Gambling

[han]

I think the effect of allowing gambling in a state is negative, but I would be hesitant to prohibit it. I enjoyed the Las Vegas nationals a lot but I think the casinos are very sad places that I plan to never visit again.

 

Phil's puritan argument is interesting but does he apply it to heroine as well? If not, where does he draw the line? In gambling some people are trying to make as much money as they can at the expense of others whose lives are ruined. Now, not every person who makes a gamble has his or her life ruined but the same can be said about drugs.

 

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

 

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

[ASkolnick]

Slightly off the topic but related to Mike777 question about why are some forms of gambling legal and some are not?

 

This was brought up by Barbados and Antigua about the GATS agreement where the US had signed an agreement not to be part of "off-site" gambling. After the US signed this, they decided to rescind their statement. I believe the WTO () found the US in violation of this agreement since you either were "all" or none and as punishment, copyright laws are not protected in those two countries.

 

I believe this is being appealed.

 

As for gambling,

I have no problem not "banning" slot machines. Not my cup of tea, but that doesn't matter since I don't think it has an affect on most people.

 

As for the "extra" money towards education, the problem is I'm always suspicious. It seems every time a "gambling" proposal wants to go through, they say its for education. I would like to see in the states where gambling started what the jump was between the "non-gambling" year to the "gambling" year adjusted for Cost of Living, Inflation etc. My guess is you really are not going to see a big increase.

[Gerben42]

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

 

What this means is that gambling is a way of getting in more taxes, which can help pay for education. Also, the gambling industry creates a lot of jobs, many of which are relatively secure.

 

It's in interesting question to what extent the government should regulate things that may be addictive, as addictions can be harmful. On the other hand, if you forbid gambling, people who are addicted will be forced into crime because you just defined their behaviour as a crime. This will cause people to hide, rather than getting help.

 

In the Netherlands we have very good examples of how legalization of certain type of addictive substances has helped the addicted to get away from them. So, I'm for less regulations in this area.

 

I agree with Han that the slot machine areas of large casinos are very sad places, and probably people shouldn't be allowed to sit there for hours like they do. Those who do, really have a serious problem. But that can't be the reason to forbid gambling.

[jdonn]

I think the effect of allowing gambling in a state is negative, but I would be hesitant to prohibit it. I enjoyed the Las Vegas nationals a lot but I think the casinos are very sad places that I plan to never visit again.

The Las Vegas Hilton casino (and other casinos in that area, ie Riviera, Sahara) is a relatively dreary place. In a shocking move, the ACBL has discovered that the sadder casinos are less expensive places to hold large tournament than the happier ones. I recommend you come by the MGM Grand sometime, it's much more joyous and everyone's a winner! :lol:

 

Phil's puritan argument is interesting but does he apply it to heroine as well? If not, where does he draw the line? In gambling some people are trying to make as much money as they can at the expense of others whose lives are ruined. Now, not every person who makes a gamble has his or her life ruined but the same can be said about drugs.

You can also make the same argument against McDonalds. The casino industry here has been very proactive in trying to prevent problem gambling and get help for addicted gamblers.

 

Who says heroine should be illegal anyway? (uh oh)

 

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

I don't think the argument is "we need it", but just "it can help". I don't see why that is scary. Maybe we should be donating money to the highway fund and the local fire department instead of taxing cigarettes, but I bet you would raise a lot less money that way.

 

Here it's not so much an education issue anyway (I think our state ranks 49th in education) as it is a tax thing. Gambling taxes pay for schools instead of income taxes, so the schools break even but the income-earning non-gamblers are the winners. I think it would be different in Massachusetts though.

 

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

I don't think anyone has written that? But such a thing certainly can be good, which of course doesn't mean it has to be.

[mike777]

Perhaps another way to look at legalized gambling, drugs, prostitution etc is too what lengths, costs, restrictions of total freedom should society go to protect the most vulnerable members of its society.

 

What if any values does a society/the state want to encourage, what if any behavior does society/the state want to encourage/discourage?

 

OTOH if the goal is too maximize revenue to help the CHILDREN, ok.

If the test is it only hurts somepeople/families but not most....then......

 

For example more and more states are banning dog racing gambling. Even though this means less revenue for the CHILDREN! BTW the reason for this ban seems to have nothing to do with stopping the addiction that hurts families/humans. :lol:

[barmar]

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

I don't think anyone has written that? But such a thing certainly can be good, which of course doesn't mean it has to be.

I guess I kind of said that, but it's not how I intended it to be interpreted. I phrased it in the negative: if something doesn't harm too many people, a ban may not be justified. This certainly isn't an absolute, as you also have to consider the amount of harm it does to the people that are impacted, as well as the value that comes from allowing it (which, discussions like this, includes the general benefits of freedom).

[barmar]

That being said, the point that this is different from a law that would permit free reign libertarian gambling, which has philosophical appeal to you, strikes me as a bit odd. It sort of reminds me of a hypothetical world in which chess, checkers, bridge, and backgammon were illegal, and you think they should all be legal. Then if a ballot initiative comes up to legalize checkers, you don't really like it, and you say, "Well, this isn't really what I'd support. It wouldn't make chess, bridge, or backgammon legal."

 

I understand that it's more complex than that, but it sounds like there's an element of it, which strikes me as a bit counterintuitive.

Very good point. Many pundits like to use arguments like this to label their opponents as hypocritical. For instance, Bill Maher used to frequently have discussions on his program regarding anti-smoking crusaders. He'd ask why they focus on this one vice, and not other problems like obesity (that always seemed to be the example he used). There's a simple answer: you pick your battles, because you can't solve all the problems of the world at once.

 

In the hypothetical Lobo gives, there's often a good reason why an initiative would be written that way: baby steps. It can be very difficult to get people to accept a major reversal in policy, like going from most gambling prohibited to all gambling allowed. But people will often allow small changes, like making one more game legal. Some will point out the slippery slope, but that may not be enough to prevent passage of the bill, whereas actually going to the bottom of the slope would never make it through the vote.

 

Why slots? Probably because it has few negative connotations. Poker and dice games are associated with wild west saloons and back alleys. Slot machines are pretty, with lots of twinkling lights and bells. Horse racing is legal in many states because it's the "sport of kings", linking it psychologically with noble pursuits rather than vices.

[pclayton]

I think the effect of allowing gambling in a state is negative, but I would be hesitant to prohibit it. I enjoyed the Las Vegas nationals a lot but I think the casinos are very sad places that I plan to never visit again.

 

Phil's puritan argument is interesting but does he apply it to heroine as well? If not, where does he draw the line? In gambling some people are trying to make as much money as they can at the expense of others whose lives are ruined. Now, not every person who makes a gamble has his or her life ruined but the same can be said about drugs.

 

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

 

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

I've just never seen a need to ban things like gambling.

 

Heroin(e) is trickier. I think there are certain drugs that can cause chemical changes to the brain that remove reason and create addictions that are really tough to break. I could say the same thing about smoking I suppose.

 

I hate using justifying vices by saying that if the state benefits its OK. This does have a curious logic to it however. You can create social problems, and then tax your way out of them while providing a form of entertainment.

[Lobowolf]

I think there are certain drugs that can cause chemical changes to the brain that remove reason and create addictions that are really tough to break. I could say the same thing about smoking I suppose.

This is correct (both the chemical changes part and the smoking part). Neurotransmitters and the brain's physical reactions to various drugs is a field my father is around the top of; it's been his life's work for decades. More problematic than heroin is cocaine. I remember a study he told me about in which addicted lab rats given unlimited access to heroin would press levers to get heroin fixes when needed, then go about their lab rat lives; addicted lab rats given unlimited access to cocaine would take it and take it and take it and take it and die.

[kenberg]

That being said, the point that this is different from a law that would permit free reign libertarian gambling, which has philosophical appeal to you, strikes me as a bit odd.  It sort of reminds me of a hypothetical world in which chess, checkers, bridge, and backgammon were illegal, and you think they should all be legal.  Then if a ballot initiative comes up to legalize checkers, you don't really like it, and you say, "Well, this isn't really what I'd support.  It wouldn't make chess, bridge, or backgammon legal." 

 

I understand that it's more complex than that, but it sounds like there's an element of it, which strikes me as a bit counterintuitive.

Very good point. Many pundits like to use arguments like this to label their opponents as hypocritical. For instance, Bill Maher used to frequently have discussions on his program regarding anti-smoking crusaders. He'd ask why they focus on this one vice, and not other problems like obesity (that always seemed to be the example he used). There's a simple answer: you pick your battles, because you can't solve all the problems of the world at once.

 

In the hypothetical Lobo gives, there's often a good reason why an initiative would be written that way: baby steps. It can be very difficult to get people to accept a major reversal in policy, like going from most gambling prohibited to all gambling allowed. But people will often allow small changes, like making one more game legal. Some will point out the slippery slope, but that may not be enough to prevent passage of the bill, whereas actually going to the bottom of the slope would never make it through the vote.

 

Why slots? Probably because it has few negative connotations. Poker and dice games are associated with wild west saloons and back alleys. Slot machines are pretty, with lots of twinkling lights and bells. Horse racing is legal in many states because it's the "sport of kings", linking it psychologically with noble pursuits rather than vices.

A very good point for rebutting an argument I haven't made. If I liked x,y,z, all being illegal, and someone suggested legalizing x I would vote yes. Of course. A point that shows that I should do something that obviously I and everyone else would do is not that strong an argument. The problem here, as I have repeatedly said, is that in this case the legalization consists of a business deal in which supposedly I will benefit if I vote yes. For reasons I find sufficient, I am not willing to sign on the dotted line until there is a great deal more clarity about just how it is that I will benefit. It's a business offer. The slots industry and the legislature want my signature. If they want it badly enough they may decide to be more clear about the details and the promises. Otoh, maybe being more clear will not help their case. I suspect that this may be so.

[Lobowolf]

You're choosing to construe it as a business deal; however, you've also indicated some philsophical agreement with legalizing all types of gambling between consenting adults. That being the case, you could certainly choose to construe this, instead of a business deal, as a measure that would legalize one form of gambling that consenting adults could engage in.

[mike777]

IMO if the state wants to legalize and encourage gambling no problem as long as it sets up a fund to help the children of families for any actual damage they may incure and pain and suffering. After all the MAIN purpose of this is too help the children after all. :P

[Lobowolf]

Mike, Forrest Gump called...he wants his royalties for all those "Have a nice day!" smileys you're burning through!

[kenberg]

You're choosing to construe it as a business deal; however, you've also indicated some philsophical agreement with legalizing all types of gambling between consenting adults. That being the case, you could certainly choose to construe this, instead of a business deal, as a measure that would legalize one form of gambling that consenting adults could engage in.

Oh it is a business deal, no doubt about it. If anything can be stated as fact, this would be it. Clearly the slots industry profits. There is a claim that it will revitalize the horse racing industry and save the Preakness. There is a claim that we can supply much needed funds for schools while keeping my taxes low (well, low might not be the word, but not go any higher). If it were just a matter of legalizing slots so people who like slots could play slots my approach to this would be great disinterest. If there is a referendum on changing the hunting season for deer, I don't care about the outcome. If I thought this didn't have a substantial financial impact I would give it no more thought than I give to what the proper hunting season should be. No one, as far as I know, is presenting this issue as being something good we would be doing for slots players. It is being presented as something that is good for the state. A business deal it is.

[jdonn]

Let's says you are in favor of making giant tanks legal for consumer purchase. Let's say the reason you are in favor of that proposal is that you feel it's your right to keep a giant tank in your front yard to protect your family. Then let's say your local government proposes making it legal to buy tanks, but on the logic that they feel it will create a booming tank economy in the area and be prosperous for all. Say you decide it is ludicrous to think this would help your economy in any way. Well, even if you are right who cares? You would vote against a measure that you are otherwise in favor of, simply because you don't agree with the reasoning put forth? You can use any reasoning you want. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face, except since you don't want to play slot machines yourself you are doing it to innocent people instead.

[mike777]

Given that the Maryland teachers unions, casinos and race tracks are for this not sure how it can fail to pass.

 

When it can help so many and give entertainment value to so many....who is against teachers and fun?

[Lobowolf]

You're choosing to construe it as a business deal; however, you've also indicated some philsophical agreement with legalizing all types of gambling between consenting adults.  That being the case, you could certainly choose to construe this, instead of a business deal, as a measure that would legalize one form of gambling that consenting adults could engage in.

Oh it is a business deal, no doubt about it. If anything can be stated as fact, this would be it. Clearly the slots industry profits. There is a claim that it will revitalize the horse racing industry and save the Preakness. There is a claim that we can supply much needed funds for schools while keeping my taxes low (well, low might not be the word, but not go any higher). If it were just a matter of legalizing slots so people who like slots could play slots my approach to this would be great disinterest. If there is a referendum on changing the hunting season for deer, I don't care about the outcome. If I thought this didn't have a substantial financial impact I would give it no more thought than I give to what the proper hunting season should be. No one, as far as I know, is presenting this issue as being something good we would be doing for slots players. It is being presented as something that is good for the state. A business deal it is.

It's seen primarily by the state as a business deal, because revenue is worth more to legislators than libertarian goodwill, and it's marketed as a business deal, because it's easier to sell (to the public at large; not necessarily to you) economic benefits than "let's let people who like to play slot machines do so here."

 

Nevertheless, it is also a decriminalization of one form of recreational gambling. You don't have to view it as purely a business deal; however, you apparently choose to. That's a value-neutral comment. I'm not saying that it's bad that you're choosing to. I'm just saying that it's surprising to me, given your expression of some inclination to favorably view widescale gambling as recreation by consenting adults.

[y66]

From Supreme Court Ruling Favors Sports Betting by Adam Liptak at NYT:

 

In a boost for the prospect of commercial sports gambling across the nation, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal law that effectively banned such gambling in most states.

 

The case concerned New Jersey, but it has implications for other states eager to allow and tax sports gambling. Americans are estimated to annually place $150 billion in illegal wagers on sports.

[kenberg]

Huh. I had forgotten all about this thread. Maybe I will try to see if ten years later this has really been a help to the schools in the way that was promised? Want to bet on it?!? My objection tp slots pretty much remains the same. If people are taking care of themselves without any special assistance they can spend their money as they wish. But from what I see, most people who gamble on one day are around for financial help pn the next day. I am fine with helping people, I an fine with letting people do as they wish with their own money. I am not so fine with giving people money to feed their kids and then having them put half of it in a slot machine.

 

This betting on games has problems of its own. In theory it rewards good judgment. Exactly how the rewards go in practice is perhaps something else

 

I don't much like any of it, I have come to accept it.