In our opinion: Bad bet


Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 9:47 p.m.

    Should we be worried about a tax on ignorance in Utah? Surely a state where most people are doctrinally prohibited from gambling would experience few problems with a lottery. The friends here I buy tickets for in Montana or Nevada or Wyoming don't have a problem.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 22, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    When people are so devoid of conscience that they want gain at the expense of others WITHOUT first selling a product or service, then they talk about "gambling" as a means to "raise revenues".

    Gambling, by definition, is receiving something where "luck" or "chance" is the determining factor - not work. Lazy people gamble. They want something without working for it. They want someone else to "lose" so that they can "win". That defines their character. That tells the world that they care so little about their fellowmen that they would openly advocate for a method to help people lose their wealth.

    When "chance" is the determining factor, gambling has no worth. It adds nothing to society. It takes away our dignity as human beings and it demeans our view of our fellow citizens who should be looking out for those who think that they deserve a reward without first working for that reward.

    Aug. 22, 2011 5:08 p.m.

    Best bet, Utah's legislature passes a lottery bill so people stay home and invest in Utah, instead of driving to neighbor states, like they did fireworks.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 1:29 p.m.

    Maybe New York could instead raise revenue the way Utah does... irradiating its citizens by allowing the storage of nuclear waste.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    If a person has a propensity to gamble they are already doing so. all legalizing will do is take gambling out of the closet and in plain view. This is a positive in that legitimate taxes can be collected and abusers will be more easily identified.

    All this stuff about it costing the taxpayers and themselves money is an invalid argument. The gambling is going on now. Those that will cost us if legal are already costing us.

    Isn't it better to take it from behind closed doors?

  • screenname Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 9:47 a.m.

    liberal larry,

    I cannot speak for everyone, but I would be much more apt to support legalization of behaviors such as gambling if the purveyors' burden did not fall on me when they fail.

    If I am going to be forced to provide for people when they cannot provide for themselves (i.e. welfare), then I will support such laws. As Esquire said, this is a tax; it usually manifests itself as an extremely heavy tax on those most likely to require welfare.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    It is very probable that we cannot have total freedom in all aspects of life, so we have to make choices about which freedoms are most important to us. Given the choice between the freedom to fail and the freedom to survive. Which would you choose to fight for?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 9:15 a.m.

    Gamboling and religion are both selling the same product, Hope for the future. But while religion is more generous with it's product that is longer lasting, gamboling is generous for only a short while and is very stingy with the final product.

    The sad thing is, the consumers with the most dire need of the product, are most often the people who have the least in financial resources. Gamboling is fun, but not when it's done in desperation.

    Like other businessmen, the purveyors of gamboling, are simply responding to the demand for their product. The real way to control and limit gamboling is to get back to the condition where a person can be more in control of his future by his own efforts. Like in having an equal opportunity for success in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    We need to stop business from interfering in the election and representation of the people's government.

  • Brett Marietta, GA
    Aug. 22, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    liberal larry

    You point out the logical inconsistency of the conservatives. As I pondered the inherent conservative contradictions, I became more and more libertarian. I think this accounts for the growing number of libertarians and support for Ron Paul, as other conservatives notice the contradictions as well.

    I could be wrong, but the social issues conservatives favor seem to becoming less and less important.

    The libertarian positions are far more consistent that conservatives'. If people are to be free, they should have the liberty to make mistakes.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 22, 2011 8:38 a.m.

    Democrats are not supposed to be supporting gambling, it is a hidden tax (and is probably regressive in that it targets people whose math skills aren't that good and who are desperate for some way out of poverty) and it is predatory, like Payday loans. I don't think that the government should be in the business of trying to fool its citizens.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    Larry, Conservatives are being consistent as mntman pointed out it's about the money if you have enough you can gamble with yours and others money, but if your a lowly peasant, no, no bad peasant.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 22, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    @ liberal larry. Conservatives like me are very much in favor of personal freedoms. The question is, what's freedom? Is it enabling bad behavior? Is it allowing some people with particular weaknesses to terrorize the rest of us by drunk driving? How much rent, food or medicine money will be spend by those who can least afford it by government sanctioned gambling? How many more people will be forced onto food stamps, addiction recovery programs, and disfunctional family fall out social problems because some people should never gamble, but they will anyway? Is that freedom or is it stupidity?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Aug. 22, 2011 6:35 a.m.

    I wish conservatives would get their story straight. Are they in favor of personal freedom, or are they not. If we allow business to run predatory schemes like payday loans on the pretext of "let the buyer beware", why don't we allow gambling? I thought that the core principle of conservatism was to let individuals make decisions about their own lives.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 6:20 a.m.

    Gambling is just another form of taxation - a hidden one. I would rather see a straight up across the board tax increase than more gambling. At least, as a citizen, I see a connection between the money and the results.

  • Bryan Syracuse, UT
    Aug. 22, 2011 1:25 a.m.

    There is nothing wrong with Internet gambling. It is no more odious than (for example) paying to play World of Warcraft online, where again the only ones who gain a net profit are the "purveyors of the game". As alluded to in the article, some games (chess, poker) can actually be games of skill where those who are good at it make money. Yes, this would be at the expense of someone else, but this "someone else" will be a consenting adult spending their own money as they see fit.