Replies

But how is his gambling ruining some one else's life? That arguement is completley disigenuous and complete ignores the very simple concept of cause and effect. How many people are going to NOT destroy their family with gambling if Bill stops? None. So why should he bear the moral burden for their addiction?

And understand when I say this that I'm the classic degenerate gambler, I suck at it and a I can't stop once I start. So I don't go anywhere near it, I don't even go to the concerts at the Indian casino without a stern chaperone. Finding out Bennett gambles is having no effect on my urges, if he quit tomorrow it would have equally little effect.

Hah. I may not be a "degenerate gambler," but I too suck at it -- or at least have no luck whatsoever -- and I have a tendency to bet more than I'd really like to lose.

I myself have given up casino gambling completely, although I still play poker for low stakes (plus, I'm gambling with chumps and buffoons, so I'm actually using my time productively).

But how is his gambling ruining some one else's life? That arguement is completley disigenuous and complete ignores the very simple concept of cause and effect. How many people are going to NOT destroy their family with gambling if Bill stops? None. So why should he bear the moral burden for their addiction?

But how is one man's coke addiction ruining someone else's life? Yet cocaine is illegal based upon the supposed RISK TO SOCIETY and HARM TO SOCIETY and the DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY. Drug laws completely ignore the laws of cause and effect, yet we have plenty of drug laws, and plenty of people calling drug usage immoral, whether or not you hurt anyone other than yourself. In a way, I'm actually in complete agreement with you.

I'm just pointing out hypocrisy, which is the most hypocritical coming from someone like Bennett, our ex-Drug Czar.

And as for a previous post of yours, I don't hold casinos responsible for gamblers any more than I hold the 7-11 clerk responsible for the drunk driver.

But how is his gambling ruining some one else's life? That arguement is completley disigenuous and complete ignores the very simple concept of cause and effect. How many people are going to NOT destroy their family with gambling if Bill stops? None. So why should he bear the moral burden for their addiction?

Because he preaches societal responsibility. The majority of people who try drugs do not get addicted. Many drug users can use drugs responsibly. Why is it morally righteous for him to gamble, but not for the guy down the street to grow and smoke marijuana in his home? How many people are going to NOT destroy their family if that guy stops smoking marijuana. Why should he bear the moral burden for those who can't handle their drugs?