[Data1000]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

The way I see it, if I have to pay the externality costs someone's bad decisions, I have less freedom, not more freedom. That's why we have regulations outlawing bad decisions or things that have no redeeming value, such as casinos.

We already DO have those externality costs. We have casinos in the Omaha metro area - four minutes from downtown. I may agree with you that casinos are more of a detriment to society and we may be better off without them, but we already do have casinos so we should get whatever financial benefits they provide to state/local governments.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by Data1000

We already DO have those externality costs. We have casinos in the Omaha metro area - four minutes from downtown. I may agree with you that casinos are more of a detriment to society and we may be better off without them, but we already do have casinos so we should get whatever financial benefits they provide to state/local governments.

Making more of a bad thing just to get a small government benefit seems counterintuitive. It's like spending a dollar to get 3 cents. Besides, anyone (including our state/local governments) is able to invest in casinos and receive financial benefits.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

The way I see it, if I have to pay the externality costs someone's bad decisions, I have less freedom, not more freedom. That's why we have regulations outlawing bad decisions or things that have no redeeming value, such as casinos. You also see higher taxes (due to higher externality costs cleaning up messes) in places that fail to regulate bad decisions. So be careful wishing for casinos in Nebraska. They would likely degrade the state even more and cause higher costs for people who do not wish to incur them.

Wrong again.

You do not get to decide what a "bad" decision is, especially when it comes to people choosing how to use their own money. That is why it is their money and not yours. Spending money on a game of chance has no negative effect on society, even if it offends your morals.

Regulating peoples decisions with their own money and bodies is the exact anti-thesis of liberty. You see, freedom doesn't exist if you try to establish freedom for yourself at the cost of other people's freedoms. This leads to nobody being free.

Again, if liberty and freedom scares you, move out of the one single country designed to be an experiment in human freedom... a majority of countries around the world are designed to regulate human behavior for the common good, move there.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

Making more of a bad thing just to get a small government benefit seems counterintuitive. It's like spending a dollar to get 3 cents. Besides, anyone (including our state/local governments) is able to invest in casinos and receive financial benefits.

He never said anything about government benefits, he spoke of financial benefits. Do you really think a home in Las Vegas would be worth half as much as it is now if there were no casinos there? Casinos can drive local markets, and if not, often support them. This means more money for everyone in the area as business traffic increases.

He said more money to local and state governments, not from government.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Spending money on a game of chance has no negative effect on society, even if it offends your morals.
.

When people think of it as a game of chance, the spiral of destruction begins, both for the individual and everybody he/she is connected to. It's not a game of chance. The casino always wins in the long run, and the casino business is centered around creating addicts and problem gamblers.

There are financial hardships: burdensome debt, loan defaults, and fraud; excessive payday borrowing; bankruptcy; loss of a business or home; and sometimes total destitution.

Gambling destroys bonds of trust. Problem gamblers hide and lie about their gambling debts. They borrow or steal from family members, including children. They spend their time at the casino rather than at home.

Spouses are harassed by bill collectors and suffer a wide range of stress-related physical and mental problems; they attempt suicide at three times the rate of the general population. Women in such situations are at higher risk for domestic violence.

The harms to children of gamblers include financial insecurity, parental neglect, and pervasive feelings of abandonment. Some children spend hours alone in parked cars or unattended at home while their parents gamble in the casino. Others have lost money, homes, holidays, and the chance to go to college, due to parents’ gambling problems.

All of those people then affect the people around them, and the waves ripple outward into the communities where the casino is located.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

When people think of it as a game of chance, the spiral of destruction begins, both for the individual and everybody he/she is connected to. It's not a game of chance. The casino always wins in the long run, and the casino business is centered around creating addicts and problem gamblers.

There are financial hardships: burdensome debt, loan defaults, and fraud; excessive payday borrowing; bankruptcy; loss of a business or home; and sometimes total destitution.

Gambling destroys bonds of trust. Problem gamblers hide and lie about their gambling debts. They borrow or steal from family members, including children. They spend their time at the casino rather than at home.

Spouses are harassed by bill collectors and suffer a wide range of stress-related physical and mental problems; they attempt suicide at three times the rate of the general population. Women in such situations are at higher risk for domestic violence.

The harms to children of gamblers include financial insecurity, parental neglect, and pervasive feelings of abandonment. Some children spend hours alone in parked cars or unattended at home while their parents gamble in the casino. Others have lost money, homes, holidays, and the chance to go to college, due to parents’ gambling problems.

All of those people then affect the people around them, and the waves ripple outward into the communities where the casino is located.

So you have a list of obscure problems that you can link partially to gambling. This does not make gambling inherently bad no matter how bad you want it to. Every problem that you have listed comes back to one common issue and it is not casinos, it is irresponsible behavior. An irresponsible person may ruin there life gambling, but if they didn't they would likely ruin it in another fashion.

Regardless, in a land that claims to be the land of the free, it is wrong to outlaw irresponsible behavior. Instead of asking the government to play nanny, we need to raise Americans to take responsibility for their actions. Nobody is forced to gamble, they go to the casino, and they pay money to take part... this is a decision that THEY make, not the casino.

Again, if you want to live with a government that makes personal choices for the citizens with the goal being the betterment of the common good, move to almost any country on the planet, because most are designed to operate that way. I do not know why you would stay in the one country based on individual freedom and the responsibility that goes along with it, if you do not agree with freedom or personal responsibility... regardless of your excuse as to not agreeing with those core principles.

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I imagine we'll eventually see federal legalization and the states would have to comply with that.

Not necessarily. Federal legalization would just get rid of a ban on the federal level, not say that this has to be legal in all states, just like when DOMA was struck down didn't mean that gay marriage was legal in every state now, just that it was recognized on the federal level. Effectively, I believe this would just get rid of federal offenses on marijuana charges. Yes, a lot of states would follow in legalization, but it would not be compulsory. If the federal government forced legalization in all states there would be an uproar by people who would consider it a violation of state's rights.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Not necessarily. Federal legalization would just get rid of a ban on the federal level, not say that this has to be legal in all states, just like when DOMA was struck down didn't mean that gay marriage was legal in every state now, just that it was recognized on the federal level. Effectively, I believe this would just get rid of federal offenses on marijuana charges. Yes, a lot of states would follow in legalization, but it would not be compulsory. If the federal government forced legalization in all states there would be an uproar by people who would consider it a violation of state's rights.

I agree, I assume there would be some more conservative states that would be "dry" states.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Not necessarily. Federal legalization would just get rid of a ban on the federal level, not say that this has to be legal in all states, just like when DOMA was struck down didn't mean that gay marriage was legal in every state now, just that it was recognized on the federal level. Effectively, I believe this would just get rid of federal offenses on marijuana charges. Yes, a lot of states would follow in legalization, but it would not be compulsory. If the federal government forced legalization in all states there would be an uproar by people who would consider it a violation of state's rights.

That would depend on the way the legislation was written. It could be written in a way that allows the states latitude in how they approach it, or it could be written in a way that would not permit states to keep it illegal and such action would be perfectly legal under the supremacy clause.

Personally, I hope the later of the two happens.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

That would depend on the way the legislation was written. It could be written in a way that allows the states latitude in how they approach it, or it could be written in a way that would not permit states to keep it illegal and such action would be perfectly legal under the supremacy clause.

Personally, I hope the later of the two happens.

Great point, if it is decided at a federal level that it is a rights violation to arrest a non-violent person for possession, that could essentially make it legal in every state.