I am what you might call a "bible thumper," and my objection to gambling, in general, is the damage that it truly does cause in families and neighborhoods. If it were possible to restrict the damage to individuals, I'd readily fall back on my normal argument "live and let live."
Nonetheless, I do NOT support restrictions on gambling. Because the damage to families and neighborhoods is real and is measurable, I see no reason to assume that governments cannot be involved in this issue and regulate it with legislation.
I allow for gambling for the same reason I allow for alcohol consumption:
1. There is a fallacy in catering to the addict rather than to the majority capable of moderation.
2. There is a fallacy in government attempting to regulate that which is amazingly simple to engage in whether government objects or not. Government couldn't really control Uncle Jake making whiskey in his garage and selling it to his neighbors. Nor can government control those who run numbers and play poker. It's insane to regulate that which you can't control.
1 & 2 above do not mean government has no interest in TRYING to do so, if they so desire.
Great points, and pretty much what I believe also.
I don't gamble (grew up the son of a farmer, a $500 bet is pretty small change compared to that gamble), but I know a quite a few who do as a source of entertainment. Much like I enjoy a good crafted beer or fine whiskey on occasion.
Both have the possibility of abuse to the determent of society, and hence why there is some regulation. But in the end banning either one is a bit of over reaction.
The politicians have an interest in creating the perception that they can indeed control it. The beltway bureaucrats have an interest in getting the money and authority to pursue the attempt.