Few Readers Interested In Poll on Gambling
Participation in the poll last week was about half a typical week.
Q: Missouri regulators now allow addicted gamblers to ban themselves for 5 years rather than life, good change?
- Yes 18 [36.73%]
- No 14 [28.57%]
- Unsure/no opinion 8 [16.33%]
- Maybe 8 [16.33%]
- Other: 1 [2.04%]Â Not familiar with the debate. Can you elaborate on each position?
The results provide no consensus on the issue.
Gambling is on a roll. Faced with mounting budget deficits, more states are expanding gambling options and loosening restrictions in a grab for revenue. Critics warn that the winnings are fool’s gold, not worth the potential social and financial ills. But that’s not stopping many states from getting a piece of the action. (Huffington Post)
Some would say state finances are driving the change, not necessarily what is best public policy.
– Steve Patterson
There was a small response because this is a non-issue for most of your readers. The number of disassociated persons wanting to be allowed to gamble again is a subset of all disassociated persons, which is a small subset of all gamblers, which is a subset of the general population. You would have had a bigger response if you had asked about the sex-offenders registry or whether interior designers should be licensed by the state, things that more of us care about.
As for the specific issue, yes, it’s partly about money, but mostly it’s about the role government should play in individual choices. While gambling may be an addiction, it’s not a crime that deserves a life sentence. The government does little for addicts struggling to distance themselves from other addictions – tobacco and alcohol, to name two – yet feels a need “to protect gamblers from themselves”. The end result is mostly hypocrisy. Since this is done at the state level, anyone who wants to circumvent the ban either just crosses the state line or avoids licensed casinos entirely, choosing, instead, to participate in unregulated and/or illegal gambling activities. Bottom line, we’re each responsible for managing our own addictions. Other people can help, but we have the final say.
There was a small response because this is a non-issue for most of your readers. The number of disassociated persons wanting to be allowed to gamble again is a subset of all disassociated persons, which is a small subset of all gamblers, which is a subset of the general population. You would have had a bigger response if you had asked about the sex-offenders registry or whether interior designers should be licensed by the state, things that more of us care about.
As for the specific issue, yes, it’s partly about money, but mostly it’s about the role government should play in individual choices. While gambling may be an addiction, it’s not a crime that deserves a life sentence. The government does little for addicts struggling to distance themselves from other addictions – tobacco and alcohol, to name two – yet feels a need “to protect gamblers from themselves”. The end result is mostly hypocrisy. Since this is done at the state level, anyone who wants to circumvent the ban either just crosses the state line or avoids licensed casinos entirely, choosing, instead, to participate in unregulated and/or illegal gambling activities. Bottom line, we’re each responsible for managing our own addictions. Other people can help, but we have the final say.
Ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh…..don’t you hear it? The sucking sound of MILLIONS from local economies. And sadly most of it is going outside of the region.
Ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh…..don’t you hear it? The sucking sound of MILLIONS from local economies. And sadly most of it is going outside of the region.