I am not for outlawing gambling, as is clearly shown by my posts in this thread. You should not misrepresent my opinions if you want to enjoy a healthy debate.
Ok...I'll bite. You have stated over and over again that gambling is deleterious on the family. This is the basis for you not wanting legalized casino gaming in Texas, and specifically Houston. This means one of two things... 1) You believe that something bad is ok in theory, or 2) You believe that it is ok as long as it is away from where you are. NIMBY is an awful disease by the way.
I believe that if Louisiana wants gambling, that is their business. As for the effects of gambling on families, I already stated my views. I guess we should agree to disagree.
I think the Lege might go for casino gambling in Galveston, but I think Perry would veto it. Why? Because he is in the pocket of right-wing, religious extremists and he is also an idiot. Should Perry completely switch gears and support casinos, I would support having them in Galveston and nowhere else. Why? Because Galveston desperately needs them, and we need a healthy economy in Galveston. After some years, some expansion outside of Galveston could be considered, but I would view a casino bill as a "rebuilding Galveston's economy" bill, and leave it at that. Galveston has a long gambling tradition, anyway. My parents gambled there in the '40's and '50's. Yes, it was illegal, but the local law was in the pocket of "you know who." They said it was a heck of a lot of fun!
Galveston is a perfect place for a casino or two, but I if they do it, they should do it right. Casinos in Texas should be first class establishments, like the ones being built in Macao. While I think you'd want the big companies in there developing them, they should also be good venues for music and entertainment, and in particular, Texas music, like Western Swing, Blues, roots rock, and quality folk and country music. Also, sporting events, and by sporting events, I mean boxing. Casinos can be a draw for people other than degenerate gamblers, and can actually promote our culture and provide a world class venue for it. It also makes it a much better tourist draw than the casinos in Louisiana.
I would like to see Galveston get a casino or two, however, most likely it will be a dump. The facility might look reasonably nice on the outside and inside but in my experience every casino outside of Vegas (haven't been to Atlantic City, though) is full of old people smoking cigarettes. It's not vibrant or exciting. There isn't a party atmosphere and there is very little to no eye candy. It's all older, working class people smoking cigarettes. So, being able to drive to Galveston once in a while to play poker would be great but it won't be Vegas by ANY stretch of the imagination. Just for the record, I have nothing against older, working class people who smoke. What they do with their time and money is their business.
I am perfectly OK with reasonable limitations on vices, but prohibition simply does not work, no matter what you are trying to prohibit. You mentioned several reasonable limitations on alcohol that make perfect sense and, as such, are in place in the great state of Texas. Another poster mentioned some reasonable limitations that should be applied to gambling (only in casinos and race tracks, not in convenience stores). The exact same thing could be extrapolated to nearly everything else that society tries to ban. mar1juana should be limited the same way as alcohol. Other drugs should be regulated and limited based on their own individual characteristics. Prohibition, however, does not work. To co-opt a marketing slogan from the '80s, Never Has, Never Will.
Just what I was thinking. One or two absolutely first class casinos, at least close to the top tier of Vegas. From what I've read of Macao's, they are right up there, sharing with Vegas the rep of being the finest. There should be at least two, owned by two different groups. Competition is groovy. For those concerned about the "evils of gambling," I won't argue that they don't exist in spades, but consider this... people will gamble regardless of whether it's legal or not. Better to have it regulated and earning tax dollars in Texas.
I don't know why people like this argument so much. It's applied to all the vices: drugs, prostitution, and now gambling. People will do these things whether they are legal or not. But, they will do it a lot more if it is legal. We don't need to have our society completely eliminate vice, so it doesn't matter that people will "do it anyway." However, considering it is bad for people individually and for us collectively, it'd be healthier to have people do it less. It seems for more worthwhile to me to have happy, productive citizens contributing to the commonwealth and not destroying themselves with vice than to have more tax dollars at the expense of their weakness.
