Posted on 05/26/2003 7:22:04 AM PDT by sitetest
I don't remember reading THAT bit of info. That initial story was a hit piece that was filled with innuendo and personal opinions.
I'd still like to know who in the casinos in Nevada broke the code of silence followed by all the casinos to protect their 'players'. If that person is ever identified, I think his name is gonna be MUD in Las Vegas or Atlantic City!
And I, and many others, believe those people are WRONG. The legalize drugs folks are just experiencing a big case of schadenfreude. You'll be happy with ANYTHING that makes someone you consider your nemesis look bad.
The dissonance here seem to stem from the fact that there is no clinical or medical evidence to support that belief, if, indeed, it is what Mr. Bennet actually believes.
In fact, he went purposefully out of his way during his tenure as Drug Whatever to stifle any research on marijuana in this regard. Which is rather ironic, since during that same time, he was addicted to nicotine and a heavy chain smoker.
Either he is a capable dunce, which I believe, or he is a duplicitous moral charalatan, which I believe. He is no friend to the principles this country was founded on, has too great a love of a bully pulpit and is conspicuously overfond of hearing the sound of his own name.
Except, of course, when it's heard calling him on the carpet for his obvious hypocrisy and bumbling incompetence.
Another defense....why are you unwilling to engage in serious debate?
As Drug Czar, Bill Bennett outlined the problems drugs create in our communities. They drive families into poverty, increase domestic abuse, lead to higher crime rates, create higher unemployment, and drive a series of other social pathologies. He made a similar case with regard to the damaging effects of excess sex and violence in the television and music industries. In what way is gambling any different? Is it not true that gambling addicts wreck their own lives and the lives of those around them? Does gambling not lead to higher divorce rates, greater dependence on social services, and increased crime?
Thus far, Bennett's response has been to say that he hasn't hurt anyone with his gambling. He says he hasn't put his family in danger and that he's adhered to the law. Unless Bennett has gone libertarian his answer is lame at best and certainly no better than what the rich and famous have been telling us through their actions for years. In other words, it's okay to participate in socially destructive enterprises because he's sufficiently insulated by his wealth not to be affected by it. Forget the fact he's attacked fully analogous industries with great vigor. Forget that gambling enterprises have often been connected to organized crime. Forget that his habit helps support an enterprise that has wrecked thousands and thousands of families.
Bennett made millions as the voice of morality in the conservative movement and excessive gambling is a vice, regardless of whether he talked about it or not. True, Bennett did not engage in illegal activity. But the fact that big-stakes gambling is more illegal than legal in the United States should tell us something. The fact that casino-industry lobbyists have the need to call their product the more benign-sounding "gaming" shows they know that the word "gambling" is seen as something problematic at the very least. (One could even imagine a Bill Bennett saying that the industry has been "shamed" out of saying what they truly are.)
It's ironic that former drug czar Bill Bennett would find himself under fire over gambling since studies suggest that addictions to various behaviors and substances may have a similar root cause — how the body regulates the neurotransmitter dopamine.
In other words, the same pleasure centers in the brain stoked by various illegal drugs get amped when a compulsive gambler is on a serious streak. Picturing Bill Bennett jacking the one-armed bandit for hours on end is very disturbing, and that's not meant for cheap laughs either. Jonah is right that Bennett may be guilty more of a "political" sin than a "moral" one, but that doesn't necessarily make it much better.
It's good that Bennett has declared that he is never going to gamble again, though the statement is somewhat problematic in and of itself. How many times have we seen public figures make such announcements — after they've been "caught" with their hands in the cookie jar? Does he recognize that he may have a true problem — or is it just for face- and money-saving purposes?
But, far more importantly, if Bennett's problem is as serious as it appears, those who respect the man should hope he seeks some counseling because most addicts have difficulty stopping cold turkey.
C'mon, dude.
Be real.
First off, the illegality of pot ranges from FIVE YEARS ON MY ISLAND to a ticket/small fine in the Great State of California.
The penalty depends on EACH JURISDICTION. Therefore, if you seem to think that Mr. Bennett has done everything possible to influence each and every legislature as to the evils of pot, you are deluding yourself.
If, for some reason, you think that anyone who decides pot smoking are now sanctimonious phonies, you juar insulted at least half of the folks on Free Republic.
Name-calling isn't debate, dude.
Um, my little island is tiny. But life doesn't make TOO much sense here, either..
I do not think that people who think marijuana should be illegal are sanctimonious phonies. People are entitled to their opinion.
I think someone with multi-million dollar a year gambling habit who makes his money being the nation's foremost expert on virtue is a sanctimonious phony.
I won't defend people just because they sit on my side of the isle. One of my biggest disappointments during the Clinton scandals was the willingness of Democrats to defend him no matter what he did.
As far as I could tell, the laws haven't changed in the almost 15 yrs. since Bennett was Drug Czar. If enough folks wanted it changed, don't you think something would have happened by now? The vast majority of people in this country know that drug use is NOT something they want their kids to get into.
It is insidious, and it changes people's personalities; yes, even marijuana, which my brother, who is almost 53 exclusively uses. His emotional development stopped at about age 18, when he began smoking the stuff. Unfortunately, his first wife left him because he was using so much. His second wife hung on, only because they had 3 kids and she wanted it to work. When the third child was 10, she finally left, and he's made her life a living hell since. His girls don't want to have anything to do with him because he's an SOB, who ALWAYS knows he's right and everyone else is wrong, and according to him, the wacky terbacky had nothing to do with it.
Yeah right!
I'm just trying to point out that it is indeed the drug issue, and not his criticism of Clinton, that is behind the charges of hypocrisy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.