I agree with the right about the evils of gambling

[wuushew]

Legalized gambling runs contrary to the progressive idea of desiring fair wealth distribution. It is a mathematical fact that the sum total of game participants will experience a negative return. This is completely unlike a fair probability situation or an investment where the participant can expect to match or exceed the monetary value of an action based on its risk.

Additionally nothing good is "created" by the industry of gaming. One community's economic gain is a parasitic loss by participants from another. It is a zero sum game that creates nothing, builds nothing but is merely a giant shell game to funnel funds into corporate run casinos. The flow of money in any economy eventually sees the light of day. Instead of paying for a blackjack dealer, a retiree's money would go to pay a health care bill, eliminate personal debt or pay for home improvement or lawn care services. Are not the latter a more desirous use of money than the former?

If our goal is to lessen poverty and seek a more equitable wealth distribution, having legalized gambling runs contrary to stated government desires. It is like funding anti-smoking campaigns while simultaneously providing large tobacco subsides.

If we observe that propensity to gamble is more prevalent in those with less wealth, we can only come to the conclusion that an a strong and deterministic coercive force acts on people in the form of their marginal utility for money and level of risk aversion. Is free will truly a human universal if its manifestations can be altered by the environment? This country which is over 200 years old stands on the back of much older civilizations which in my opinion would be correct in a nanny state prohibition of such activity. Must the toddler break a social taboo himself to vindicate the warnings of the parent?

Gambling has no upside. I have no problems with prostitution or recreational drug. What are your opinions on legalized gambling?

[LiberalEsto]

1. I am anti-gambling

and I have voted against legalizing gambling in Maryland. I think it's dumb, a waste of time and money, and can cause all sorts of abuses.
When I was a reporter in NJ, after the state legalized gambling in Atlantic City, I wrote a story about how some senior corrections officer gambled away his professional association's entire savings and pension fund. People lost all their life savings. That was typical of the kind of damage gambling can cause.

[mongo]

70. So, then gambling "made" him do it?

The guy was a freaking criminal. Can't we hold him responsible for his crime WITHOUT finding a convenient scapegoat?

[seabeyond]

2. it also goes with liberal view; protect one from themselves

i lived in reno in my 20's. i saw the addiction front and center. i even got to experience that need to gamble to the last penny one of my first nights there. wonderful experience. allowed me to live there for years, without being gotten by the bug. i watched a lot of friends battle this

personal responsibility.

i see the evils in it, the addiction, the out of control.

it is not mine to chose or dictate to another, whether they live this life

[LondonReign2]

3. It goes *against* personal freedoms, however

Are we going to legislate away all personal choices which may be harmful to a small percentage of participants? Should we legislate away fast food as well?

[wuushew]

8. But fast food can feed a starving individual

and its effects vary depending on your genetics.


Gambling like tobacco smoking has no positives. That cannot be said of many other vices.

[LondonReign2]

13. And gambling provides entertainment.

How about porn? Would you recommend legislating it away?
How about alcohol?
How about skiing? People get injured, some even die, and skiing doesn't feed anyone.

[wuushew]

18. Why does the "joy" of gambling need to use real money?

Paper monopoly money or using plastic chips in a friendly game of poker do not diminish the enjoyment of these activities.

Money is real it is tangible and is used to provide the basics of surviving in this capitalistic society. In aggregate those who gamble are throwing their money away. What is enjoyable about throwing money to the wind?

[Cats Against Frist]

30. Au contraire, mon pomme de terre

Playing with paper money or plastic chips takes away an essential element of the enjoyment: risk. Without risk, the narrative is much different. It's night and day.

[Sandpiper]

31. Have you ever gambled?

Or won anything in a game of chance?

Because, not to be rude, but your insight in to the enjoyment factor of gambling sounds awfully naive:


Paper monopoly money or using plastic chips in a friendly game of poker do not diminish the enjoyment of these activities.


Perhaps for you this is true, but if that were the case for everyone, they'd all be playing penny ante.

[MADem]

69. Actually, I am not a proponent of gambling, but I have won a bundle

I think it should be legal, because otherwise it will just go back to the mob, where it always was before, and it should be taxed up the ying yang. It should not be on every street corner, it should be a zoned activity. Also, the gambling industry should be required to help fund addiction recovery treatment programs.

I am not a "good" gambler, though, from the point of view of the house. I decide ahead of time how much I will spend, and once it is gone, I am too. I view the amount I spend as the price of admission, and if I win anything, great. I probably get to a casino maybe once every five years, and that is only because they are a byproduct of travel--I do not seek them out, or make special trips to gambling establishments, but if there is one in the area, I may hit the crap table, or pull a few slots.

I once turned twenty bucks of chips into several thousand dollars over a few hours at a crap table. I got massively lucky, I guess. On my way out of the casino, I put all the quarters I had in the slot machine nearest the door and won a couple of hundred bucks.

I refuse to call gambling gaming--gaming is what our teenagers do on the computer, gambling is when you throw money down and get chips in return!!!!

[SoCalDem]

49. The original slot machines in Vegas were a diversion for the ladies

while the men played table games.. they gave out candy and gum, hence the "fruity" symbols..

[dcfirefighter]

14. Gambling and tobacco smoking both have positives.

The people who do it LIKE TO DO IT. Just because you do not feel their pleasure does not mean that there are no positives.

Furthermore, you've never seen socioeconomic class barriers stripped away by being forced to stand outside in a cold, windy drizzle, trying to get a cigarette lit with one match. Smokers in these situations no know class barriers. They are just smokers feeding their habit.

[hfojvt]

46. liking to do it, or feeding a habit?

Feeding a habit does not sound like something you are doing because you like it, it sounds more like there is a giant plant in your head going 'feed me, feed me'.

