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.

 

Disagree. The families that are torn apart by their loved ones participated in gambling, prostitution and narcotics would disagree with you too.

 

They may not be direct victims but that does not make their pain and anguish any less real.

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

You'll find that, for every study, there is an equal and opposite study. That's why we never know from one day to the next whether we're getting cancer or preventing it.

You'll find that, for every study, there is an equal and opposite study. That's why we never know from one day to the next whether we're getting cancer or preventing it.

 

So, there is no proven basis that casino gambling will be beneficial to the state of KY except for each's personal opinion that there will be a benefit cause any proof can easily be disproven by the other side? Is that what you are saying?

Disagree. The families that are torn apart by their loved ones participated in gambling, prostitution and narcotics would disagree with you too.

Then, as with the other types of crime mentioned, the perpetrators should be punished, and the rest of us get on with it.

So, there is no proven basis that casino gambling will be beneficial to the state of KY except for each's personal opinion that there will be a benefit cause any proof can easily be disproven by the other side?

With expanded gaming, you don't need a study to know that it will be beneficial. That just takes common sense.

Then, as with the other types of crime mentioned, the perpetrators should be punished, and the rest of us get on with it.

 

So, you then agree, that there are incidents that we as a society have to take a stance on an issue and say this ain't good for society whether it will prevent it from occurring or not? Prostitution, narcotics, murder, drunk driving, child abuse, rape, rooting for the Yankees:D, etc, etc

 

And then we are just debating whether casino gambling fits that criteria or not?

And then we are just debating whether casino gambling fits that criteria or not?

It most certainly does not fit in the same pigeon hole. Gambling can be enjoyed responsibly. The others you mention are examples of criminally abusive behavior.

With expanded gaming, you don't need a study to know that it will be beneficial. That just takes common sense.

 

And I would argue that common sense will say that families lives will be ruined by making casino gambling accessible to those that it is not presently accessible to.

 

Horse Racing takes some knowledge and is not 24/7/365.

Betting on ball games takes some knowledge.

Pulling the lever of a slot machine can be done by a monkey and appeals to the weakest of us. I don't think the government should be in the business of promoting and industry that preys on the weakest.

 

As the Huckster said in the debate,

We are a better country than that.

And I would argue that common sense will say that families lives will be ruined by making casino gambling accessible to those that it is not presently accessible to.

 

Horse Racing takes some knowledge and is not 24/7/365.

Betting on ball games takes some knowledge.

Pulling the lever of a slot machine can be done by a monkey and appeals to the weakest of us. I don't think the government should be in the business of promoting and industry that preys on the weakest.

 

As the Huckster said in the debate,

We are a better country than that.

Oh wow. So now, only smart people should be allowed to gamble. :lol:

 

Maybe we could work that into the KATS testing.

It most certainly does not fit in the same pigeon hole. Gambling can be enjoyed responsibly. The others you mention are examples of criminally abusive behavior.

 

Let me say that I understand the economic issues and the points. And if I needed to, I could take that side of the argument and debate it as passionately as I am the side I have come down on upon.

 

AFTER looking at that side of the debate, I disagree that it benefits society more than it hurts society.

 

If we had people living like they do in Africa, okay, we need an economic boost. But our low income people live better than a lot of people in this world.

 

And since we are a growing obese nation, I am not sure we are a country of starving people in which we need to sell our souls here in KY for casino gambling.

Oh wow. So now, only smart people should be allowed to gamble. :lol:

 

There are some other things I wish we could prevent certain people from doing. Reproducing is one thing that jumps to mind.:sssh::lol: Know anyone that you hope they don't reproduce?????:lol::lol::lol::lol:

It most certainly does not fit in the same pigeon hole. Gambling can be enjoyed responsibly. The others you mention are examples of criminally abusive behavior.

 

Some would say that prostitutes would fit into your bolded statement.

 

Also, narcotics. In fact, there is thread after thread on here about legalizing marijuana where that is there whole argument.

If we had people living like they do in Africa, okay, we need an economic boost. But our low income people live better than a lot of people in this world.

Because we aren't living in grass huts, starving, and peniless, we shouldn't try to better our communities, and our state? :eek: Well, I think having to travel to Darfur to play a slot machine, is a little excessive.

Know anyone that you hope they don't reproduce?????:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Two or three, right off the top of my head.

Some would say that prostitutes would fit into your bolded statement.

That sounds naughty, right there. :devil: