Bill Bennett and Gambling

[Whitehall]

I\'m fascinated by the revelations of Bill Bennett\'s gambling. I\'ve found this guy continually irritating over the years yet I recognize that he\'s made many good point and that we need to hear from people like him.

Personally, I consider gambling as a pretty stupid thing to do; moreso the video poker and slots that he was so fond of. Real poker against real opponents is another matter and has my grudging respect or at least tolerance.

One thing that many people overlook is that there is a difference between internal vices and external vices. A rich man gambling big bucks is a fool and practicing self-delusion but the social consequences are minimal. A poor man gambling his family\'s \"milk money\" is a completely different matter on a social plane. Yet internally, they are both stupid.

I\'ve disagreed with many of his positions over the years (like Clinton\'s affairs) but agreed on many others. The fact that he has not been perfectly consistent between his public pronouncements and his private life should be of little matter but it is the crux of the media discussions.

What do you folks think?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Who is Bill Bennett?

[belgareth]

Gambling, like drugs, sex, pheromones, motorcycle helmets and many many more things is a personal decision. It is not for us or the government to interfere so long as they are not harming another in any way. It is simply not our business.

The government and each of us needs to get our collective noses out of people\'s private lives.

[Whitehall]

I\'m not interested in crusading against gambling but do have heartburn with government-run lotteries.

In one sense, such lotteries are just a voluntary tax of innumerancy.

One of the greatest pieces of Applied Theology is the Catholic Church\'s list of the Seven Deadly Sins. Gambling didn\'t make the list.

[belgareth]

I have a problem with a state run lottery while outlawing other forms of gambling. Either gambling is wrong or right. Personally, my previous statement holds, it\'s none of my business if somebody freely chooses to throw their money away.

The government running gambling games is a different issue and has more to do with the inappropriate functions of our excessive government. If our government would stick to it\'s necessary functions funds from a state run lottery would not be needed.

[Lucky]

I think Mr. Morality put his foot in his mouth. It hurts me to throw money away...I\'ll stick with sex as my addiction. As far as it being legal - I don\'t think gambling, prostitution, or drugs should be illegal. Why should a government decide what\'s right or wrong for its people morally - just protect our borders and I\'ll be happy. If our vices kill or ruin us, too bad for us. I don\'t, however, believe in government financial relief for victims of those vices.

[Whitehall]

One thing I admire about his response was him saying that he was setting a bad example and that he would quit.

There is the \"guardrail\" argument that maybe the elites can afford their minor vices but the lower orders for whom they should be setting a good example may not. So the fictional, affluent \"Murphy Brown\" can afford to be a single mother but most single mothers only bring reduced circumstances and some degree of loss to their children.

As a public figure, Bennett does need to set a good example. He was gambling in private, as appropriate. The exposers were as unwise as the cops who broke into the apartment in Texas and arrested the gay guys. Both deserve their privacy.

I see gambling as having internal and an external costs. Internally, one has to practice self-delusion that one can come out ahead - mathmatically you\'re going to lose and you probably know that. Still, it can be exciting entertainment and how one spends one\'s entertainment budget is one\'s own business. No one complains at the millions that Ted Turner blew on his America\'s Cup boat which was just as pointless.

Externally, Bennett gambled only less than he could afford to so there were few external victims. Had he blown everything he had, then it would have been a much worst vice. If Bill Gates blew the same amount then it would have been an even lesser vice. He was right in saying he never gambled the \"milk money.\"

I, for one, don\'t want government to legalize the various vices like prostitution and homosexuality. Why? So they won\'t become too visible and too attractive to the next generation (including my kids!) We don\'t have to vigorously enforce those laws, just enough to keep them in the closet. We can\'t just think of ourselves and our own freedom, we have to consider the influence our behaviors and public acceptances have on the choices of the young.

A question for Lucky - would you seek the help of the police if you had hookers standing on your street corner?

[franki]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />


A question for Lucky - would you seek the help of the police if you had hookers standing on your street corner?


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

In most of the countries where prostitution is legal (Holland) or semi-legal (Germany) the local governments strongly oppose hookers on every corner of the street. Usually there are special area\'s for them and/or special buildings/licensed clubs. Nobody wants to have hookers in the same street there children are playing in.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

I could support allowing that. Again, in the closet, in private - whatever.