I believe the OP meant that there are no "social positives" as there are for other things like schools and libraries and theater groups. A positive that goes beyond the person directly engaging in the activity.

[sybylla]

17. And you have a source for your claim

"gambling like tobacco smoking has no positives"?

I know several people who gamble on a regular basis over the past 10+ years for whom the practice is rather harmless. They would spend more if they went to dinner and a movie.

And my brother in law is one of a small percentage of people who actually benefited from smoking cigarettes as his body reacted in an exact opposite manner to it than most. He quit cold-turkey last spring for other health problems and now has to take medication for hypertension which had been mitigated by smoking up to that point.

So I have two anecdotal examples that refute your claim.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew." Mark Twain.

[RebelOne]

4. I do not think gambling is evil.

If some people become addicted to it, it is just like being addicted to a drug. Hard to kick the habit. I don't even play the lottery.

[Book Lover]

5. What type of gambling are you talking about?

I see nothing wrong with playing a game of cards (poker playing *is* a skill, and I personally find it fun), but the Lotto is truly the game for suckers. And what else is pathetic: When the mob ran the lotteries you had a bigger payout relative to your bet, and tickets weren't available to any Joe or Jane who wandered into the convenience store. At least that what my dear uncle tells me...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. You gotta be kidding me. The CHRISTIAN right may be "against" gambling,

but the government as a whole is completely in bed with it.

Abramoff and Safavian both represented gambling interests and had their hooks into the Bush administration big time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=IN7A1S0UQVI9

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.html

Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A01

The Bush administration's top federal procurement official resigned Friday and was arrested yesterday, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. It was the first criminal complaint filed against a government official in the ongoing corruption probe related to Abramoff's activities in Washington.

The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.

...

Like Abramoff, Safavian is a veteran Washington player. He is a former lobbying partner of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and previously worked with Abramoff at another firm. Both he and Abramoff have represented gambling clients and Indian tribes with gambling interests.

[raccoon]

7. I'm against it. I voted against the lottery in my state,

because I think it gives people false hopes. The poor will be buying most of the lottery tickets.

[TalkingDog]

9. Can anybody say "STOCKMARKET"?

There are people who study gambling and gamble professionally. A great number of these people make money (some even do it for a living) gambling. There are people who study investing and invest professionally. A great number of these people make money (some even do it for a living) investing in the stock market.

Make one illegal, you have to make both illegal. Nanny State come on in, Personal Responsibility don't let the screen door bump you in the ass on the way out.

[wuushew]

16. The stock market is much different than gambling

in order to raise money from stocks all companies that are traded offer returns GREATER than are mathematically justified by their risk return attributes. Thus an investment that is worth $2 dollars is actually sold for less than its legitimate value. This is done in order to overcome the premium demanded by the investor class. when portfolios of dissimilar stocks are combined returns average and risks cancel.

To give you an example you could invest in an investment that returns 10% in times of drought or 10% in times of flood. Lets say that these are binary and mutually exclusive states. If they are equally likely a 50/50 portfolio would return 10% such a portfolio with ZERO risk. As long as the economy grows a diversified stock portfolio is the closest thing to risk free money this side of government securities(which don't pay much if anything).



(1) Gambling = a negative return

(2) A coin flip = a fair bet

(3) investment = a fair or better return.

[Greyhound]

21. you are so wrong. There is no difference between the stock "market"

and a fixed roulette wheel. The market makers control it completely. They allow, or cause it, to rise for about 20 years and then it's time to sheer the flock. Lots of people walk away from the poker table winners, but that doesn't make it a fair bet.

[wuushew]

24. I strongly disagree

the owners of issued stocks are the ones that set the market value. You are implying a vast conspiracy that would too monumental to control.

Every company an Eron? I don't think so. Take a look a the classified section accountants are in big time demand. Earnings reports falsified by key personnel in every publicly traded company on the market? I don't think so.

[Greyhound]

39. you are laboring under the false impression that "market value" has

something to do with the companies performance or profits. The prices are set by how many people follow some brokers or institutions recommendations to buy or sell. The "market" is a mindless herd that are moved by two motivations, fear and greed. How many times do they have to play this game before people catch on? Each time they have lured people into this fixed game, they walk away with all of the money.
It doesn't require a "vast" conspiracy just a few people with the means to pull it off. Let's review recent history;

tech and the .com boom - all they needed was to create a false shortage of talent, and they pulled the rug out from the entire industry.
take - $7+ trillion from IRA's, 401(k)'s, Mutual Funds, Pensions.

S & L's - The "free market" panacea of deregulation. Raided the pensions and sold off the means of production.
take - $700 billion

Hunt Bros came within inches of cornering the silver market. Just an accident that they got caught

Fake oil shortage - Oil companies just slowed production and got the media to blame the OPEC embargo.
take - ?? hundreds of billions

It goes on and back to the 19th century, since we allowed congress to abdicate it's primary role of coining.
:tinfoilhat:

[hfojvt]

48. Hunt brothers got caught?

I remember it was well known what they were trying to do. I thought they ran out of money, plus as the price of silver went up, people came out of the woodwork with silver coins and may have increased the supply too much. Not that I studied it, this was just something that happened when I was a young teen.

[Greyhound]

67. me too, but I think I remembered hearing that 1 guy in government

almost by accident, found out. I could be mistaken, but I think the larger point is that most people have no idea what these people are like. They think they're just like them except with fat bank accounts and lots of stuff. They couldn't be more wrong.