You are 100% wrong here. In Amsterdam, mar1juana use and sales are tolerated within the framework they have created. Adult usage of marijauna is statistically identical to usage in a similar sized city in America, San Francisco. The major difference is that in Holland, teen usage of mar1juana is roughly half what we see here. A recent survey found that around 1% of Americans say they would use cocaine if it were legal. The rate of drug addiction before we prohibited use was around 1.3%, which is the same as it was at the height of Reagan's War on Drugs, and the same that we see today. Prohibition does not reduce indulgence in vices, it just exacerbates the harms. In the '80s, we saw big problems with underage usage of tobacco and alcohol. As a result of the regulatory framework they are under, we were able to reduce underage tobacco use by 25% and alcohol use by 50% in just a few years by instituting a nationwide 21 year old limit and instituting the "We Card" programs. Regulation works to reduce the harms inherent in any vice, prohibition merely makes those harms worse and introduces new problems.
We have gambling here in Co and it's not a big deal. Keep it localized, set limits on it and it provides a nice shot of revenue to the state. But like this dude said: Casinos around here seem like some weird carney town to me at times.....especially early in the mornings.
I remain unconvinced. I don't think you can draw firm conclusions by comparing similar-sized cities from different cultures. I also don't think its honest to use San Francisco in the comparison when it likley has an unusually high rate of drug use compared to other US cities its size. I also don't put much stock by your survey regarding cocaine, and feel like there is an incentive to underreport. Asking the question now when cocaine has a stigma from being illegal will yield a low number; after years of it being legal, more people will manage to ignore the stigma. Besides that, consumption by some may become more intense due to the lower total cost without even increasing the population of users. The regulation stats you cite for underage smoking and drinking is an example of prohibition, not regulation. No one under a certain age is allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes. I'm thinking of the much more basic principle of supply and demand. On the margin, a higher price reduces demand. Prohibition (and regulation) makes the cost in dollars and in risk higher. Legalization will dramatically reduce the cost and increase demand. Addicts have a high willingness to pay (their demand would be inelastic), but are still constrained by their means. And, non-addicts will consume less the more something costs.
Then please continue to do reading and research on the subject. I have studied this issue for more than two decades and I believe that anyone who honestly studies the facts with regards to drug use and abuse in our society cannot possibly come to a pro-War on Drugs conclusion. In a prohibitionist environment, it is difficult to do any comparisons because of the lack of accurate data (more on that later), but the statistics are stark and clear. The society that tolerates mar1juana use has far more success keeping their children from using it until they reach adulthood. Not based on the data I have seen from the time that the comparison to Amsterdam was done (before the medical mar1juana law was passed in CA). SF had slightly higher usage rates when compared to other large cities, but we are talking about tenths of a point, nothing statistically significant. The single biggest problem with prohibition, IMO, is the utter inability to do accurate studies of anything having to do with drug use because of the issue you bring up here. How many people use drugs in our society? How much do they use? Does drug use have a causation offect on crime rates or are increased crime rates caused by prohibition? How many of our young people use drugs? How many people are physically addicted? None of those questions can be accurately gagued as a result of prohibition, which skews all of the numbers. If we are to have a positive effect on the harms of drug use and abuse, we need to be able to accurately and scientifically measure them. Which is the reason to build in controls to monitor usage of the most dangerous drugs so that you can mitigate the effects before the users begin to have problems related to their use. If you are talking purely about cocaine here, you could also regulate delivery methods and say that people can only purchse cocaine as a beverage mix, as was the most common delivery method before cocaine was made illegal in 1914. People could still purchase a whole lot and cook it down into crack, but that would happen with about the same frequency that people now make moonshine or grow their own tobacco for cigarettes. Which is a prime example of regulation, not prohibition. Alcohol is regulated such that people must be at least 21 to purchase. In this regulated environment, we were able to have a major effect on the ability of underage individuals to purchase it. We could have the same effect with other drugs. No, it doesn't. Since Reagan ratcheted up the drug war in the mid 80s, the price of drugs has fallen and average purity has increased. Prohibition has had the exact opposite effect that you mention. Look it up if you don't believe me. IMO, the price of drugs should remain more or less where it is now. Every dollar over what it costs to manufacture and distribute them, plus a defined profit, would go to the government in taxes to help reduce the problems that come with drug use and abuse in a society. Demand for softer drugs like mar1juana and MDMA would probably increase some, but for the most part, people don't use cocaine and heroin because those drugs are dangerous, not because they are illegal.