Publicly, in your face - no way.

[belgareth]

Prostitution and gambling are only vices because we make them so. A person who freely chooses to be a prostitute or to gamble has made their own decision. Nobody has the right to tell them they cannot do what they choose with their time, money or bodies. That is, until they harm somebody besides themselves.

No matter the \'vice\' there is a downside. Alcohol kills people every day. People take medication to extremes in the false hope of increasing their benefit. People damage their bodies jogging on pavement. Others eat themselves to death with fast foods. To outlaw one and not the other is hypocrasy. Let\'s get the government out of our private lives and allow us to determine our own course. We do not need to be baby sat by a group of people whose vices are often worse than the ones they take away from us. Nor do we need to be taxed by these same people to pay them to baby sit us.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

What Belgareth said.

[franki]

A lot of these so-called vices have major impact on society. In this part of the world where we have a solidaric health-care system, everyone has to pay for those that chose to smoke or go parachute jumping.

Those people benefit disproportionally from the system and therefore I don\'t think it is fair the way it is. If someone wants to go skiing, that is fine, but PLEASE let him or her pay more for insurance than me.

Another example is junkies and the inconvenience they bring in many cities. You can say liberate drugs, but you inevitably have to deal with the problems arising from it. Some say the problems get less when you legalize drugs, others say the problems get bigger. I am afraid the problems only will get bigger when you are going to legalize more and more. Hard to know where to draw the line though.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[belgareth]

Franki

I agree that if a person is involved in any high risk activity they should pay the price. It is part of taking responsibility for yourself and your actions.

As for decriminalization of drugs, even if the number of drug users were to rise, which is unlikely, the net effect when you consider the impact on organized crime and other associated issues, would be a benefit to society. The ease of acquiring drugs today and the minimal penalties associated with drug use argue that there would be little if any increase in drug use. The resluts of prohibition in the US demonstrates those points nicely.

Isn\'t it kind of silly to make laws that you either cannot or will not enforce? Isn\'t it even sillier to make a person a criminal when they have a problemn and ask for help? Isn\'t it downright cruel to deny a sick person a drug or substance that could allieviate their suffering just because we want to call it an illegal substance? All that and more is happening in the US today because of ignorant and outdated drug policies.

[franki]

Belgareth
I agree with you on the ignorant laws, but I don\'t think the answer can be total liberalisation.

If you make it too easy to gamble, won\'t their be many more families be financially ruined than now. I know there are already plenty of opportunities to lose your money, but think about the cost for society if there would be no control whatsoever on gambling (apart from the fact you prohibit it for minors). Ultimately you will have to find a balance somewhere, and the answer cannot be total legalization.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

I\'m especially angered by federal suppression of California\'s decison on medical marijuana. We the people voted its use, fair and square, yet Ashcroft busts people who grow for medical patients even when the growers only sell through local governments.

As to heroin, its use can completely remove any responsible behavior in the heavy user. They will forego any virtue to get their fix and commit any crime (in the bad cases). They lose their freedom as responsible agents. Some vices have just too steep a descent curve to allow - people just go off a cliff. Other vices are difficult to take to destructive extremes.

I\'m with Franki, we can\'t be \"black and white\" about the use of government to control public behavior. There are limits and degrees of freedoms. The problem is that we how have to agree on what vices to suppress and which to ignore, and how hard do we have to try. It\'s much more complicated.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

A heroin addict is truly an unfortunate ... but he wouldn\'t have to lie, cheat and steal if he could get what he needed through legal means at reasonable prices. Mostly those people just need enough to maintain. It\'s not the healthiest way to live, for sure, but they would be more productive if they didn\'t have to spend every waking moment a slave to their habit, and pay exhorbitant prices.

I\'m not saying I think it\'s good to use heroin. Just ... some people get caught up in it and can\'t get off.

[belgareth]

Heroin is no worse than alcohol. It is no more addictive and its use does not destroy the body the way alcohol does. If you want an example of a truly evil and dangerous drug when abused, alcohol is one of the best candidates. So, why is one truly dangerous drug legal and killing people every day while we wrangle about the legal merits of a lesser drug?

FTR is right, if heroin was legally available there would be far fewer related crimes, in large part because the 1000% plus mark up that goes to support organized crime would no longer be there. Additionally, a heroin addict would be much more likely to seek reliable assistance if they were not forced to endure the indignities of being a criminal for reporting their illness.

[belgareth]

Franki,

The pattern with decriminalization has always been a brief upsurge then a reduction. We really cannot stop gambling anyway, so why try? That was the point about being unable to enforce a law. Also, if you check the statistics I think you\'ll find that places where ganmbling is legal have no greater level of financial ruin than anywhere else. In most cases, gamblling has been a boon to the local economy.

[Lucky]

&lt;Prostitution and gambling are only vices because we make them so. A person who freely chooses to be a prostitute or to gamble has made their own decision. Nobody has the right to tell them they cannot do what they choose with their time, money or bodies. That is, until they harm somebody besides themselves.

No matter the \'vice\' there is a downside. Alcohol kills people every day. People take medication to extremes in the false hope of increasing their benefit. People damage their bodies jogging on pavement. Others eat themselves to death with fast foods. To outlaw one and not the other is hypocrasy. Let\'s get the government out of our private lives and allow us to determine our own course. We do not need to be baby sat by a group of people whose vices are often worse than the ones they take away from us. Nor do we need to be taxed by these same people to pay them to baby sit us.&gt;

You got it right Belgrath.

Whitehall, a person loitering on the corner should have her/his own place to work without showing the world what they are doing. If it weren\'t illegal, maybe it could become more business-like and them being on the streets would be history. They just shouldn\'t be jailed because they have sex for money.

[belgareth]

Unfortunately, there are far too many people in this world who wish to tell others how to live for \"Their own good\". Rarely do they want the same rules impossed on themselves, it\'s always somebody else who needs regulating.

[Whitehall]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
there are far too many people in this world who wish to tell others how to live for \"Their own good\"

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

While it is true that people are willing to offer free advice and to insist on the regulation of others\' conduct, it is going way too far to say that is never justified! I\'m all for letting other people \"do their thing\" but at the point that it interfers with my freedom to conduct my life or to set a good public example to my children, then government intervention may be necessary. You know that it this is true and you would insist, at some point, on the same.

Arguing the extreme position is not very helpful and easily shown to be specious and no guide for the real world.

Take our example, hookers on my street corner, working into the wee hours seriously interfers with my life and I would want the police to run them off. Hookers in a secluded brothel or one located in the entertainment district are fine with me so long as they have regular health checkups and aren\'t spreading disease.

Life is a matter of balance and trade-off - simple-minded ideological slogans are really not much help.

[belgareth]

Whitehall,

Please stop putting words in my mouth; I am quite capable of saying what I mean. I never said I wanted hookers standing on street corners. I said that you or anybody else has no right to regulate or restrict what a person does with their body. I was also quite clear about not harming another person. But that works both ways; you are harming somebody when you enforce your beliefs on them against their will.

I am saying that our puritanical ideas about sexuality are dead wrong and hurt innocent people needlessly. I am also saying that our form of government is wrong because it robs the masses of their right to self determination destroying their dignity. This is done in order to profit a very few people. Current public policy undermines free will and reduces individual accountability and personal responsibility.

I am not arguing the extreme and my statements were not made frivolously nor are they simple minded, but are the product of many years of careful thought. Our society is sick and getting sicker by the day! Narrow minded conservatism and the misguided attempts to maintain the status quo are only making matters worse. Our government is out of control. We attack smaller countries to force them to be like us. Large corporations are shielded from repercussioins while they fleece the public. I could go on but you get the picture. Only a purblind fool wouldn\'t be able to see the precipice we are going over.

Think it over, what indispensable service does our federal government provide that justifies the yoke on our necks? How are you going to respond if/when the government decides to outlaw pheromones and dietary supplements? If you say you are going to find a way to continue to use them, you are advocating anarchy. If you tamely go along with it, what does that make you?

[franki]

Belgareth,

I am sorry for my prejudices, but what you say I would never have expected from someone who is from Texas. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Franki

[belgareth]

Franki,

Why is that?

[franki]

Well, Texas has a certain image here in Europe. That doesn\'t mean everyone conforms to that image. Only, we don\'t realize that too often here.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[belgareth]

Not to worry, I am a transplant. Certainly don\'t want to ruin the stereotype /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There are some serious trends I have been watching for years and they worry me. Things like the dumbing down of our kids and the steady decrease in the number of science and engineering students, the de-emphasis on critical thinking, the lack of content in our election decisions and the steady decrease in personal responsibilty. More and more regulations controlling our behavoir is a trend towards oppression. Even the steady decline in good manners and ethics is a bad sign. Follow the trend lines, where does it lead? The solution is not making more laws that we do not intend to enforce, that just breeds contempt for all laws.

[upsidedown]

Franki,

I just got back from riding my horses around my huge ranch. I had to go out and check on all my oil wells ya\' know. Let me take off my cowboy hat and put my six shooters away and I\'ll try to add some comments to the forum! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

There, did I renew your image of Texans any? That\'s truly the image that was in the mind of a girl from Finland I met in Europe years ago! Her favorite TV show was Dallas BTW. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[franki]

Lol, I have a hard time imagining you riding on horses on a ranch. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[upsidedown]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Lol, I have a hard time imagining you riding on horses on a ranch. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">


Very perceptive for a young man half way around the world! Very very perceptive and accurate.

I know, you picture me more playing golf and riding around a golf cart since you think I look like.....what was that golfers name? Oh yeah, Ben Crenshaw. (BTW, I\'m younger than him and have more hair!) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Sorry for hijacking the thread. See, Elana and FTR aren\'t the only ones who do that. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[franki]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Oh yeah, Ben Crenshaw. (BTW, I\'m younger than him and have more hair!) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

And you are quite a bit taller too, a bit like an enhanced version of him.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Whitehall]

Belagarth,

I\'m just having trouble relating your generalizations of trend lines and political ideals down to the nitty-gritty questions of real governance.

If you look at the workings of local government (my grandfather was a local officeholder and I\'ve been active in city and county government politically) and you\'ll see that the real world questions are about zoning and policing. The voters speak loudly about nuisances and good government is expected to act. Don\'t take public order for granted!

My thesis is that in the real world there has to be a balance. Vices behind closed doors are none of my business usually but go publicly visible and one\'s behavior can become everyone\'s concern.

[belgareth]

Whitehall,

My overall point is that our society is failing. The trends are not vague but are clear to see. Consider this, in Tokyo a person will bend down to pick up a discarded soda can, here they\'ll toss whole bags of trash out in the most scenic places in the country. Our leaders are elected in campaigns that are all about mudslinging and do not address the real issues. Once elected, our leaders pay scant attention to their constituents or the promises they made. Big business buys the air time for the campaigns and owns the politicians once they are elected. It\'s common knowledge that without big business money, you cannot get elected. Participation in the electoral system drops almost every election.

The number of students going into science and engineering is lower every year. Our kids are no longer being taught to think for themselves, rather they are taught to pass the blame and responsibility onto others. What percent of high school graduates can find your home town on a map? Parents increasingly expect an overwhelmed and under-funded school system to raise their kids because they are not able or willing to do so.

Every day, more laws are passed to regulate our behavoir because common courtesy is becoming a thing of the past. Everyday, new laws are being passed restricting are freedoms. Despite promise after promise, our government continues to grow and consume more and more of our GNP. These are all trends that can be observed by anybody who wants too. Where do they lead? What can we do to fix it?

Your reply was fine as far as it goes. But there is a big difference between looking at local governments and gross patterns of a society as a whole. What we are doing is not working. Increasing the rules and permiting or forcing people to put more reliance on the government is not the answer.

These are real issues that need to be solved. Denying their existance does not make them less real. In my opinion, the answers lie with each of us. (Ok, so I\'m preaching now /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif) You talk about sheilding your children from the street corner hookers. Rather, teach them, give them high personal standards so they can make their own decisions about how to live well. Give them the knowledge and pride to make responsible decisions so they can hold their heads up knowing they did the right thing. Making more rules and taking away rights will not solve the problem.