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.
Loser arguement, you're hypothetical person is already addicted. That means his spouse has to deal with the mood swings and the dwindling bank account.
Of course that's a complete RED HERRING. We're not discussing drug laws, we're discussing is it immoral for a person to occasional drop some bills he can easily afford in a slot machine.
Interesting that you now say you don't hold the casinos responsible since previously you said they were an institution that ruined families. Which are they, not responsible or ruinous institutions? Can't be both. In one of those two statements you're BSing me.