Gambling is different from other forms of entertainment precisely because it
hurts others. I have done many hours of research on the affects of casinos
because they are currently trying to put one in my town. Most of the jobs
offered by casinos are at the poverty line. Unemployment goes up in counties
with casinos. Crime is more than double that of cities without a casino. Even
tax levy rates are higher with casinos (despite all of the money they say it
will bring). If you look at the schools, 10 of the 28 worst rated school
districts (out of 348) in my state are cities with casinos, even though there
are only 18 cities with casinos. Bankruptcies go up by 49% with 19% of the
bankruptcies being due entirely to gambling debt. And who pays the price? The
companies and the government that are owed the money. Which really means that
those businesses will either raise prices (or taxes) on everyone else, or they
go out of business and have to fire all of their employees. I've never
heard of anyone going bankrupt by watching a movie. Have you? Yet most of the
problems with casinos are shared with online gambling.
OwlThe difference between gambling and a DUI or diving without
insurance has a direct affect on others. If I drive drunk without insurance and
I kill someone then I have committed a crime that affects others due to my
choice.Gambling affects only the user. I will not kill anyone
because I choose to gamble all night.The consequences are less
dramatic in gambling.
People lose money gambling while others make money at the same time. People are
employed in the industry. Many states have lottery programs and they seem to be
working OK.Why be against gambling?
Dropping several thousand in an evening of gambling is extremely easy and
common. I had a friend suggest to me that gambling was just his entertainment.
He then promptly lost $600 in about 40 minutes of low level craps and 21 while I
observed him 'being entertained'. You could take your whole
neighborhood to a Jazz game for those amounts and have a great experience and
memory for the purchase price. Nor will anyone become addicted and continue
buying more Jazz tickets when the money has run out.Warren Buffet
had it right, 'gambling is a tax on the ignorant'.
As someone else pointed out earlier, gambling is a form of entertainment. If
someone spends $100 for a Utah Jazz ticket, hot dog and drink, noone would even
consider trying to ban that. However, if someone spends $100 for an evening of
on-line gambling, all of a sudden people are clamoring to enact legislation to
save that second person from his vices. I just don't understand the need
to save the second guy and not the first. Other than trying to force religious
beliefs onto others, can anyone explain to me the so-called logic?
Free is free. Free to spend money on a AK-45 or play some poker or buy alcohol
not controlled by big government. If you going to wave the freedom flag you
cannot be a control freak.
I've heard the arguments for gambling and other so-called "victimless
crimes" my whole life. Those who make such claims are showing how
irresponsible they are.Responsible adults have others to care for.
Their money, time, and attention is a shared resource. One's dependents
are victims when that money, time, and attention is wasted on destructive,
addictive entertainment.Some who justify gambling by comparing it to
securities trading make a good argument--a good argument against the wild,
speculative and irresponsible trading of our recent past. We have already seen
how the entire 99% become victims when such gambling is allowed. Just as
regular gambling should be regulated to help keep responsible adults responsible
toward their vulnerable dependents, the equities market--especially in complex
derivatives--must be restricted to protect our entire economy from ever again
being held hostage by greedy, irresponsible traders.I assume such
traders are jumping with joy now that the sequester has cut the budget of the
Securities Exchange Commission by $75.6 million. Again we are the victims of
politicians who, like gamblers, care more about their selfish games than their
A government that plays on the weakness of people is not a government for the
people. It is a government against the people.But with that said,
how many of the 47% who don't pay income tax would pay the lottery tax? I
might have to reconsider if which is the lesser of 2 evils, not contributing to
country, or having a lottery tax.
@ Dave- I don't care if Mother Theresa ran a lottery to build a hospital-
in my opinion state sponsored lotteries are unethical. That said, I think one
good point of lotteries are that they are truly a voluntary tax (which is why
they are often referred to as an "idiot tax")
(It looks like the week-end gremlins have struck again - my comment was
truncated.)It looks like too many have no idea what is at stake.
Anybody has the right to buy stock in a publicly traded company - stock market.
They own part of that company. They can buy or sell. Their money is at risk.
They "bet" that their money, when used by people with skill and training
will produce products or services that benefit others.Gambling also
allows people to use their own money. They "buy" a chance to
"win" something. No product is produced. No service is provided.
They're "betting" that someone else will lose and that they will
win. That is the problem. Something for nothing. Gain without
work. I've found the best way is to work at least 10 hours a
day and to invest wisely when excess profits are available so that others can
have a chance to become employed. Wanting something for nothing - or even worse
- at the expense of another is not how I choose to live my life.
It looks like too many have no idea what is at stake. Antibody has the right to
buy stock in a publicly traded company - stock market. They own
red state pride,Lotteries have been around since the beginning of
time. Look in the Book of Numbers (Bible). You will see that God ordered Moses
to draw lots to distribute the land around the River Jordan. Thomas
Jefferson wrote that lotteries are “Far from being immoral, they are
indispensable to the existence of Man”.John Hancock organized
several lotteries, including one to rebuild Boston’s Faneuil Hall.
I've been there. It's a cool place.Ben Franklin used a
lottery during the Revolutionary War to purchase a cannon for the Continental
Army.George Washington ran a lottery to pay for a road into the
wilds of western Virginia. I saw one of the tickets on the Pawn Star show a few
months back. Washington also purchased the first ticket in the Federal City
lottery which built up the District of Columbia. The facts are that
a lottery has been run by our government since the inception of our country. Our
founding fathers ran and participated in lotteries.
@Shaun- the difference is that if you look at a graph of the Dow Jones since
it's inception you'll notice that over time it has gone up at a 45
degree angle. Over time you cannot lose. However, if you gamble over time there
is no way you can win. I tend to be a more libertarian conservative and I
agree that people should be allowed to make choices for themselves but state
sponsored gambling (aka lotteries) turn my stomach. If we're going to let
Government run gambling rings why not let La Cosa Nostra handle road building
"...he struck another blow against the concept of responsible and ethical
government.." That is a statement a liberal would make. As conservatives we
believe in less government and freedom. To be intellectually honest we must be
consistent. This want for regulation shows inconsistent thinking. No exceptions,
we must accept the "bad" with the good. If not we are hypocrites.
Discussing the very real societal costs of state sponsored gambling is not
pandering to the LDS church or the DN. When advocates of lotteries and unlimited
gambling start using the "adult freedom" excuse they also argue against
helmet laws, mandatory auto insurance, DUI laws and many other government
policies that protect and "...promote the general welfare."
How is the modern stock, bond, and commodity market any different from gambling.
Bucket trading was made illegal with the glass steagall act, but it was repealed
because Clinton is really a republican. Traders now have super computers and
servers that can make millions of transactions in seconds.So what is
the difference between betting on whether the dice go a certain way or whether a
stock goes up or down in a day?
Imagine your car going down the road, One fount tire is straight the other tire
is turned. Boom crash burn. I can go through the motions like I understand, I
can mesmerize every thing about it. But until I get the inkling that finally can
touch my inner being there isn't understanding. There is a lot of dis-eases
that can destroy life.
The conundrum of utah is always how we so espouse individual freedom and
responsibility but when it suits us we embrace the hyper nanny state. Let people
be adulte all the time, not just when it suits the DN or the church.
"Opposition to legal gambling is more than just moralizing. The industry
adds nothing of value to the economy."Tell all of those people
that have jobs on the Las Vegas strip that the industry adds nothing to the
economy. Gambling is not a vice, it is a form of recreation and entertainment
(gambling addiction, just like any addiction is a problem but the vast majority
of people who gamble do so responsibly).If I lose $50 over the
course of an evening gambling it is no different than if I spent $50 to go to
the Jazz game to be entertained for a few hours except in the first instance I
actually get to participate and stimulate my brain with thinking and
strategizing. This editorial is just another in a long, long line of
pointless moral grandstanding by the Deseret News.
Sounds like this article is advocating a nanny state. People would have had
more money in their pockets if the hedge funds and banks had announced they were
"What is perhaps more disturbing, however, is how it redefines the
relationship between government and the people. The more government relies on
gambling revenue, the more it relies on its people to be losers, rather than
partners in building a strong nation."That's a good point.
It's also true, though, that prohibiting online gambling gives government
more control over our lives and is one step towards government being our
"nanny". People, not government, are responsible for their choices!