And the study that I listed in another thread differs from your opinion.

 

And the last sentence is done all the time in this society. Seat belt laws are but one quick example of it. It is to the benefit of society, lower insurance costs from wrecks, and the individual for there to be an encouragement to drivers to buckle up.

 

I thought you had bowed out of this one. Again, you're telling us that we shouldn't be permitted to gamble because someone else can't handle it? But I can go into an establishment and order a beer when there are plenty of alcoholics out there. I can go in the local store and buy a pack of cigs. How many lives have been ruined due to tobacco? I can go on HSN and buy a magic bullet and many people have spent there life savings on there. I can go on and on. Yet you're telling us that we shouldn't have casinos??

Take away BINGO!!!!, the lottery!!!! pull tabs!!!!

I thought you had bowed out of this one. Again, you're telling us that we shouldn't be permitted to gamble because someone else can't handle it? But I can go into an establishment and order a beer when there are plenty of alcoholics out there. I can go in the local store and buy a pack of cigs. How many lives have been ruined due to tobacco? I can go on HSN and buy a magic bullet and many people have spent there life savings on there. I can go on and on. Yet you're telling us that we shouldn't have casinos??

 

And as I have said, those things are already in KY. We are discussing whether we want to bring a new vice, casino gambling into the state, not outlawing something that is already here.

 

As long as the debate, as a whole, stays civil and not personal, I will contribute in the debate.

And as I have said, those things are already in KY. We are discussing whether we want to bring a new vice, casino gambling into the state, not outlawing something that is already here.

 

As long as the debate, as a whole, stays civil and not personal, I will contribute in the debate.

 

You are always a class act:thumb:

And as I have said, those things are already in KY. We are discussing whether we want to bring a new vice, casino gambling into the state, not outlawing something that is already here.

 

As long as the debate, as a whole, stays civil and not personal, I will contribute in the debate.

 

 

Now back to the debate:

 

But the logic that is made of having this new vice can be applied to the things that already here! If it was good back then, why not now, and if gambling is so evil, why as caring citizens should we allow it to continue?

Now back to the debate:

 

But the logic that is made of having this new vice can be applied to the things that already here! If it was good back then, why not now, and if gambling is so evil, why as caring citizens should we allow it to continue?

 

There are two different issues here. Gambling as a whole and it's effect on society. Which, admittingly we cannot stop nor probably should stop as this country's foundation allows for free choice on so many issues.

 

Do we want it right here in our backyard is the 2nd issue and the one that I have been addressing.

 

Gambling as a whole, research NOT MY OPINION but research shows, brings problems. Why would we want to bring problems to our own backyard?

 

It is like the child molestor problem being discussed in another thread. Once they have served their time, we all know they have to live somewhere. But most of us wouldn't want them living in our backyard.

 

Gambling is going to be in this country. No doubt there. I just don't think it is good based upon the research I have read to have it in our backyard.

There are two different issues here. Gambling as a whole and it's effect on society. Which, admittingly we cannot stop nor probably should stop as this country's foundation allows for free choice on so many issues.

 

Do we want it right here in our backyard is the 2nd issue and the one that I have been addressing.

 

Gambling as a whole, research NOT MY OPINION but research shows, brings problems. Why would we want to bring problems to our own backyard?

 

It is like the child molestor problem being discussed in another thread. Once they have served their time, we all know they have to live somewhere. But most of us wouldn't want them living in our backyard.

 

Gambling is going to be in this country. No doubt there. I just don't think it is good based upon the research I have read to have it in our backyard.

 

If people are going to do it, tax the people to the point where it will cost them a great deal to do it. i.e. cigeratte tax(sp)

 

If people are going to do it, tax the people to the point where it will cost them a great deal to do it. i.e. cigeratte tax(sp)

 

That same argument is used for the legalization of drugs.

That same argument is used for the legalization of prostitution.

Do you want those 2 things in your backyard.

 

Something I read once that I think is good.

Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial.

Are people still going to do drugs, pay for prostitution? Is there anyway I can possibly stop it?

 

If there is, then no I think that we should destroy both!

If there is not a way, then yes, tax and make the sin benifical to the local economy.

And the study that I listed in another thread differs from your opinion.

Anyone can fund a "study" to say what they want to say.

And as I have said, those things are already in KY.

 

As long as the debate, as a whole, stays civil and not personal, I will contribute in the debate.

I'm glad you can see that the vices you fear are already here.

 

As for the debate, it has in most cases, remained civil.

Anyone can fund a "study" to say what they want to say.

 

So, all research is irrelevant and we should only make decisions based on personal opinion? I am not following your point.

Are people still going to do drugs, pay for prostitution? Is there anyway I can possibly stop it?

 

If there is, then no I think that we should destroy both!

If there is not a way, then yes, tax and make the sin benifical to the local economy.

 

At least you are consistent.:thumb:

 

Should we make drunk driving legal and tax it as we can't stop that either.

Those pesky murder laws haven't prevented murders, make that legal.

 

Now I am going over the top to prove a point.

 

We as a society have determined that at times there are things that as a society we cannot allow to continue without us as a society taking a stance on it irrelevant on whether people are going to continue with it or not.

 

And that is good. The debate is NOT whether that should happen or not but rather is casino gambling one of those issues.

 

We know that laws against murder is not going to stop murders but we have to take a stance and say if you are going to hurt society by murdering then we have to take a stance and say it ain't right.

 

We know that drunk driving laws don't stop drunk driving. (Look at the two threads I started on the guy in Ohio that had 19 DUI convictions yet he was only the 6th worse offender.) And yet we have a society said that is something we as a society have to step up and say this is not a benefit to society and we are going to take a stance on it EVEN THOUGH we know it ain't going to stop it.

 

Same with drugs. While we know that people will continue, we must take a stance and say that this is not a good thing for society.

 

Same with prostitution.

 

And now the debate is does casino gambling fit into that same category of prostitution and drugs.

 

I believe it does.

At least you are consistent.:thumb:

 

Should we make drunk driving legal and tax it as we can't stop that either.

Those pesky murder laws haven't prevented murders, make that legal.

The two laws that you point out are for direct crimes against others. Prostitution, gambling and narcotics may cause indirect harm to those close to the perpetrator, but they remain victimless crimes.

The two laws that you point out are for direct crimes against others. Prostitution, gambling and narcotics may cause indirect harm to those close to the perpetrator, but they remain victimless crimes.

 

DUI is a direct crime? How?

 

I go to the bar and get drunk and drive home without hitting anyone but on the way home I am pulled over by police for DUI. How is that an direct crime?

 

If I hit someone, hit property, etc, etc, I would assume their could be additional charges over just the DUI.