[northzax]

25. well that assumes fair distribution of information

and no fraud. The fact remains that, for most people, the market is a gamble. it may well be a safer bet than a slot machine in Vegas, but it is still a wager based on someone else's predicted performance. Your plan of hedging your bets against any eventuality cannot be done (google Long Term Capital Management if you'd like) If it could be done, no one would ever lose money in the market, which simply isn't true. Even Warren Buffet loses money on occasion. Why do you think the real money on Wall Street isn't in making investments for yourself, it's in selling investments to other people? if it was a purely safe gamble then no brokers would exist, they wouldn't need your money to make fortunes, they'd be keeping that information to themselves, making money for themselves. But they don't.

one other thing: you state yourself that As long as the economy grows a diversified stock portfolio is the closest thing to risk free money this side of government securities but the economy doesn't always grow, does it? and you can't safely predict it. If companies knew they could grow without risk, they would never go public and diversify that risk, they could raise all the capital they needed from private sources, why share the revenue with a million shareholders if you can keep it all to yourself? It'd be illogical.

finally, my comments on your original point about gambling: it has nothing to do with equitable distribution of wealth. I have no problem with private gaming, just as I have no problem with other private entertainment options, such as movies, theatre, concerts, sports pay TV, amusement parks and the like. All of them take money from people in exchange from the less weathly and pass it to wealthier individuals. What am I doing by going to the U2 Concert next week but taking money from my pocket and transferring it to a group of people worth a collective billion+ in exchange for a few hours of entertainment? there is nothing inherently socially valuable about it, I gain nothing but the experience. And frankly, I could make my $200 last longer at a casino than two hours, and have the chance of getting some of it back. What are the odds that U2 will refund my ticket after the show?

[wuushew]

28. I never said the market was risk less

just that there is a fundamentally definition difference between gambling and investment.

Investment carries the expectation of a positive return was gambling is a fundamentally loosing proposition.


I have nothing against spending money on a U2 concert, however you with all certainty are exchanging your money which you value for entertainment which you value. Gambling is trading money which one values for the mistaken belief that you can increase the amount you hold. This is a mistaken belief since greater than 50% of the participants will be burned based on this assumption. If they simply valued the social pleasure of a casino by bother risking real money in the first place?

[northzax]

37. because that is the price of admission

just as I have to pay a cover charge to get into a disco, I have to pay money to participate at a casino. Why do you have a problem with the latter and not the former? as long as I am informed of the risks, and the house plays by the rules, I am a willing participant in the game.

you may not see the entertainment value in wagering money, I may, and, as an adult, I am free to do so. I have much better sense of the odds playing blackjack in vegas than buying stocks and bonds. I know I am going to lose money, and I am fine with that, I lose money every day on things you might consider worthless, and I spend a hell of a lot more money, over a year, on beer in my local watering hole that I do in casinos. given that the owner of the bar, and certainly the breweries, are wealthier than average, isn't that simply transferring money from the less well off (me) to the better off (them)?

however, you are right in one sense, compulsive gambling, like compulsive drinking, is a social evil. but I don't want to ban gambling any more than I want to ban drinking, both can be enjoyed without going to excess.

It's interesting that you note that the only difference between investment and gambling is the reasonable expectation of gaining money. So as long as I have a reasonable expectation of what I will earn or lose from gambling, you are fine with it?

on edit: is your arguement basically that if I paid $100 to enter a casino and played with worthless chips, for pure entertainment, that'd be ok, since there is no expectation of return, but entering a casino and putting $100 on a blackjack table, with the possibility of return, is not acceptable?

[ProfessorGAC]

44. This Analysis Is Flawed

For one thing, nearly 90% of all stocks traded are not creating added capital or cash flow to the company by which those shared are issued. The original issuer has NOTHING to do with the price, the risk premium or the projected return because once those shares of equity are sold, the company now only focuses on the cash at hand, the business of their knitting, and how to make the profitability that would make those shares rise. The holding of internal shares in treasury or ESOP's are the motivators for those firms extrinsic to normal operational success.

As a result, the whole market is a speculative enterprise in which RISK is assesed and the odds of making a positive return are intuitively addressed or analytically calculated. That would make it EXACTLY the same as blackjack or roulette.

I won't dispute the fact that industrial gaming creates a cash advantage by manipulating odds and payback in ways that are mathematically unseemly (to a purist), but i also dispute the zero sum aspect to your argument, as any movie theater in one town (vs. a town that has none) could be described the same. Taking money out of one town by moving it to another and providing nothing of lasting value, save the entertainment of those who attended. To suggest that the entertainment value is ultimately zero is hubristic.
The Professor

[wuushew]

47. ProfessorGAC I think we are unnecessarily disagreeing

my attempt was at a basic level simply to outline differences between investment and recreational gambling.

Please do not deny that the risk return ratio of a diversified portfolio is more attractive than that of of a state run lottery where taking off the top prevents even a break even risk/reward ratio.


Do you have any comments in support of legalized and state supported gambling?

[ProfessorGAC]

50. I Would Never Deny That

You are correct, but i also believe you are intentionally clouding the issue to avoid admitting that you're diminishing the intrinsic value of diversion and entertainment to the participant. Your argument cannot be refuted if entertainment has no intrinsic value, but i think it wrong to suggest it so.

I support legalized gambling actually, because the data, as supported by both the gaming industry and social statisticians suggest that the total amount of dollars involved in gambling does not increase by much in the long run. Sure, when a casino first opens the average middle class folks run there, but they stop going when the newness wears off and now we've got state sanctioning of things that were going on underground anyway.

I'm very big on civil liberties being as expansive and unrestricted as is possible. Since these activities occurred anyway, and were criminal enterprises on which no taxation, no accountability, and no regulation existed, i'd rather have it out in the light of day.
The Professor

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. By the way, I agree with you personally that nothing good comes from

gambling, whether it's Lotto or blackjack at Caesar's.

[dcfirefighter]

11. I am pro freedom

And have no problem with legalized gambling. In legal casinos, you get payouts approaching 99%. In illegal numbers games, you get payouts approaching 50%. In state lotteries, you're lucky to get payouts approaching 35%.

An economic panacea, they are not, but legal casinos do bring a whole lot of jobs to an area.

No one is forcing anyone to gamble.

I think it's incorrect to say that the 'propensity to gamble is more prevalent in those with less wealth'. I think the propensity is pretty prevalent accross the board. I think that state lotteries (esp. pick 3, pick 4, and scratch off games) are generally a tax on the poor. I think that illegal numbers games prey on the poor. But a poor person isn't going to last very long at a $25 Blackjack table.

Keep it safe, legal, and rare.

[napi21]

12. You can abuse ANYTHING!

Sure there are some people who can't control themselves, and gamble more than they can afford to lose!

There are also people who drive way too fast. NOT because it's legal, but because they can!

Some abuse alcohol.

Some abuse smoking, eating, shopping, and every other activity!

You can't outlaw stupidity!

I really enjoyed my 2 different trips to Las Vegas. I set aside $100 a day for gambling. If I lost it, it was an already pre-planned vacation expense. As it turned out, I came home net even. I won enough to cover my hotel and gambling, and food was cheap! It was the BEST FREE vacation I could ever hope for!

Beyond that, I buy a lottery ticket maybe once a month or so.

Why do you want to deny me the opportunity to do it?

[Sandpiper]

15. I take a libertarian view when it comes to "Vices"

Don't like gambling? Don't gamble.

Don't like drugs? Don't use them.

and so on.


Just don't try to shove your dislike of them down everyone's throat "for their own good."

I already have a mother. You're not her.

[wuushew]

22. No man is an island...

Personal choice is wonderful because 99% of the time personal choices are more appropriate and in the end more effective that that of an all controlling and tyrannical state.

However doesn't it sadden you for the wisdom learned in a life of gambling is flushed away at the grave only to be repeated by a new generational of mathematically naive?

[Greyhound]

19. Oh yes of course, you know better than I, how I should live my life...

this is such an affront to the concept of liberty. How id this progressive in any way? It is just the same old desire to control others that motivates the anti-choice morans, and why many of us don't like the dems either.
:banghead:

[Seansky]

20. Wait. I feel a bit offended that you attribute this as a right wing vs.

left wing issue...

It is a social issue, regardless of political view. It is an economic issue, regardless of political view. It is a historical making up issue (reservations gambling), regardless of political views.

It is our issue, our communities issue, regardless of our political views.

Anyway, I believe it's a tremendous issue with no immediate solution.

[lizzieforkerry]

23. My dad is a complusive gambler.

I have experienced how this addiction can destroy a man and to some extent a family. It is a difficult addiction to fight because unlike alcohol and drugs, a gambler can not live his life without money, and this is the trigger. After watching my dad all of these years though I have often wondered if he became addicted because it was legal or if he would have become addicted even if it was illegal. I know I can gamble and not be addicted to it. It is just not my personality.

Is it fair to take away this pleasure from others because he can't handle it? I would love to say yes, to blame others for all of his problems. Drugs are illegal and there are plenty of drug addicts and families with people in prison for traficking and possession. So I don't think that model works all that great.

I also see your point that poor people spend their money on this instead of what they need. Maybe what they need is the escape. Do we feel this way about them splurging on going to a nice restaurant or a cruise or going to the movies? If they are truly not addicted to it than they are in control. False hope? Probably, I heard once that 25% of Americans are planning on winning the lottery instead of saving for retirement.

One last thing...a large part of who I am is because of this addiction. I am a Democrat because I learned from a very early age that things happen in people's lives that are out of their control. Hard work can only get you so far. Pell grants helped pave my way to a better life and I am grateful to those who realized that people can help themselves especially when they have a little help along the way. But then again society had to bear the cost of my education because my parent was spending all his money, and many other people's money, on gambling. As a high schooler I could only get min wage jobs to save for college and of course my dad emptied my accounts several times before I could finally convince my bank that he is not allowed to take money out of my account. So I guess I don't know.

[Cats Against Frist]

26. Thought-provoking post

That said, I'm pretty much a libertarian, and I think that casinos are usually subject to a plebiscite, or, at the very least city council or county board approval, which gives the local citizens much opportunity to come out in favor of, or against gambling. I live, 3/4 of the year, in a tiny little town in Iowa that has just past a referendum to build a giant casino, with three hotels, a golf course, and a very large entertainment venue. The referendum passed at 54 percent -- just barely, and the Amish were pissed, (or they got their pantaloons in a druthers, or something).

I think the question of whether or not casino gambling should be legal, from a libertarian perspective is moot. Seems to me to draw a distinction between gambling, prostitution and drug use, is a very arbitrary value set. Of course gambling has an upside -- it's fun, and people like to do it - which is the same "upside" as prostitution and drug use. They all have potential consequences, in terms of "social cost," -- and you could also make the same "liberal" arguments against prostitution (and believe me, I have), and drug use (i.e. prostitution degrades women and wives, drug use makes you stupid and apathetic -- the better to be fucked over by the "corpo-fascists," etc., etc.). At the end of the day, the real issue is whether or not these things are best managed by a "prevailing morality," "choice," and "responsibility," or whether to call in the government, against the thing, and risk ever-encroaching totalitarianism.

The part of your post I'm most interested in, however, is this:

"Is free will truly a human universal if its manifestations can be altered by the environment?"

I'm assuming you meant universal "thing," or condition. I've often thought about how propensities to vice, mental illness, hang-ups, complexes, poor choices, etc., are influenced by external factors. For instance, when I was thinking about leaving my drink-soaked boyfriend in a pile of his own misery, people often said, "well, you have to make sure your son has a relationship with his father." And "absent" or abandoning parents are often cited as the reasons kids go bad. They say those orphans from Romania have "detachment" condition. What if we all lived in communes, and were separated from our parents, at birth? Or if we lived in tribes, where one or more people were considered your parents? How would a different filial arrangement affect our deepest psychological reactions to how we view the affection of our parents?

