Online gambling on the rise among high school students
This article is one of the winning submissions from the New York Post Scholars Contest, presented by Command Education.
The table is hosting three players: DerekC9, Fuzzypanda21, and Erik467.
A crowd has formed behind the computer screen. Erik467, the username I'm using to represent a real person, has pocket aces: statistically, the best hand in poker. Almost immediately, Erik goes all in preflop (in poker terms: when the dealer hasn't revealed the river yet); he's confident in the value of his cards. Fuzzypanda21 folds, but DerekC9 calls. Since this is the high value table, Derek's call takes the pot north of a behemoth $200—a colossal sum for high school students. Now that the table is all in, the players must reveal their cards. DerekC9 shows a king and a jack. Erik reveals his formidable pair of aces towering over DerekC9's comparatively weak cards. The virtual dealer reveals the first card of the river—a two of hearts. The odds begin to shift in Erik's favor. The dealer flips the next card—a nine of clubs. Derek still doesn't have a viable hand to counter Erik's. The dealer reveals a 10 of hearts. Erik's aces seem to still be the winning ticket. It's time for the river card, and it feels like slow motion, as Erik's dreams of gambling grandeur crumble right before his eyes. A queen of spades. DerekC9 now has a straight, a higher hand than Erik's pair of aces. Just like that, Erik sinks $100 deeper into his quicksand of debt.
A unique and quickly spreading social phenomenon is reaching high schools across the country. My high school alone hosts a variety of leagues, each with dozens of tables, and twice the amount of kids in the average classroom—all with varying game rules, cliques and levels of expertise. The latest fad: online poker.
And it has kids hooked. Online tables are filled throughout the night, with peak hours around 11 p.m. and games spanning until the waking hours. Gripped by the thrill, high schoolers are wagering increasing amounts, irresponsibly and carelessly gambling away money. It is common to hear in the halls about 14 year-old kids owing $100-$300; in the most alarming case I have heard, one student lost over $1,500.
This is made possible through the growing advent of online casinos. These digital gambling dens have been making poker sites more available to youths since the turn of the century. A study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania revealed that 2.9 million kids play cards for money, 580,000 of them online. The 'kids' were aged 14-22 with 'most of these young people under the age 21.' Weak age restrictions and regulations are making it exceedingly easier for high schoolers to use these apps and websites.
It may seem innocent for now: after all kids owe their debt to friends. It's tempting to say, 'kids will be kids, they're gambling with allowance money!' That's true…until it's not.
The Office of Problem Gambling Services (OPGS) says that 'children introduced to 'harmless betting' by the age of 12 are four times more likely to engage in problem gambling later.' Another study by Alesia Burge on gambling addictions says, 'older adult problem gamblers who began earlier in life gambled more often than did their counterparts who began as adults.' Gambling as a youth not only increases your chance to carry the habit into adulthood, but also increases the severity of addiction.
Isaac Carrillo is an 11th-grader at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, NY., Carillo wants to be a psychiatrist with his own practice.
Dozens of studies have been conducted seeking to explain this clear correlation, with the consensus pointing to the brain as the main culprit. A study by Monique Ernst revealed that not yet fully formed frontal cortices makes kids more prone to addiction and risk taking, as that region controls logic and decision making. Since then, countless other studies have confirmed Ernst's claim, identifying that the immaturity of adolescent brains make addiction especially likely and dangerous for youths.
Gambling permeates teen life more than you would think. Things can quickly get out of control for high school gamblers, with debts greatly exceeding petty cash between friends. Most of the conversation around teen addiction surrounds alcohol and nicotine, but a new vice is on the rise.
Poker is a dangerous game. It's not meant to be in the hands of high schoolers during lunch period.
