Should gambling be allowed for legal adults 18-20?
Poll
 | 16 votes (76.19%) | ||
| | 5 votes (23.8%) |
21 members have voted
Quote: mkl654321No, what explains all those 275-pound Marines is the obsolete BELIEF that a chunkier soldier is obviously a better one--a misconception that is behind the fierce resistance to recruiting women soldiers. To repeat myself, it's brains, not brawn, that matters, except perhaps in the rare instance of unarmed hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.
Time to turn on the sarcasm meter.
Quote:Following military practices, i.e., war, has achieved good ends--for the winners. It has also achieved horrible ends--for both sides. The latter result has been more common than the former. War itself is obsolete, and in a sense, it always has been, in that trade and interaction with one's neighbors has always been a superior strategy.
A sublime blend of hand waving and sophistry embracing some airy notion, thanks to intellectually questionable tactic of trimming what started a specific exchange. In this case, here is the broad paint brush from a self-identified teacher, scholar and historian:
Quote:
The point I was making is that mature people resist the idea that throwing away human lives is the optimal method of conflict resolution; young people just say "booyah" and go paddle around in the testosterone.
Quote:It is not necessary to have been a soldier to understand what military service is all about, nor does having been a soldier necessarily confer that knowledge. In fact, an "outsider"'s perspective may be more accurate. To use an appropriate analogy, one need not be or have been a baseball player to know all about baseball.
Most "scholars" do not close their minds once they have surveyed all those who agree with them.
Quote: mkl654321I don't see, and haven't heard of, swarms of underage gamblers seeking out illicit crap tables and slot machines buried in the basements of pool halls. Gambling isn't appealing for underage kids the way drinking is.
There was plenty of illegal gambling going on in the dorms and apartments of UCSB. You don't need slot machines and crap tables to do it. Just a deck of cards will do. Acey-Deucey was huge in the Santa Rosa dorm at UCSB while I was there.
Quote: mkl654321I would heartily disagree with the premise that making drinking illegal INCREASES the incidence of drinking. Granted, the prohibition won't reduce that incidence very much, but some number of underage persons--greater than zero--will refrain from drinking because it is illegal.
You're entitled to your opinion. I maintain that prohibition doesn't keep those in the 18-21 age range from getting alcohol. Once they get it, they will be more likely to consume all of it, because they don't want to keep a half-full bottle of vodka around.
Quote: mkl654321It would be nice if we could rely on the "individual responsibility and moderation" of 18-20 year olds, but that's like relying on the ability of chimpanzees to play the violin. They aren't ABLE to be responsible or moderate--not yet. That is the single strongest argument for restricting certain behaviors on their part.
I think anybody under 21 on this forum would be pretty insulted by that statement. 9 out of 10 seem basically okay to me.
Quote: mkl654321I do agree that if the individual states can regulate whether gambling exists at all, then they should also set the age limits. It takes a pretty desperate (cash-strapped) and dimwitted state to lower the gambling age to 18, though. Do you REALLY want to bleed teenagers to make up for your past fiscal stupidity?
What past fiscal stupidity are you referring to? I've been a tightwad all my life.
Quote: WizardThere was plenty of illegal gambling going on in the dorms and apartments of UCSB. You don't need slot machines and crap tables to do it. Just a deck of cards will do. Acey-Deucey was huge in the Santa Rosa dorm at UCSB while I was there.
Back in high school some friends and would get together for poker games in one the guys' van, right in the school parking lot. The oldest in the group was 19, the youngest 14. We had a few decks of cards and some plastic chips.
Quote: WizardThere was plenty of illegal gambling going on in the dorms and apartments of UCSB. You don't need slot machines and crap tables to do it. Just a deck of cards will do. Acey-Deucey was huge in the Santa Rosa dorm at UCSB while I was there.
You're entitled to your opinion. I maintain that prohibition doesn't keep those in the 18-21 age range from getting alcohol. Once they get it, they will be more likely to consume all of it, because they don't want to keep a half-full bottle of vodka around.
I think anybody under 21 on this forum would be pretty insulted by that statement. 9 out of 10 seem basically okay to me.
What past fiscal stupidity are you referring to? I've been a tightwad all my life.
We were referring to allowing CASINO gambling. The kind of gambling you are referring to is technically illegal even for adults. I can't see how allowing 18-year-olds into casinos would make them gamble LESS--that seems ludicrous to me.
I never said that prohibiting underage drinking kept minors from drinking. I merely said that the prohibition decreased by some amount the number of minors who drank--at least SOME will be deterred by the fact that they're breaking the law; at least SOME people who might provide them with alcohol are similarly deterred. In any case, as above, I consider it ludicrous that legalizing alcohol consumption by minors would result in a DECREASE in consumption by them--a totally ridiculous idea.