So, are you asking if people were not poor, would they gamble less? Or are you asking that if there was no such thing as gambling, in the brave new world, that no one would want to?

Any questions and potential arguments on this topic, in my opinion, would not be done justice, unless waged or examined from a full range of psychological, sociological and philosophical -- and, for some, spiritual -- viewpoints. Perhaps there are studies -- or there are other countries/communities, from where data could be mined. If you're curious -- you sound like a very smart person -- do some digging and put together a research design. You could write an anti-gambling manifesto. It could be on all the store shelves...

:)

In other words, I don't have an answer. But tell me if you find it.


***edited for spelling

[Hidden Stillness]

27. The Societal Side of These Issues

I think you have a good point, and I think this should actually be stressed more, as a general, societal statement. As a matter of fact, this kind of opinion is not new--the real Progressives of the early 20th century generally believed that drug and alcohol addiction was an oppression and degradation of the poor, and much of the campaign against it was on that basis, that it robbed the poor of their actual lives, to the enrichment of the same type of anti-social criminal as the slum landlord. Also, today, you often find this kind of campaign in poor black neighborhoods--against cheap crack cocaine and against malt liquor, as rich-white-capitalist attempt to destroy black people, and porn movie theaters and prostitution located in poor neighborhoods, as attempts to destroy the neighborhoods, especially when so many of the cutomers are white males from the suburbs, who don't have to live around this blight that they cause. For that matter, many studies have shown that a large percentage of prostitutes were sexually abused as children, which was how they ended up there. Many of these problems should be re-thought as "capitalist exploitation," etc., and not just endlessly "personalized" the way the media wants--me, me, me.

[mongo]

66. Wonderful rationalizations from the authoritarian left

in order to replace the current set of oppresive values with a new one.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

29. I see your point, but no, I don't think we should outlaw gambling

I agree that gambling can be bad, but it can also be harmless. For example, my parents go to vegas about twice a year to gamble. They save a little money and go and have fun for a week. There's nothing wrong with it as long a it's not controlling your life. It's just like drugs, porn, alcohol, food, etc, in that everything must be done in moderation.

[ck4829]

32. The Right is against Gambling...

Because they want you to invest in Pat Robertson's Energy Shakes.

[Sandpiper]

33. Unless it's church bingo of course

Then it's completely different and not gambling at all!

:sarcasm:

[triguy46]

34. There's an upside to prostitution?

What planet is that on? Are not prostitutes from that demographic with less wealth, or is it ok because its a 'private business model?'

I have very little interest how people spend their money, does it make a difference for someone to buy a lottery ticket or someone with more wealth to buy a ski boat rather than save for their kids college? In both cases there is an opportunity cost and a societal cost, in theory.

Or, is the point, the use of gambling as a tax revenue stream? In that case, I agree. If we want something, then we ought to be big enough to pay for it rather than the gov't being dependent upon gambling. But I don't care to move to prohibition if the issue is "people should spend their money more responsibly."

[wuushew]

38. Enrollment in Social Security is mandatory

there is no libertarian opt out of it. In this case the wisdom of the nanny state seems to have been vindicated.

The tax code is replete with nudges and encouragements to shape personal behavior. Much of it is bad, some of it is good. Are you angered that the government artificially subsidizes the cost of home ownership through the mortgage deduction?

As I said I have no problem with prostitution or recreational drug use. I am not being a hypocrite simply because to make such things illegal carries a higher societal cost then regulating them. To outlaw gambling would drive it underground and lessen it scope. I don't the mafia would be selling lotto tickets at every corner gas station in Amerika.

Organized crime's gains in my mind would more than balanced by the improvement in financial security for millions of Americans. I don't see gambling as the impossible quagmire that prohibition was where the cure is worse than the disease.

[triguy46]

40. Huh? You lost me somewhere...

Crack whores pay social security?

BTW, the mob did control daily lotteries, have you not heard of 'number runners?" In the thirties you could play for as little as a penny.

Help me understand, is the issue that you don't want people to have the opportunity to gamble legally, OR , that the government uses the money to fund education, roads, etc, and as you point out, pretty much ignores the societal costs.

[Fleshdancer]

35. Gambling: A tax on people who are bad at math

I'm big on personal choice. I think gambling is stupid because of the risks involved and so I choose not to do it. But there are a lot of things I think are stupid and carry way too many negative side effects - smoking, eating fried foods everyday, buying a house I can't afford, etc. But should I tell others what to do? I'm just not comfortable with that.

[Silverhair]

36. What does prostitution produce?

Take your post, remove gambling and insert prostitution and most of it could remain intact.

The money could be spent on something more constructive.

It is obvious that the user of the services is in the grip of a "a strong and deterministic coercive force".

The same think could be said of anything that is done that has temporary pleasure as the object being sold. That would go for rides on amusement parks, movies, pretty clothes, dances, concerts, etc.

Your approach was done in China under Mao's day. Do you remember when everyone had to wear a Mao suit?

After gambling, you would look to find the next thing people were spending money on for pleasure and would want to stop that too.

I must oppose you, and the dictatorship that you would create. You would ultimately want to tell us what to do with every aspect of our lives.

[ComerPerro]

41. I gamble. And I expect to lose money

But, I see my losses as paying for the entertainment.

I go to a casino, play a few hours of blackjack, and leave down 20 or 40, depending on how many drinks I buy. I'd spend the same at a club, at a pool hall, whatever.

Hell, I'll play some video poker while having a beer. Fifty cents a hand, or so. End up either up or down by no more than five to ten bucks. Again, not bad, I see it as paying for the amusement.