Isaac Carrillo is an 11th-grader at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, NY., Carillo wants to be a psychiatrist with his own practice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Model prisoner' Luigi Mangione whines about wearing handcuffs, bulletproof vest — makes request to judge
Luigi Mangione doesn't think he should have to appear in court with his hands shackled together and wearing a bulletproof vest. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson's alleged assassin has been a 'model prisoner' at his Brooklyn lockup and thus should be allowed to wear 'court-appropriate clothing' when he's back in Manhattan court June 26, his lawyers say. Forcing the 27-year-old accused killer to continue appearing with his hands cuffed and sporting the Kevlar vest will 'perpetuate a false narrative that Mr. Mangione is an unusual danger requiring extraordinary security measures' and 'prejudice' him in the eyes of the jury, his lawyer Karen Friedman Agnifilo wrote in a legal filing. Mangione was characterized as a 'model prisoner' in his 167 days in pre-trial detention — never being cited for misconduct, requiring no special accommodations and even qualifying for an undisclosed work detail as a member of the general population at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, according to the filing. The University of Pennsylvania graduate is unrestricted during daily visits with his legal counsel at the MDC's common visitor area — a large open room with no barriers between people or groups, which include children and babies, lawyers wrote. Mangione, who is accused of fatally shooting Thompson, 50, in the back on a Manhattan sidewalk on Dec. 4, 2024, poses no threats to these people and thus should be 'treated just like any other pre-trial detainee, not like someone who is a heightened security or flight risk,' the filing argued. The alleged killer has further been 'a model defendant in court' who has been cooperative and respectful of law enforcement officials during the trial, counselors stated. Judge Gregory Carro was initially inclined to accommodate the defense's request to uncuff Mangione during court proceedings on Feb. 21, the court papers noted. 'Go ahead and uncuff him,' Carro said at the time, according to the filing. A court officer then approached the bench for an off-the-record conversation with the judge, who then denied the request, stating, 'For security reasons, they want him cuffed,' according to the filing. Court officers previously expressed concern for their safety when one googly-eyed groupie managed to sneak a heart-shaped love note into a pair of Mangione's argyle socks. 'Luigi, we are rooting for you! Keep your head held high and know there are thousands of people wishing you luck,' the note signed 'r/Free Luigi' read. Prosecutors warned at the time that future contraband smuggled into court could pose a risk to court officers. Lawyers for Mangione are not asking for his legs to be unshackled to 'provide reasonable compromise,' according to the filing. Uniquely forceful security is not new for Mangione, who Manhattan prosecutors claim killed Thompson as 'an act of terrorism.' Mayor Eric Adams was on the helipad alongside machine gun-toting NYPD and FBI agents in a show of force as the accused killer arrived in Manhattan for his first court date. Like most defendants on trial for murder, Mangione appeared without a bulletproof vest when he pleaded not guilty last year — wearing a red sweater, which quickly went viral online.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump's executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly 'Least Dangerous Branch': District Judges v. Trump," Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden's time at the White House. "Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?" Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. Trump Criticizes Rand Parl Over Tax Bill Oppostion: 'Votes No On Everything' Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama's White House Counsel's Office, responded, "A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?" "This was never used before the 1960s," Hawley said. "And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no." Read On The Fox News App Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. "The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago," she said. "There's many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years." "So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?" Hawley shot back. "If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?" Shaw said she believes a system where there "are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law," but the Republican from Missouri contended that's not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. "You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law," Hawley said. "You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you're fine with all of that if it's getting the result that you want." Judge To Block Trump Admin's Harvard Foreign Students Ban Hawley cited Shaw's stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden's presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration's mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as "a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law." Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. "I understand you hate the president," the senator told Shaw. "I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that's not a principle. You're a lawyer. What's the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy." "When it's Biden, it's OK. When it's Biden, oh, it's a travesty. When it's Trump in office, it's a no holds barred, whatever it takes," the senator added. Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising "very principled injunctions" to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and "all that's changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." "I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual," Hawley said, referring to Trump. "And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound." "I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we're talking about here is, 'Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?' And you used to say no. Now you say yes," he said. "Let's be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it's going to be politics all the way down." Shaw responded that "democracy is not as simple as majority rule," but Hawley interjected, saying, "You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you're for the nationwide injunction. When you don't, you're not."Original article source: Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Fox News
4 days ago
- Fox News
Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump's executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly 'Least Dangerous Branch': District Judges v. Trump," Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden's time at the White House. "Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?" Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama's White House Counsel's Office, responded, "A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?" "This was never used before the 1960s," Hawley said. "And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no." Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. "The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago," she said. "There's many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years." "So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?" Hawley shot back. "If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?" Shaw said she believes a system where there "are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law," but the Republican from Missouri contended that's not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. "You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law," Hawley said. "You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you're fine with all of that if it's getting the result that you want." Hawley cited Shaw's stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden's presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration's mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as "a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law." Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. "I understand you hate the president," the senator told Shaw. "I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that's not a principle. You're a lawyer. What's the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy." "When it's Biden, it's OK. When it's Biden, oh, it's a travesty. When it's Trump in office, it's a no holds barred, whatever it takes," the senator added. Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising "very principled injunctions" to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and "all that's changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." "I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual," Hawley said, referring to Trump. "And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound." "I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we're talking about here is, 'Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?' And you used to say no. Now you say yes," he said. "Let's be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it's going to be politics all the way down." Shaw responded that "democracy is not as simple as majority rule," but Hawley interjected, saying, "You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you're for the nationwide injunction. When you don't, you're not."
