On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:14:34 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:16:46 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:20:49 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:56:07 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:45:47 -0400, WangoTango
...
Ah, but the Casino debt was one VOLUNTARILY entered into.

When professionals use psychologists and advertizing and architects and
electronics and alcohol to predictably separate compulsive gamblers from
their assets, it's not exactly "voluntary."

Oh, feh. Are you volunteering to be The Great Nanny?

Gambling used to be illegal in most states. It still should be.
We all take risks every day.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide which ones?

As long as you don't run a casino, go for it.

You won't let him because you're determined to make 'gambling'
illegal.


Professional, casino/lottery type gambling used to be illegal in most
places. I think it should be again. I'm not "determined to make
gambling illegal", because I obviously can't.

Informal gambling, poker with the neighbors or church bingo, isn't so
bad, because those neighbors seldom have the manipulative resources
that billion-dollar enterprises have. Hell, the casinos won't let you
play if you have too much skill, like being able to count cards. Or
even if you have too much luck.

Technology has provided many new ways for the skilled to exploit the
evolutionary appetites of the weak. As time goes on, fewer and fewer
will have the self-control to resist "better and better" addictive
drugs and artificial flavors and chemically-doctored cigarettes and
psychologically-optimized slot machines. Some control is reasonable.

John