I peruse reader comments with a morsel of Morton's (grain of salt), mostly because I find them agenda-based, veering off point, guilty of turning exceptions into rules — and then taking the false premises and embarking on soliloquies about them.

Occasionally, though, there is one worth pondering.

Last week, Tom Moriarty, a faithful reader of The Day and theday.com who is measured and fair, wrote the following in response to this gambling column:

"Maybe this time next year you can write a column on the many lives and marriages that have been ruined by addiction to gambling. Gambling is as addictive as alcohol and drugs and is a lot more expensive."

We started this gambling column because sports betting has become legalized in Connecticut. I'm not necessarily sure gambling will become more prevalent because of it (millions and millions have gambled since even before Al Capone), but it's now legal. Gambling is part of our DNA here with two major casinos. It's news, regardless of whether we agree with it.

Still, I respect Moriarty's words. DraftKings and FanDuel have made gambling easier than ever. Not just on the games, but everything down to the coin toss before the football game. Gambling addictions are very likely to increase.

And before we start discussing point spreads again, I want Moriarty and everyone else to know that nobody else is more aware of gambling addiction. I've seen it and its tentacles. And it's sure not reflective of the fun we're trying to have here every week with futures and best bets.

But I also hope that we can approach the state's new forays with DraftKings and FanDuel with senses of proportion and balance. Gambling can also be fun and provide rooting interests that previously didn't exist. The overwhelming majority of gamblers are not going to develop addictions and will dabble in it appropriately.

The intention of this column and the entire gambling page are rooted in reader enjoyment and participation in the gambling process. As with everything else, perils exist. Just know that we understand what gambling has done to people and families.

Here are the week's football best bets:

• Vickie Fulkerson: Buccaneers (-9.5 over Washington Football Team).

"A quarterback duel between Tom Brady (coming off a bye week) and, wait for it, Washington's Taylor Heinicke. Brady leads in career starts 307-8."

• Ned Griffen: Clemson (41 over UConn). "I may go 0-for on my best bets this year but, dammit, I'm going to keep swinging away until I finally hit on the week's most obscene line."

• Chuck Banning: Titans (-3 over New Orleans). "Just call me Captain Obvious ... which in a way scares me."

• Dave Davis: UConn (+41 vs. Clemson). "The Huskies won't win this game. It won't be competitive. But I might never get 40.5 points again so I'm taking them. I mean, they could lose by 40 and I still win."

• Gavin Keefe: Cardinals (-10.5 over Carolina). "Given my losing streak, let's call this my worst bet."

• Mikey D: Saints (+3 vs. Titans). I try to make my best bets about lines, not games. This line is absurd. Think about it: Tennessee, without Derrick Henry, goes on the road last week and throws the Rams down a flight of stairs. It comes home this week and plays battered New Orleans and its quarterback problems, potential injury to Alvin Kamara and home loss last week to Atlanta.

So why are the Saints only a three-point underdog? This line should be six or seven. They are begging you to bet Tennessee. And when the public all bets one way, the opposite outcome usually happens. It did last week when bettors threw it in on Wake Forest and Michigan State. They both lost.

So bet the Saints with both hands. It doesn't have to make sense. It's gambling.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro