Reason #41 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
Because you, someone you know, someone you love or someone related to you could become one of these stories. And even if you don't know anyone who could become one of those stories (or you don't think you know anyone like that), there is no any acceptable reason to support an activity that exacts such costs on others just so that you can reap what you consider entertainment or the opportunity to exercise an alleged personal liberty (that is not currently guaranteed by any constitution as a fundamental right) - at their cost. That is not the social contract.
Previous reasons to Vote No on Issue 3:
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote No on Issue 3.
Previous reasons to Vote No on Issue 3:
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote No on Issue 3.
JBlog Me
20 Comments:
Thanks for continuing to address the problems with State Issue 3. I have been urging everyone I meet to vote against it.
"Because you, someone you know, someone you love or someone related to you could become one of these stories."
I read the stories to which you linked, and some of them were quite heartbreaking. No one is in favor of problem gambling, myself included. However, to use government force against all gamblers for the social ills caused by a few gamblers is tantamount to collective punishment.
I also poked around the National Council on Problem Gambling site to which you linked, and found this on the NCPG's FAQ page:
"Do casinos, lotteries and other types of gambling “cause” problem gambling?
The cause of a gambling problem is the individual's inability to control the gambling. This may be due in part to a person's genetic tendency to develop addiction, their ability to cope with normal life stress and even their social upbringing and moral attitudes about gambling. The casino or lottery provides the opportunity for the person to gamble. It does not, in and of itself, create the problem any more than a liquor store would create an alcoholic.
"...an alleged personal liberty (that is not currently guaranteed by any constitution as a fundamental right)..."
That argument looks an awful lot like this one that I read today over at Right Angle Blog:
"Who knew that a right to the abortion pill was in the constitution? I don't remember that Amendment."
While we're using emotional stories to illustrate the evils of the other side, here's one for you to read. Please read the true story of Sal Culosi. Isn't it great that the Commonwealth of Virginia was there to protect Mr. Culosi from himself?
Dear DJW - hope you don't mind me abbreviating. Thanks for the support. Good luck with your efforts too on behalf of defeating Issue 3.
Jason -
I just finished reading a couple of pieces on Culosi. Of course that's tragic. But if you really want to get into this part of the battle, the Culosi incidents are going to be far fewer than the addict, problem gambler, pathological gambler problems. The number of humans involved in the latter is in the millions (even if it's only 1% of the population, and many estimates are higher). Then you have the ripple effects of them.
But I want to be clear about something: I'm not contending that the government needs to protect us from ourselves. I really, really, really do not see the issue that way at all.
To me, the issue is purely golden rule. Do unto others as others as you would want others to do unto you. I do not want my fellow Americans to be passing laws that will, without question, lead millions of others to financial and emotional bankruptcy. Likewise, I would hope, that my fellow Americans do not want that for me either. That is part of the social contract, even if not termed the golden rule in that contract.
I'm not saying and I'm sure you don't think that I don't actually realize the "personal liberty" issue proponents of legalized gambling raise.
However, I fail to see how that interest - because I do not see it as a liberty deserving of legal protection, rises above the health and welfare of those among us prone to dysfunction.
Would you give a kid - or an adult for that matter - who has a peanut allergy something with peanuts in it because he says that it's his right to have it even though he knows he's going to well up like a water balloon and possibly die?
"...the Culosi incidents are going to be far fewer than the addict, problem gambler, pathological gambler problems."
But the Culosi incidents (harmless people killed by governments enforcing vice laws) would be completely nonexistent if there were no vice laws.
Meanwhile, government can't eliminate vice no matter how hard it tries. Here's an article about problem gambling in Hawaii. Unlike Ohio, Hawaii has no legal race tracks, lotteries, or church festivals. Unlike Ohio, Hawaii isn't within a few hours' drive of out-of-state casinos. If Hawaii can't eliminate problem gambling, what makes you think Ohio can?
"To me, the issue is purely golden rule. "
Same here. I mind my own damn business because I wish my fellow Americans would mind their own damn business.
"However, I fail to see how that interest - because I do not see it as a liberty deserving of legal protection, rises above the health and welfare of those among us prone to dysfunction."
And I don't see how my gambling affects those among us prone to dysfunction, any more than the bottle of cider I drank earlier this evening affects Zack Reed.
"Would you give a kid - or an adult for that matter - who has a peanut allergy something with peanuts in it because he says that it's his right to have it even though he knows he's going to well up like a water balloon and possibly die?"
Not if I knew the person in question is allergic to peanuts. Nor would I make peanuts illegal for fear that a few peanuts might fall into the hands of those with peanut allergies.
Jason, I happen to like vice laws because I happen to hate vice. I mean, it is after all vice, yes?
Now, look - I want to be very honest here. I'm NOT someone who wants to see all forms of betting etc. outlawed and people hauled into jail for that behavior. That's not what I'm professing and it's not the angle I've mentioned even once in anything I've written.
I really don't want to give away my top reasons here, so you'll have to excuse me for now. But it's pretty obvious from what I've written that I don't want to see more opportunities exist for more people to lose their lives. And I also rail against the connection between gambling and education. I can't apologize for this feeling I have, but I find the connection repulsive, Jason.
Do I find the unaffordability repulsive too? Sure. But legalizing gambling is not the solution - I don't care HOW much money it brings in or HOW the numbers were changed.
I'm totally serious. Even if Forest City and everyone else gave every last DIME to education, I wouldn't and couldn't support such a proposal.
And really - it has nothing, for me, to do with making people criminals.
There's multiple sides to this issue and we are sticking to our sides - that's fine. But let's recognize that there are in fact multiple ways to see this issue - and multiple effects.
In my calculation and assessment of Issue 3, the ends do not justify the means.
Mr. Sonenshein:
Ohio has laws against fraud. We try to protect Ohioans from fraud by legislating against it. A person pays money to a business hoping to receive an advertised good or service in return. To legalize gambling is to legalize the most brazen of frauds.
Ohio has flirted with legal restrictions on predatory lending. Is there anything more predatory than casinos? And in the case of the casinos, you don't even get a loan after all that fleecing.
There is a bedtime story titled "The Emperor's New Clothes." If we allow ourselves to believe the gambling magnates, we will find ourselves as embarrassed and vulnerable as that emperor was.
"Jason, I happen to like vice laws because I happen to hate vice. I mean, it is after all vice, yes?"
It's not that simple. There are plenty of reasons, both moral and practical, for those of us who hate vice to oppose vice laws.
First, the moral arguments:
1. Your right to control your mind, your body, and your property is a basic human right, and the government should not restrict it, except to protect the rights of others to control their minds, their bodies, and their property. Do you own yourself, or does the government own you?
2. I made the collective punishment argument above. Here's another example. When I was in college, I drank underage. I didn't harm or endanger anyone else. I didn't engage in any of the rowdy, destructive behavior for which drunken college students are notorious. I had some combination of the good sense to be discreet and the good fortune not to get caught. But if I had gotten caught, the State of Ohio would have made me into a first-degree misdemeanant, not because of any harm that I caused, but because others like me cause harm. That's collective punishment, and it's immoral. Punish each individual only for the harm that he or she causes.
3. Then there's the golden rule again. I wouldn't want someone else to determine for me what is or is not vice, and so I refrain from making that determination for others.
Now, the practical arguments:
4. Vice laws don't make vice go away.
5. Vice laws make vice more dangerous than it otherwise would be.
5a. When alcoholic beverages were illegal, the substandard quality of alcoholic beverages produced on the black market made them more dangerous. Likewise the substandard quality of illegal recreational drugs today.
5b. Black marketeers can't rely on the legal system to enforce their contracts, so they often resort to violence.
6. Vice laws create black markets, which serve as revenue streams for organized crime. As Penn Jillette says, "If you outlaw fly fishing, your father-in-law will be buying his flies from the mob."
7. Finally, and probably most importantly, vice laws make all of us, even those of us who hate vice, less free. Here and here are a couple of articles about the holes that have been punched into your Forth Amendment rights as a result of the war on drugs. Our state and federal governments now force you to put your name on a government list to buy pseudoephedrine, because some other people use it to manufacture methamphetamine. In an attempt to crack down on internet gambling, the State of Washington has enacted a state law that has a chilling effect on free speech. In an effort to prevent internet gambling, The U.S. House recently passed H.R. 4411, which would force internet service providers to block access to certain websites, thus setting the dangerous precedent for Red Chinese-style internet censorship in America.
"Even if Forest City and everyone else gave every last DIME to education, I wouldn't and couldn't support such a proposal."
Even if Issue 3 wouldn't produce one dime for education, I'd still support it, because it's a small step toward rolling back some of the State of Ohio's silly puritanism.
"And really - it has nothing, for me, to do with making people criminals."
But you said above that you like vice laws. That's what vice laws do, make harmless people into criminals.
"To legalize gambling is to legalize the most brazen of frauds."
No, Mr. Williamson, gambling is not fraud because casino operators do not tell their customers that gambling is anything other than an unfavorable bet. If they represent their games as favorable bets for the players, or as less unfavorable than they really are, then that would be fraud. States with legalized gambling have gaming commissions to prevent such fraud. Issue 3 would provide for the establishment of just such a commission.
"Is there anything more predatory than casinos?"
How about the lottery? Over the long run, you'll lose no more than about 20 cents of every dolar you put into slot machines, but you'll lose about 50 cents of every dollar you play in a typical state lottery.
How about church festivals? I've been at church festivals in Ohio where the gambling operators were taking bets from chlidren who appeared to be about 10 or 12 years old, no questions asked. You won't see a commercial casino engage in such behavior.
"If we allow ourselves to believe the gambling magnates, we will find ourselves as embarrassed and vulnerable as that emperor was.
Oh, please. People who present casinos as some kind of economic magic bullet are overstating their case, but not nearly as much as the doom-and-gloom crowd is. If the voters approve Issue 3, life for most of us in Ohio will go on pretty much as before, just as it has in Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ontario, and West Virginia.
Jason - I have to apologize because there is just no way I can respond thoughtfully with as little time as I currently have - I just didn't want you to think that I haven't read what you've written - I really appreciate your excellent responses, even though I disagree. :)
I'll try to respond after the holiday but if not, thanks for leaving the comment and I'm sure we're giving people a lot to consider regarding this issue.
No apology necessary, Jill. A khatima tova to you. I laso appreciate your excellent blog, even though I often disagree.
Mr. Sonenshein:
"If they represent their games as favorable bets for the players, or as less unfavorable than they really are, then that would be fraud."
Thus, even by your own definition of fraud, casino owners are guilty. I've heard radio advertisements for the Argosy riverboat casino in Indiana and Wheeling Downs in West Virginia. Have you?
"How about the lottery?"
The lottery is clear evidence against the casinos. It would not be useful for you to refute the arguments against casino gambling by citing examples of other, legally permissable, forms of gambling.
Mr. Sonenshein:
I am sorry, I cannot possibly agree to your views against vice laws. Following that line of reasoning leads beyond libertarianism to anarchism.
"I've heard radio advertisements for the Argosy riverboat casino in Indiana and Wheeling Downs in West Virginia. Have you?"
I used to hear and see ads for the Argosy when I lived in the Cincinnati media market. The ads made no representation about the favorability or unfavorability of the Argosy's games. That was several years ago, though, so things might have changed. The casinos that advertise here in Cleveland (Mountaineer Park in W.V. and Casino Windsor and Fallsview Resort in Ontario) don't make any factual representations about the favorability or unfavorablitiy of their games.
"The lottery is clear evidence against the casinos. "
In what way, Mr. Williamson?
"I am sorry, I cannot possibly agree to your views against vice laws. Following that line of reasoning leads beyond libertarianism to anarchism."
Well, I, for one, can't agree to my atrocious spelling in my 11:59 am comment from yesterday. But seriously, I'm not libertarian enough for most libertarians. I've never been called an anarchist before.
"The casinos that advertise here in Cleveland (Mountaineer Park in W.V. and Casino Windsor and Fallsview Resort in Ontario) don't make any factual representations about the favorability or unfavorablitiy of their games."
I suggest that the above passage could be effectively abbreviated as follows:
"The casinos . . . don't make any factual representations . . ."
"4. Vice laws don't make vice go away." But these laws do provide for legal sanction against vice, which certainly can act as a deterrent against vice.
"3. Then there's the golden rule again. I wouldn't want someone else to determine for me what is or is not vice, and so I refrain from making that determination for others."
Would you fancy a relatively taboo-free libertarian society such as is found in the Netherlands? As idyllic as it may seem, Dutch society has its pathologies, which are, in fact, rooted in its relative lack of vice laws.
The wording of the reasoning you choose sounds libertarian enough at face value, but to accept the premises of your assertion and then continue along that same train of thought would lead down a very precipitous and slippery slope to anarchism.
I don't think I have to explain the failings of the lottery and how the casinos will, at the very least, manifest the same failings.
I suggest that the above passage could be effectively abbreviated as follows:
'The casinos . . . don't make any factual representations . . .'"
Exactly. Most gaming advertising that I've seen seems to shy away from making statements that can be objectively determined to be true or false. Without a factually false statement, there's no fraud.
"But these laws do provide for legal sanction against vice, which certainly can act as a deterrent against vice."
And prohibition might have acted as a deterrent against drinking, but the cure was worse than the disease. The politicians and voters wised up and decided that it was better that drinkers buy their drinks from the likes of August Busch and Edgar Bronfman than from the likes of Al Capone.
"Would you fancy a relatively taboo-free libertarian society such as is found in the Netherlands? As idyllic as it may seem, Dutch society has its pathologies, which are, in fact, rooted in its relative lack of vice laws."
I don't think I'd call the Netherlands libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. Government spending consumed more than half of the Dutch GDP last year, according to the CIA Wold Factbook. Gun control in the Netherlands is much more oppressive than here. According to Slate, "The Netherlands has the highest rate of wiretapping of any European country ... Dutch police can tap any phone they like, so long as the crime under investigation carries at least a three-year jail term."
There are pathologies everywhere. When government creates victimless crimes, it just trades one set of pathologies for another, even worse, set.
People will continue to gamble if issue 3 fails.
When issue 3 passes more kids will go to college, hotles will be built in downtown cleveland and we will get a new convention center.
Columbus and Cinci do not want issue 3 to pass because they will not get a casino in their downtown. This will put them in a disadvantage for getting meeting and conventions.
WAKE UP people... support issue 3 and help us revive downtown with tourist and educate more kids!!!
Dear Cleveland Press - Thanks for reading - I like your website very much.
Well - you know, if there are so many opportunities that will remain even if Issue 3 fails, then I feel even better about voting against Issue 3 because, you know, I won't really even be denying anyone anything.
Thanks for another reason to vote no. :)
Cleveland Press:
Are you certain that more students will go to college as a result of Issue 3? Why is it that some of the first states to adopt gambling still rank at the low end of educational achievement and economic diversification (still relying disproportionately on casinos as a leading industry in the private sector)?
The opportunity and temptation to gamble would be greatly increased by the proximity of casinos. There will be many new gamblers added to the ranks of those who already gamble. Are you certain that funds which families have set aside for college education will remain untapped by gamblers within the family?
Though there may possibly be more financial aid available, is it not also possible that financial need may also sharply increase because of what gambling siphons away?
'The casinos . . . don't make any factual representations . . .'"
Why don't they? Because they want to con us out of our money. This fits MY definition of fraud, and I don't think we should legalize it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home