But, I can certainly appreciate how people can get addicted to this, and some people can be so caught up that they lose millions.

It doesn't have much of an upside, except for the occasional win (that might put you back to breaking even) and the sheer diversion of it.

But that's why they call it a vice.

[Taxloss]

42. Yes and no, in my opinion.

There are moves here in the UK to deregulate gambling and create new Vegas-style "super-casinos". I oppose these plans.

But I enjoy an evening spent playing poker with friends.

An attempt to reconcile these factors would be this: I enter poker night in the full expectation that I may lose my £20 stake, that that will be the end to those losses, and that I will have had a good night out eating home-cooked food and drinking beer from cans that will cost less and I will probably enjoy more than an evening in a restaurant preceded or followed by drinks at a pub or bar.

Corporate gambling is, however, the exploitation of the weak for profit.

For me, that is not a hard distinction to draw.

[Mabus]

43. If it had not been for gambling, many Indian traditions would be gone

Traditional gambling, not casino gambling, is one way that Indian Nations like mine have kept our traditions alive. It is done to remind us about how risky life is, how important decisions can be and, more importantly, and a way for us to get together as a community where we can talk pass down traditions. Gambling games were important to our culture.

"As I point out in the novel, gambling has always been part of Indian tradition. Indian people do not particularly see gambling in moral terms, although of course they recognize the problems that can arise. Rather, they see gambling as a metaphor for life. Life is a chance. And gambling reminds us that each day is a risk, so it is important to live each day as best as possible. Also, gambling is a way of contributing to charity. They assume that, if they lose, someone has won who is more in need of the money." Margaret Coel

Also see Certain Gambling Games of the Klamath Indians

In June of 1900, Dorsey spent a week with the Klamath Indians of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. During this time he obtained some 250 odd ethnological specimens for the Department of Anthropology of the Field Columbian Museum. Among these were collected the equipment from more then ten varieties of games. Dorsey found these games to be of particular interest and importance. He states that gaming devices were probably more subject to adoption by other tribes then any other phase of American Aboriginal life. Dorsey cites the investigations of a Mr. Culin to point out that of the 60 or more games found in North America, they can be limited to five general divisions. Each of these five divisions are said to have possibly had a common origin.

The first class of specimens was noted as ring and javelin games. In this class often times a spear or arrow is hurled at a target, generally a moving ring. This game was popular during winter months to remain sharp and ready for spring hunts.

The second group was recognized as ball games. A good example of this variety is a game played solely by women. Two goals are set up about 100 yards apart and the two teams try to drive a “ball,” made of two wooden billets and connected by a cord about six inches long, through the other teams goal using a short willow pole to move the “ball.”

The third category is listed as ball and pin games. Varieties of this category are games where the object is to catch some type of object like a ball or a cup shaped bone on the end of a bodkin or needle. These are often referred to by other tribes as matrimonial games. (See link for the rest of the gambling games).

[Ksec]

45. If they do away with gambling Mississippi would dry up and blow away

That whole gulf coast is nothing but casinos

[ozarkvet]

53. Lots of new jobs in MS

It is a "right to work" (no required union membership) state.

As a result, Viking Ovens, Hyundai, and Nissan have huge plants there. Indeed, all the Armadas and Titan pickups, in particular, you see on the road are built there.

The state is on its way up, actually --- by preying on union jobs from Detroit --- but in its selfish way, going up.

[Ksec]

55. But the entire coast of Mississippi is casinos

They are the ones who have been blown away.

[ozarkvet]

51. Protecting people

against themselves is pointless.

[wuushew]

54. Its not just discouraging such behavior

state governments actively encourage such behavior by running their own lotteries and dog racing parks.

Why replace one progressive revenue stream with a regressive one?

[ozarkvet]

64. No fan of gambling

And I concur with your problems with it.

But I don't think governments "encourage" the destructive gamblers --- they will find it, just like those with similar problems find crack and whatever else.

By making it legal and above board, governments really encourage the once-a-year gamblers, who are having a good time, at really very little expense.

I've been the the NO casinos. For $20 in quarters, I drank and ate for free all day, had a blast with my friends and walked out. Small price to pay. While there I had the wild dream of getting lucky --- which was very fun.

I think most people have much the same experience.

[bee]

52. I respectfully disagree with any and all attempts

to limit ones personal freedoms. And I will not support an effort to make anything illegal based on someone elses moral judgements. If we limit all industry to those who create "good" then Im afraid there wouldnt be much industry. When subjective phrases such as that become a basis for legislation we're in a serious amount of trouble.

[happyslug]

59. Or you are for Pollution, Smoker's Rights and cat-calls?

Pollution can be a Personal Freedom, if I like the smell of burning tires why should I not be able to exercise my personal freedom to burn tires??? If I want to smoke in a closed in room with non-smokers why should my Personal Freedom to smoke because the non-smokers do not want to smell my cheap stogies? If I see a woman why is my personal freedom to do cat-calls to her restricted by some concept like Sexual harassment and abuse?

Personal Freedom is a broad subject and can include ALL OF THE ABOVE. I hope you do not support them, but if you support "All Personal Freedom" you must also support these "Personal Freedoms".

Society has always had to balance the Personal Freedoms of its members with each other's personal Freedom and with other socialite goals. Gambling addiction is as bad as any drug addiction and only controlled if the Addict is not exposed to gambling (which can only occur where Gambling is illegal). Thus the "Personal Freedom" of a Gambling addict can only be addressed if he or she has no exposure to Gambling. You can only do that if gambling is illegal. Excessive Exposure to Gambling has to be restricted for the benefits of some members of Society like my "Personal Freedom" to make cat-calls is illegal to benefit women to be free from Sexual Harassment, like my "Personal Freedom" to smoke stogies in an enclosed room is restricted so people can breath decent air in such enclosed rooms as is my "Personal Freedom" to burn tires so that people do not have to breath in the carcinogens from the tires.

