legalized gambling?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gambling should be legal, but the house percentage should be prominently displayed so people will know how much on average they are paying for their entertainment.

[nomorelies]

People should be allowed the responibility

If you wanna smoke crack then do it but not in my home. I

[electcollfan]

Let the local governments/people decide; they are the ones who have to put up with a casino if it is built.

[Nym90]

Gambling should be legal in all forms. It's not the government's business to tell people what they can or can't do with their money.

I support government sponsored gambling as a way to raise revenue. People are going to spend the money anyway, might as well put it to good use.

[A18]

Nym, don't you support welfare?

How can you ask taxpayers to pay for broke gamblers?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I hate all these laws against victimless crimes.  Smart people wont gamble all their money away.  If people want to put their own money on the line, let 'em. 

[Nym90]

Nym, don't you support welfare?

How can you ask taxpayers to pay for broke gamblers?

Not for someone who gambled away all their money and doesn't want to work, no. I support it only for those who genuinely need a hand up for a temporary period of time through no fault of their own.

[John Dibble]

Nym, don't you support welfare?

How can you ask taxpayers to pay for broke gamblers?

Not for someone who gambled away all their money and doesn't want to work, no. I support it only for those who genuinely need a hand up for a temporary period of time through no fault of their own.

How then would the government know who is genuinely in need and who is just stupid with their money?

[Nym90]

Nym, don't you support welfare?

How can you ask taxpayers to pay for broke gamblers?

Not for someone who gambled away all their money and doesn't want to work, no. I support it only for those who genuinely need a hand up for a temporary period of time through no fault of their own.

How then would the government know who is genuinely in need and who is just stupid with their money?

It obviously depends on circumstances, and you have to go on a case by case basis. If a person is unable to work, they should receive assistance. If they are clearly able to work and choose not to, then they should not receive money. There are a lot of "grey area" cases that fall somewhere in between, and those should be looked at individually to determine whether the person is in need or not. Basically set up everything like unemployment benefits (which are a type of welfare), where you have to present the reasons, and then your application is rejected or accepted depending on the evidence.

[John Dibble]

Nym, don't you support welfare?

How can you ask taxpayers to pay for broke gamblers?

Not for someone who gambled away all their money and doesn't want to work, no. I support it only for those who genuinely need a hand up for a temporary period of time through no fault of their own.

How then would the government know who is genuinely in need and who is just stupid with their money?

It obviously depends on circumstances, and you have to go on a case by case basis. If a person is unable to work, they should receive assistance. If they are clearly able to work and choose not to, then they should not receive money. There are a lot of "grey area" cases that fall somewhere in between, and those should be looked at individually to determine whether the person is in need or not. Basically set up everything like unemployment benefits (which are a type of welfare), where you have to present the reasons, and then your application is rejected or accepted depending on the evidence.

There's a problem with that, which is a problem now actually - such a system would make administration costs ludicrous. You would spend more on administrating and distributing welfare than the recipients would receive.

[Nym90]

Nym, don't you support welfare?

How can you ask taxpayers to pay for broke gamblers?

Not for someone who gambled away all their money and doesn't want to work, no. I support it only for those who genuinely need a hand up for a temporary period of time through no fault of their own.

How then would the government know who is genuinely in need and who is just stupid with their money?

It obviously depends on circumstances, and you have to go on a case by case basis. If a person is unable to work, they should receive assistance. If they are clearly able to work and choose not to, then they should not receive money. There are a lot of "grey area" cases that fall somewhere in between, and those should be looked at individually to determine whether the person is in need or not. Basically set up everything like unemployment benefits (which are a type of welfare), where you have to present the reasons, and then your application is rejected or accepted depending on the evidence.

There's a problem with that, which is a problem now actually - such a system would make administration costs ludicrous. You would spend more on administrating and distributing welfare than the recipients would receive.

Agreed, but steps can be taken to reduce the bureaucracy and the paperwork. E-filing of applications and responses, for example. It can be streamlined. It can be made more efficient than it currently is without sacrificing quality of service.

[Redefeatbush04]

The last thing we need is more red tape in government. Why make gambling illegal? If anything we should lower the legal age!!! It should be up to the people to demonstrate personal responcibility. Just like with guns. Guns are just as dangerous as gambling. Agreed? Those who oppose gambling, are you for gun rights?