We agree in principle here, I think, on a lot of this, but my point in in reference to Bennett's view of morality, Bennett's beliefs about 'what hurts somebody'. Bennett has a very BROAD view of harm when it comes to 'vices' he doesn't indulge in. As Drug Czar, as the compiler of 'Virtues', as a bobbing head on tv anytime a moral topic comes up. It's just that his BROAD view of morality (broader than yours or mine, it sounds like) gets mighty narrow when it comes to the vice of gambling.
True, HIS losses aren't ruining someone else's family, but then again, John Doe's coke use isn't ruining my family either. But Bennett would argue that Doe IS a harm to EVERYONE, to SOCIETY, and that IF YOU INDULGE IN BEHAVIORS LIKE JOHN DOE, THEN YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM. Now, I don't particuarly subscribe to that belief, because I think that if you want to smoke a joint and watch the Simpsons after dinner, then you shouldn't risk jail for it. But that's not Bennett's position. And, in this instance, it's had the effect of turning Bennett-liking, moralistic folk into instant libertarians, arguing for personal freedom and the ability to have a vice so long as 'it doesn't hurt anyone'. I just find that ironic.