We as a Society has decided that the balance between your and my "Personal Freedoms" should be to ban the above three "Personal Freedoms". The same with Gambling, it is a "Personal Freedom" that has to be balance with Gambling Addicts "Personal Freedom" from being exposures to Gambling. Right now the situation has switched to much to permitting Gambling even if the Social Costs are to high, hopefully society will switch to more restrictions on Gambling but to many people see to much easy money in gambling for the change to occur without first seeing the harms caused by the gambling (Harms while know for centuries and the reason Gambling was Illegal for decades in most of the US).

[mongo]

74. So you can't make a distinction between an activity that harms

or infringes the rights of another person and an activity that does not.

Smoking in a closed room with non-smokers harms the non-smokers.

Sexual harrassment harms the person being harassed.

So you want to outlaw gambling for the "personal freedom" of a gambling addict. That is rich.

I love how the authoritarian left can use the appeal of "freedom" when making arguments to take away an individuals choices.

[happyslug]

76. When Individual Choices HARM others, such choices must be restricted.

In today's society you can NOT get away from being exposed to harms, it is one of the costs of living in a modern Urban society. The real question is how to regulate the harms so that society suffers the least harm while maintaining individual choice.

If you fully read my message you would have seen I did advocated balancing the right to gambling with other people's right to be free from seeing gambling. Any one who has studied vice will tell you banning it does not end it, but it is often the best way to regulate the vice (Prostitution is the classic example, banning prostitution does NOT send every prostitute to a convent, but permit regulation when it gets out of hand).

Gambling is a vice, it is effective in that like all vices it is pleasurable at the time for the harm is not seen immediately but days, weeks and months later (Often out of site and hidden by the Gambling industry for exposure to such result would cut back on gambling).

My problem with gambling is that in today's urban society where something is legal it is almost impossible to get away from it (whatever it is). Where can I go out in the public and NOT see football ads, banners, or other miscellaneous football items. If I hate football why should I have to see these items? The reason is we live in a Modern Urban Society where you exposed to ads from all types of legal items while you travel on the public way (including your TV and radio). How do you STOP people from Being exposed to such constant advocation of merchandise? The answer is you can not if the item is legal. You can keep it from the public eye if it is illegal.

When I was in Vegas Last year you had Slot machines in the Airport and everywhere else in town. You could NOT get away from the gambling if you were in Vegas. In the other gambling meccas the same problem exists. For example in Atlantic City the buses drive you to the Casino and for all practical purposes it is hard to get out except when it is time for the Bus to leave. You hear similar stories about other Gambling Meccas.

My fear is that you will soon be unable to go to any urban area and NOT see gambling signs for gambling would be legal. When Gambling was last legal in most of the US, the US was still mostly rural and even then the Urban areas had seen the bad side of Gambling and passed the restrictions (and these increased as urbanization increased throughout the 20th Century). The reason is the Cities could not afford the costs of Gambling, the men, women and children without food and housing. The Cities had enough of problem with poor people without jobs do to Alcohol and Drugs they did not need gambling to finish the cities off.

Thus the problem is NOT gambling pe se, but the constant advocation of Gambling that will occur when and if it is legal. Today gambling is illegal except for very limited locations (Las Vegas, Atlantic City etc) or time periods (For example fairs etc). Such limited gambling provides most of the fun with minimal amount of risk to society. Such Limited opportunity to gamble is what keeping the ban on Gambling is all about.

[Fescue4u]

56. Gambling only hurts the participants

Therefore Freedom trumps dogooder intrusion.

[Ron Green]

57. Should laws and public policy encourage some things and discourage others?

Most of the posts on this thread have taken a libertarian position, or given anecdotal evidence for or against gambling. How about the question of what should be the proper role of government in encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors? Governments have built libraries, but not opium dens; they have set aside land for parks and hiking, but not for cruising for sex. The "pursuit of happiness" clearly occupies a spectrum of pursuits, some of which belong to a higher and more productive part of our nature and some to a baser and more immediately-craving part.

If there is a more mature and "human" self along with a desperate and "desiring" one, it seems reasonable that government should seek to encourage activities that ennoble the "higher" self and discourage those things - drugs, prostitution, gambling, quick fixes, short cuts - that are readily supplied by the open market.

Gambling, in and of itself, is a pleasant-enough vice for many people and a powerful and fatal addiction for some. When it is actually promoted by government, rather that simply regulated, the market has successfully wrested the government from its moorings as the promoter of the general welfare.

[happyslug]

58. Why is Gambling so Evil?

The primary reason is that Gambling relies on the Hunting/Gathering instinct in man. That instinct is to repeat an action that once provided a positive. In most situation this is advantageous in that the benefit overcomes the odds. For example when stone age man hunted (or look for other food) for game (or other food) he would follow certain paths (or go to certain areas to look for food like berries, seeds, and other non-meat food). Most times he would fail, but every so often he would be able to kill a game animal (Or find seeds and berry ripe for picking). Gambling is based on this ancient instinct, we do something that often fails but when it succeeds the gain exceeds all of the losses including the number of times one had FAILED to kill game (Or find riped food). This is how stone age man hunted and obtained game (and other food), the instinct is deep within all of us.

Gambling takes this instinct and uses it against people. The house (and by "house" I mean to person providing the gambling game) makes sure the odds are in its favor, AND at the same time makes sure people win enough to kick in the above instinct. The odds are close to breaking even for if the odds are to low the instinct will NOT kick in AND IT IT THAT INSTINCT THAT THE HOUSE RELIES ON FOR ITS PROFITS.

This is why organized Gambling is so bad, it is designed to fleece people and continue to fleece them based on very basic human instincts. It is HARD to fight that instinct for as a general rule going with that instinct is to your advantage (i.e. failing several time but winning once in a while pays provided the winning exceeds the total effort, in Hunting that is often the case, in Gambling it is rarely the case).

Thus from the start of recorded history you have efforts to restrict gambling. Efforts are made to keep it limited and honest and also to minimize its harm to individuals and society. During Rural days the mere fact people were so spread out minimize the problem of Gambling, you just could not get together enough people for full-time gambling to take place and thus most of the harm of gambling are minimized.

On the other hand in the Cities and Towns you had the population base to support organized FULL-TIME Gambling. Cities and Towns tended to at first permit such gambling (For it brought in revenue) but than started to ban it as the harm caused by Full-Time Gambling become apparent. The Towns did not always ban gambling completely, the Towns still liked the revenue Gambling brought in, but if only permitted a few days a month (or a few weeks a year) the number of people gambling all of their money away to win what they have lost back is minimized. You have less people in the town poor-house do to having lost all of their money gambling. You have less children starving do to the fact their parents gambled their money away.

With urbanization the gains and costs of Gambling became high but the costs became to high for most urban areas to tolerate. Thus the movement to outlawed gambling ran hand in hand with the raise of urbanization beginning in the late 1800s (The Biggest trigger was the corruption tied in with the Louisiana Lottery, where not only were the money raised to fix the levies stolen, but the corrupt officials even arranged to rob most of the "Winners" of the Lottery). Thus Gambling was illegal for decades.

While making gambling illegal did NOT end gambling, most of the costs involved with Gambling were minimized by Gambling's illegal status. For example one of the reason Vegas Slot machines use coins is that you can hear you or anyone else who win. The coins falling become part of the instant gratification of the above hunting/gathering instinct. When Gambling is illegal you just can not have that noise, even if you pay off the Police other people will hear it and force the Police to act, thus illegal gambling tend to be very quiet affairs (The numbers racket for example). Being quiet and discrete most people can not play the illegal numbers all of the time. Horses tracks permitted legal gambling bu the harm was minimized by the time the tracks were permitted to be open (Through illegal horse parlors were popular but had to be quiet to minimize pressure to close them).

Thus the problem of legal Gambling is not only the size and concentration of the operations but the increase level of sound. When gambling is no longer illegal the Gambling Casino can be as loud as they want to be. Thus further catering to the corruption of the Hunting/Gathering instinct. Gambling kept limited by Social practice (i.e. only permitted during certain places and time) can be an enjoyable pastime, but the problem that people can and will become addicted to it must be addressed and once addressed you realized that the only way to address gambling addiction is to make sure the addict has no exposure to Gambling. The problem is when Gambling is legal the addict has no one to avoid the sounds and sight of Gambling. In Simple term the only way to control Gambling addiction is to minimize exposure to gambling and that can only be done if gambling is illegal.

Gambling addiction (Which is what the concern is) is best sized up by an old saying my Father always said about people who bet on the horses "Horsemen always brag about they winnings, but I never saw one with a new car".

[NorthernSpy]

60. great post! gambling should not be permitted on the commercial level

Poker games among friends are one thing, but tolerating the existence of a gambling industry is something else entirely.

[Ron Green]

62. Not only tolerating the existence of the industry, but SUPPORTING it and

encouraging it (as with the Mississippi casinos) seems to qualify as public policy that panders to a baser need.

[sepia_steel]

61. I don't think we have the right to tell people that they can't do somethin

that they enjoy doing. We can't legislate against every pastime in the world - all pastimes can be troublef or tosme people. I TRULY WISH we could ban cigarettes, but that wouldn't be right, either.

Okay, and i'm not including the obvious things that hurt other people - i'm not okay with kiddie porn, for example. I'm talking about things that can be done without huting others people.

[jobycom]

63. I'm more against the evils of baseball, movies and Broadway

What do you get from those? You plop down your money for a couple hours entertainment (less if you're a Rangers fan), and walk away broke with nothing to show for it. At least with gambling you can have your fun and there's always the chance you'll get some of your money back. Not so with baseball, movies or Broadway.

[pitohui]

65. jobycom has it right

you know, it doesn't take a very big man to kick somebody while they're down, but the anti-gambling whackoes are being pretty shameless abt it

we will re-build & to hell w. the negativity

entertainment is not a sin, pleasure is not a sin

[devilgrrl]

68. Since when is the left proponents of gambling?

What a pile of bullshit this thread is. :nuke:

BTW, gambling is for idiots.

[radwriter0555]

71. What's evil about gambling? It's no different than playing the stock

market. It's games.

Enjoyment.

Fun.

Amusement.

What's the offence?

[KamaAina]

72. The right is against gambling?

Guess Bill Bennett didn't get the memo...

[sweetheart]

73. gambling prohibition

I frankly never gave it consideration. You're right of course, but i
would never see it as a crime to bet on a football game with your
mates, or bet on a poker game at home. So what i'm hearing is that
you would not license "public" gambling, but if it was a private thing
not organized as a company per se, then that would remain a going
deal. That will never go away anways. There will always be bookies
who take bets on things, so there's teh prohibition argument of
harm reduction, that to make gambling "illegal" only drives it in to
the criminal underworld.

So perhaps keeping it legal and licensed ... but like you say, if it
were a financial company, the regulators would shut it down, so why is
it allowed to trade in such crap?

[SteppingRazor]

75. I'm all for gambling...

I'm a big poker player -- and, for the record, I was before it was hip -- and I love gambling.

I think it's foolish to look at gambling as an investment, or to compare the two. I look at gambling as entertainment. If I buy $80 worth of chips, and I play for six hours. that works out to about $13/hour -- about the price of a movie.

Occasionally, you make some money, but that's not the point. The point is having fun at a competitive game.