Nobody under 21 should feel insulted. I simply refer to a capability they do not yet have. Behavioral psychology and studies of the physiology and development of the brain have proved this. Actual, empirical observation of the behavior of adolescents has strongly suggested it. Any parent could tell you (pride in their particular sweet booboo notwithstanding) that teenagers do some spectacularly foolhardy things. Pretending otherwise, and giving metaphorical loaded guns to persons who can't handle them, does them no service. I don't doubt that your son or the boy who delivers the paper is a swell kid. I also wouldn't hand him the car keys and a bottle of whiskey on a Saturday night, and tell him, "Come home when you feel like it."
Quote: Wizard
What past fiscal stupidity are you referring to? I've been a tightwad all my life.
Of states, in that allowing casino gambling is often seen by state governments as a panacea for the financial crises that have resulted from their fiscal incompetence (and allowing minors to gamble would presumably increase the revenue to be gained therefrom).
Quote: SanchoPanzaTime to turn on the sarcasm meter.
A sublime blend of hand waving and sophistry embracing some airy notion, thanks to intellectually questionable tactic of trimming what started a specific exchange. In this case, here is the broad paint brush from a self-identified teacher, scholar and historian:
Quote:
The point I was making is that mature people resist the idea that throwing away human lives is the optimal method of conflict resolution; young people just say "booyah" and go paddle around in the testosterone.
Most "scholars" do not close their minds once they have surveyed all those who agree with them.
And in what way was anything that I said that you quoted incorrect?
Quote: mkl654321Nope. I didn't say that those things are the same to me at all.
.
Oh please. You mentioned them in the discussion and now say you didn't mean they're the same. So why mention them at all, then? All you did was confuse the issue.
Quote: EvenBobOh please. You mentioned them in the discussion and now say you didn't mean they're the same. So why mention them at all, then? All you did was confuse the issue.
This is what I said:
So I suppose we should repeal laws against all forms of drug use, and for that matter, burglary, rape, kidnaping, and murder? Because "people are going to do what they want", no matter what?
Even you can perceive that I wasn't saying those things were the same. You can't possibly be so thick as not to see that.
I'll state my point again for your benefit: this was a response to your assertion that "people will do what they want", so why try to regulate their behavior? I tried to address the question of "why" by analogy. That apparently whistled right over your head.
I give up. You combine extremism and obtuseness to create an intellectual wall that nothing can penetrate.
Quote: mkl654321We were referring to allowing CASINO gambling. The kind of gambling you are referring to is technically illegal even for adults. I can't see how allowing 18-year-olds into casinos would make them gamble LESS--that seems ludicrous to me.
You were the one who mentioned underage gambling in general with this comment, "Gambling isn't appealing for underage kids the way drinking is." To me the issue isn't just minimizing gambling. I also value freedom in life to do what you want, as long as you aren't harming anybody else. Furthermore, I don't see Canada and Australia clamoring to increase their gambling age to 21.
Quote: mkl654321I never said that prohibiting underage drinking kept minors from drinking. I merely said that the prohibition decreased by some amount the number of minors who drank--at least SOME will be deterred by the fact that they're breaking the law; at least SOME people who might provide them with alcohol are similarly deterred. In any case, as above, I consider it ludicrous that legalizing alcohol consumption by minors would result in a DECREASE in consumption by them--a totally ridiculous idea.
I doesn't seem ridiculous to me. For every one person who waits to 21 to drink, there will be 10 who drink more because of forbidden fruit tastes better than legal fruit.
Quote: mkl654321Nobody under 21 should feel insulted. I simply refer to a capability they do not yet have. Behavioral psychology and studies of the physiology and development of the brain have proved this. Actual, empirical observation of the behavior of adolescents has strongly suggested it. Any parent could tell you (pride in their particular sweet booboo notwithstanding) that teenagers do some spectacularly foolhardy things.
I don't dispute that learning to delay gratification and take only calculated risks take a while to learn. In fact I would say that the young are deliberate risk seekers. That is why they a lot of them drink excessively, because it is risky. Legalize it and you take the fun out of it. However, in the interests of compromise, I wouldn't oppose a Colorado type of law where beer only is legal between the ages of 18 and 21.
Quote: mkl654321Pretending otherwise, and giving metaphorical loaded guns to persons who can't handle them, does them no service. I don't doubt that your son or the boy who delivers the paper is a swell kid. I also wouldn't hand him the car keys and a bottle of whiskey on a Saturday night, and tell him, "Come home when you feel like it."
