[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.

[Lobowolf]

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

[kenberg]

Lobowolf, on Oct 2 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

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]

kenberg, on Oct 2 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 2 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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.