE.

DO YOU PUT THIS KIND OF HESITANCY TO DEAL WITH GAMBLING, AND THE HARMS OF GAMBLING, FOR THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM IT IS A HARM, IS THAT PART OF OUR KIND OF AMERICAN KIND OF, LIBERTARIANISM, LIKE, "LET PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT."

OR, IS IT THAT YOU THINK, IN GENERAL, WE ARE JUST NOT REALLY SURE HOW TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES?

LIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I THINK SPORTS GAMBLING HEADS OF THE EXACT SORT OF CENTER OF THOSE TWO, WHERE WE ARE OKAY WITH GAMBLING, AND WE ARE OKAY WITH PEOPLE GAMBLING IS MUCH AS THEY WANTED, GENERALLY SPEAKING.

BUT, NEVER BEFORE, HAS GAMBLING BEEN AS DANGEROUS FOR THE GAMBLER AS IT IS NOW.

NEVER BEFORE HAS, YOU KNOW, THE LAS VEGAS FOUNDERS WOULD DROOL AT THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT DRAFTKINGS AND FANDUEL HAVE ABOUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT HAS EVER OPENED THERE AT.

AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT, FOR GAMBLERS, IS REALLY DANGEROUS.

AND IT IS REALLY EASY, AS A RESULT, THROUGH MARKETING, THROUGH ENTICEMENTS, THROUGH OTHER MEANS OF PEOPLE BETTING MORE THAN -- YOU KNOW, IN THEIR SOBER STATE, THEN THEY WOULD INTEND TO.

SO, I THINK, I GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOU, I'M SORT OF INCLINED TOWARD THIS LIBERTARIAN STREAK OF "LET'S LET PEOPLE GAMBLE."

BUT, THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF MODERN SPORTS GAMBLING SEEMS LIKE A BRIDGE TOO FAR.

>> I KNOW IN THE BOOK, YOU HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK WOULD KIND OF MITIGATE THE HARM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST AT RISK.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE STEPS?

>> I WOULD SAY THERE ARE TWO BIG CATEGORIES.

THE FIRST WOULD BE LEGISLATIVE, ON THE POLICY SIDE.

AND THESE ARE THINGS WHERE, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE TO HAPPEN THROUGH REGULATION, I THINK THE COMPANIES COULD IMPLEMENT THEM, THEMSELVES.

AND IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, THEN AS YOU SAID, THE STATES COULD OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD.

THESE WOULD BE THINGS LIKE LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS A PLAYER CAN MAKE, WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD.

LIMITING, LET'S SAY, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU THROW ON A DEPOSIT OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, MAKING THEM PROVE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD EXACTLY HOW MUCH THEY ARE BETTING OVER A GIVEN PERIOD.

AND THEN, ALSO, SHORTENING THE LIST OF BETTING OPTIONS.

I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK ANY SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO BET ON MALAYSIAN WOMEN'S DOUBLES BADMINTON AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING.

KYLE, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS BETTING ON MINOR-LEAGUE BRITISH STARTS AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY THING HE COULD BET ON.

WHAT THOSE GAINS ARE, IS A TRAP FOR PROBLEM GAMBLERS WHO MAKE A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR COMPANIES, BUT IT IN WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF HARM FOR THE BETTORS, THEMSELVES.

SO, AGAIN, THE POSSIBILITY SIX, AND THE REDUCTION IN THE LIST OF BETTING OPTIONS I THINK WOULD BE THREE THAT STAND OUT TO ME ON THE POLICY SIDE.

AND THEN, THERE IS A WHOLE OTHER CATEGORY THAT WE REFERRED TO EARLIER ABOUT DESTAGMATIZATION, CONVERSATIONS THAT PARENTS NEED TO START HAVING WITH THEIR KIDS, PARTICULARLY THE YOUNG MEN, YOUNG BOYS, ABOUT GAMBLING, BECAUSE ALL OF THE MESSAGING THEY ARE GETTING ABOUT GAMBLING RIGHT NOW IS FROM KEVIN HART, AND LeBRON JAMES, AND CHARLES BARKLEY DURING COMMERCIALS AND IT IS TELLING THEM THAT GAMBLING IS REALLY, REALLY FUN, AND THAT THEY CAN WIN MONEY, AND THAT THEY ARE SO SMART, THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT SPORTS, AND THEY CAN TURN THAT HUTCH INTO MONEY.

I THINK THEY NEED SOME COUNTER PROGRAM, THEY NEED TO BE TOLD -- FIRST OF ALL, THAT CASH GAMBLING CAN BE ADDICTIVE, AND SECOND OF ALL, WITHOUT ANY INTENTION ON THEIR PART, HOW THEY CAN SORT OF FALL DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE AND DEVELOP REALLY, REALLY SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT WILL BE WITH THEM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE.

>> JONATHAN COHEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU.