Should Gambling be Legal

[Plasmaball]

Is that what you think? So did these guys who don't have a normal response to saying no to risk-taking:

A 40 year old Illinois woman gambled away her family's savings and her wedding ring on a riverboat casino. When she found out that the sheriff was on his way to evict her and her family for missing 17 consecutive mortgage payments, she drove to a mall parking lot and shot herself. She left a husband who did not even know that his wife gambled, let alone had a gambling problem.

• Jason Berg killed himself after running up a huge gambling loss. He left a suicide note which simply read, "I'm out of control." He was 19 years old.

• Cuong Thu Cam fatally shot two friends and later committed suicide. He was despondent over his gambling debts and owed as much as $200,000.

• A bank robbery occurred in San Jose. The robber was found within a couple of hours waiting for a seat at the gaming table inside a club.

• In Oregon, a County Commissioner was recalled in 1995 after pleading guilty to embezzling county funds to fuel his compulsive gambling.

Tough shit, regardless nanny stater people like you are an issue. Oh how i hope i never see you in a thread where someone bans soda or anything. I dont need to watch you decry "FREEDOM" and tyranny and crap.

Which i know you will

When did you start hating the nanny state comrade?

right around when towns started banning dodgeball.

 

[Two Thumbs]

In Il they made river boat gambling legal, only problem was they had to actually get underway, so the tax money only went to the state (who wasted it). and since they had to get underway, they lost out on income. year or Two later, they got to stay in port (couldn't be on land) and every little town that had one thrived, and thrived so well they didn't know what to do with all the money they had coming in.

I wouldn't recommend anyone gamble with more than they plan on losing, but if someone wants to open a casino in your town, support it.

 

[eflatminor]

I think gambling should be legal.

I would suggest that when we look at ANY activity undertaken by consenting adults, we should ask ourselves if that activity either harms or takes from another. If the answer is no, then there is no place for government to even consider the legality of said activity.

Stated differently, OF COURSE gambling should be legal.

 

[eflatminor]

Yes, but with restrictions.

Well, I suppose states, NOT the federal government, are free to restrict such things...however futile and unnecessary those restrictions might be. Read on...

Mostly as to placement of gambling devices and casinos like not near places for children like grade schools, playgrounds, etc.

What's "near"? Who gets to determine that? And if a playground is built near an existing gambling establishment, do you think the government should get to destroy that business...or should we now restrict the building of schools and playgrounds near gambling establishments?

A slippery slope, no?

And as with many consumer product safety labels, odds should be well-posted at every game or device informing the user exactly what their chances are of positive outcomes.

Why would we need government for that? If consumers demand that such labels be posted, gambling establishments will provide that information or be pushed out of business by those that do. If an establishment posts false information, well, there's already laws against that not to mention legal action.

You're looking to the nanny state to protect people from themselves. Bad idea.

Are many things I don't enjoy or feel positively about I think should be legal nonetheless. If people wanna throw their money away that's their right. Just because I think they're stupid and irresponsible is no legal justification to forbid it under the laws of a free country

Well at least we agree on that.

 

[eflatminor]

First thing any gambler should learn is that the house always wins.

True, which is why I only play poker. There, you're playing other people, not the house.

Second, I bet many of you gambler supporters are really glad when the guy with the gambling addiction causes his wife and kids to apply for food stamps and welfare.

Or better yet, when those on welfare line up to play what few meager dollars they have, they play on the lotto. Why some times when I am standing in line while this person plays all their numbers, why it's just like they have a job or something.

Irresponsible government meddling does not justify further irresponsible government meddling. Sorry.

Bet you all like the poverty and misery that gambling brings to way to many families.

Well that's just a stupid thing to say. Nobody "likes" those that can't control their own actions. That doesn't however mean that we all think government should be responsible for restriction those actions.

Don't believe me? Google "gambling addiction"

Everyone understands some weak willed people can become addicted to gambling. It's not my problem nor that of the government.

 

[House]

What's "near"? Who gets to determine that? And if a playground is built near an existing gambling establishment, do you think the government should get to destroy that business...or should we now restrict the building of schools and playgrounds near gambling establishments?

A slippery slope, no?

No, just short-sighted tomfoolery. Such laws already exist for adult bookstores, strip clubs, and other businesses of a nature that children have no need to be exposed to. You're clutching at straws, there.

What is your problem with protecting children from the higher crime rates that statistically surround gambling establishments?

I wouldn't want little Johnny to be mugged for his milk money on his way to school. Why do you?

 

[eflatminor]

A 40 year old Illinois woman gambled away her family's savings and her wedding ring on a riverboat casino. When she found out that the sheriff was on his way to evict her and her family for missing 17 consecutive mortgage payments, she drove to a mall parking lot and shot herself. She left a husband who did not even know that his wife gambled, let alone had a gambling problem.

• Jason Berg killed himself after running up a huge gambling loss. He left a suicide note which simply read, "I'm out of control." He was 19 years old.

