What should the legal status of gambling be?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote for option 4. I can't understand how anyone could support banning private gambling to the point of being able to arrest people for having a weekly poker night.

[Lief 🗽]

Option 4.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 4

[© tweed]

I vote for option 4. I can't understand how anyone could support banning private gambling to the point of being able to arrest people for having a weekly poker night.

nobody really believes that if there is no 'rake.'

[John Dibble]

Option 4. Regulations should mainly involve ensuring taxes are properly paid by the legal institutions and that the games are not rigged. (given the odds are already in the house's favor, they shouldn't have to be)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote for option 4. I can't understand how anyone could support banning private gambling to the point of being able to arrest people for having a weekly poker night.

nobody really believes that if there is no 'rake.'

ilikeverin obviously does as he expressed opposition to my fantasy politics proposition to completely ban any possibility of this happening.

[Ebowed]

ilikeverin obviously does as he expressed opposition to my fantasy politics proposition to completely ban any possibility of this happening.

Well, why don't you ask him before you put words in his mouth?  I doubt he or anyone else cares about private poker games.

Anyway, I voted for option 4, but I should add that I oppose any government sponsored gambling (lotteries), but to be frank I couldn't care less about gambling restrictions because casinos are a waste of time and money.

[Gabu]

I vote for option 4. I can't understand how anyone could support banning private gambling to the point of being able to arrest people for having a weekly poker night.

nobody really believes that if there is no 'rake.'

ilikeverin obviously does as he expressed opposition to my fantasy politics proposition to completely ban any possibility of this happening.

You have a terrible habit of taking something that a poster has said or done that is somewhat related to a topic at hand and then making a few leaps and bounds and arriving at the conclusion that that person supports some other position that he has probably never actually explicitly declared support for.  Why can't you just let people speak for themselves instead of telling them what they do and don't think?

Expressing opposition to a proposition to completely ban the chance of something does not mean that you support enacting what would have been banned.  It means you might, but the jump between "might imply" to "incontrovertibly shows" is rather large.

[Person Man]

Option 3. Let's be reasonable. There are serious ethical consequences of gambling and though it should be allowed, it should not be unregulated.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote for option 4. I can't understand how anyone could support banning private gambling to the point of being able to arrest people for having a weekly poker night.

nobody really believes that if there is no 'rake.'

ilikeverin obviously does as he expressed opposition to my fantasy politics proposition to completely ban any possibility of this happening.

You have a terrible habit of taking something that a poster has said or done that is somewhat related to a topic at hand and then making a few leaps and bounds and arriving at the conclusion that that person supports some other position that he has probably never actually explicitly declared support for.  Why can't you just let people speak for themselves instead of telling them what they do and don't think?

*shrugs*, after having this happen to me so much from people like dazzleman, Supersoulty and StatesRights, I guess I just picked it up.

Dazzleman once said to me flat out "If Pinochet had the exact same policies but was anti-American, you would support him." That's utterly disgusting and way more slanderous than whatever I did here, but no one bashed him over it. Of course, I'm talking to a "liberal" who thought dazzleman was awesome which makes as much sense as Jews liking Hitler.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Option 3, but not because of any "serious ethical consequences".  Rather, commercial gambling needs to be restricted to keep down the tackiness factor to a manageable level.  It simply is not desirable to have an electronic gaming machine in every convenience store, but that's what happened around here when video poker was legal.  Casino gaming is fine, private gaming is fine, but when it intrudes into ordinary businesses it becomes a quality of life issue.

[bergie72]

Option 4.   Minimal regulation and government oversight.

[2952-0-0]

I think if gambling were legal, then trying to rig the game (as long as no material property is damaged) should be legal. Of course, the casino would have to step up security, and would have every right to sue cheaters for damages.