• Cuong Thu Cam fatally shot two friends and later committed suicide. He was despondent over his gambling debts and owed as much as $200,000.

• A bank robbery occurred in San Jose. The robber was found within a couple of hours waiting for a seat at the gaming table inside a club.

• In Oregon, a County Commissioner was recalled in 1995 after pleading guilty to embezzling county funds to fuel his compulsive gambling.

All unfortunate circumstances to be sure. Still not my, or the government's problem. Sorry, you don't know what's best for everyone else.

 

[eflatminor]

Tough shit, regardless nanny stater people like you are an issue. Oh how i hope i never see you in a thread where someone bans soda or anything. I dont need to watch you decry "FREEDOM" and tyranny and crap.

Which i know you will

When did you start hating the nanny state comrade?

right around when towns started banning dodgeball.

Well, perhaps there is hope!

 

[Contumacious]

Apparently, the Super Bowl the heaviest betting event on the planet, with some $10,000,000,000 wagered over this game. Which got me thinking, should all gambling be legalized?

Some gambling is legalized. The government generates big money through lotteries. Some states say its OK while others don't. So people who want to gamble just go to those states.

I think gambling should be legal. It's silly that the government is telling us how we can spend our money.

What do you think?

I am certain you meant to say "Should Gambling be decriminalized" since we are free people we have a right to gamble.

.

 

[Bill Angel]

While I realize that the USA is a libertarian society where the "pursuit of happiness" could include frittering away ones time and money at a casino, I was still put off by how the presence of a new casino in Baltimore was being promoted. Slogans like "Moderation is Overrated" and "Limits are for Lesser Casinos", which appear on promotional signs at the construction site, seem to be meant to encourage gambling behavior that is considered to be an addiction.

 

[eflatminor]

What's "near"? Who gets to determine that? And if a playground is built near an existing gambling establishment, do you think the government should get to destroy that business...or should we now restrict the building of schools and playgrounds near gambling establishments?

A slippery slope, no?

No, just short-sighted tomfoolery. Such laws already exist for adult bookstores, strip clubs, and other businesses of a nature that children have no need to be exposed to. You're clutching at straws, there.

Disagree. I would say it's perfectly fine to restrict children from entering such an establishment, but I have too much respect for private property rights to tell a person that they can't operate a gambling establishment because you think your kid can't handle being "exposed" to such a thing.

What is your problem with protecting children from the higher crime rates that statistically surround gambling establishments?

False comparison. Higher crime rates happen around gambling establishment BECAUSE the nanny staters force them into high crime areas. Sorry, you can't cause a problem and then claim credit for preventing that same problem.

I wouldn't want little Johnny to be mugged for his milk money on his way to school. Why do you?

What was that you said about grasping at straws???

 

[eflatminor]

While I realize that the USA is a libertarian society

From your lips...

 

[Big Black Dog]

Should Gambling be Legal

Sure. Why not? However, you need to know your limitations when it comes to gambling. Knowing when to quit is the key. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be gambling.

 

[House]

What's "near"? Who gets to determine that? And if a playground is built near an existing gambling establishment, do you think the government should get to destroy that business...or should we now restrict the building of schools and playgrounds near gambling establishments?

A slippery slope, no?

No, just short-sighted tomfoolery. Such laws already exist for adult bookstores, strip clubs, and other businesses of a nature that children have no need to be exposed to. You're clutching at straws, there.

Disagree.

Disagree with facts all you want, says volumes about you.

 

[eflatminor]

No, just short-sighted tomfoolery. Such laws already exist for adult bookstores, strip clubs, and other businesses of a nature that children have no need to be exposed to. You're clutching at straws, there.

Disagree.

Disagree with facts all you want, says volumes about you.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you and rest of the central planners...or is it hall monitors...that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else.

Yea, pass.

 

[Papawx3]

First thing any gambler should learn is that the house always wins.

True, which is why I only play poker. There, you're playing other people, not the house.

Second, I bet many of you gambler supporters are really glad when the guy with the gambling addiction causes his wife and kids to apply for food stamps and welfare.

Or better yet, when those on welfare line up to play what few meager dollars they have, they play on the lotto. Why some times when I am standing in line while this person plays all their numbers, why it's just like they have a job or something.

Irresponsible government meddling does not justify further irresponsible government meddling. Sorry.

Bet you all like the poverty and misery that gambling brings to way to many families.

Well that's just a stupid thing to say. Nobody "likes" those that can't control their own actions. That doesn't however mean that we all think government should be responsible for restriction those actions.

Don't believe me? Google "gambling addiction"

Everyone understands some weak willed people can become addicted to gambling. It's not my problem nor that of the government.

Correct on all counts. Who is to say that the person losing his/her money can't afford to lose it? Some government busy-body? If the government wants to keep tabs on everyone it/we support via welfare, food stamps etc., and restrict those public aid recipients from gambling that money away (or spending it on drugs, alcohol, etc.) then so be it. I have no problem with that.
But if I want to gamble my own money away, it's no one's business but my own.