There you go with another chimpanzee/murder kind of comparison. I'd tone town the hyperbole; it doesn't become you.
Quote: WizardYou were the one who mentioned underage gambling in general with this comment, "Gambling isn't appealing for underage kids the way drinking is." To me the issue isn't just minimizing gambling. I also value freedom in life to do what you want, as long as you aren't harming anybody else. Furthermore, I don't see Canada and Australia clamoring to increase their gambling age to 21.
I doesn't seem ridiculous to me. For every one person who waits to 21 to drink, there will be 10 who drink more because of forbidden fruit tastes better than legal fruit.
I don't dispute that learning to delay gratification and take only calculated risks take a while to learn. In fact I would say that the young are deliberate risk seekers. That is why they a lot of them drink excessively, because it is risky. Legalize it and you take the fun out of it. However, in the interests of compromise, I wouldn't oppose a Colorado type of law where beer only is legal between the ages of 18 and 21.
There you go with another chimpanzee/murder kind of comparison. I'd tone town the hyperbole; it doesn't become you.
I admit that I didn't say "CASINO gambling", but that is what I meant. I thought that that was implied since no one was talking about the legalization of the poker game in the basement.
Freedom as long as you don't harm anyone else--does the existing body of law extend that freedom to minors, i.e., to harm themselves? SHOULD they be free to harm/destroy themselves? The answer would be unequivocally "yes" if you discounted the societal cost of losing young people.
It seems that you weight the appeal of "forbidden fruit" more heavily than I do, but you weight the deterrence factor of an activity being against the law less heavily than I do. Therefore the discussion is subjective, in the absence of valid comparisons (which I'm sure have been done, contrasting minors' death/addiction rates in states where the drinking age is 18 and 21, respectively).
However: "legalize it and take the fun out of it"?? Obviously true: I live in a college town, and I see morose 21-year-olds sitting around all the time, sipping Starbucks and lamenting that "drinking isn't any fun now that I'm allowed to do it". Which, from a social utility standpoint, argues for bringing back Prohibition, since that would make it illegal for EVERYONE to drink and thus maximize their enjoyment from drinking. A similar argument could be made for making potato chips or cable TV illegal.
My last chimpanzee comparison involved a violin, not murder, and I don't think you realize just how perfect chimpanzee analogies really are.
Quote: mkl654321Freedom as long as you don't harm anyone else--does the existing body of law extend that freedom to minors, i.e., to harm themselves? SHOULD they be free to harm/destroy themselves? The answer would be unequivocally "yes" if you discounted the societal cost of losing young people.
You have to draw a line somewhere regarding who is a minor. In my opinion, if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to drink and gamble. 18 seems a good number to me.
Quote: mkl654321It seems that you weight the appeal of "forbidden fruit" more heavily than I do, but you weight the deterrence factor of an activity being against the law less heavily than I do. Therefore the discussion is subjective, in the absence of valid comparisons (which I'm sure have been done, contrasting minors' death/addiction rates in states where the drinking age is 18 and 21, respectively).
I agree.
Quote: mkl654321However: "legalize it and take the fun out of it"?? Obviously true: I live in a college town, and I see morose 21-year-olds sitting around all the time, sipping Starbucks and lamenting that "drinking isn't any fun now that I'm allowed to do it". Which, from a social utility standpoint, argues for bringing back Prohibition, since that would make it illegal for EVERYONE to drink and thus maximize their enjoyment from drinking. A similar argument could be made for making potato chips or cable TV illegal.
I'm not following your logic. If the 21 year old switched to coffee because alcohol was now legal for him, and thus not fun anymore, it would argue in favor of my "forbidden fruit" theory. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but it wasn't a good segue into your next point. I never said utility maximization is the desired goal. I'm more in favor of freedom maximization -- for adults, and as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
Quote: mkl654321My last chimpanzee comparison involved a violin, not murder, and I don't think you realize just how perfect chimpanzee analogies really are.
I didn't mean to imply the chimpanzee and murder comments were made at the same time. I was referring to this one, "So I suppose we should repeal laws against all forms of drug use, and for that matter, burglary, rape, kidnaping [sic], and murder? Because "people are going to do what they want", no matter what?."
LOL!!! I think you're making that up. Kids don't drink because its illegal, they drink because its fun! They drink because its new to them and because all their friends do it. I didn't ride around at night with my friends drinking beer when I was 17 because it was illegal, I did it because it was fun to get drunk. And when we all turned 21, we really went nuts. We went to the bars 4-5 nights a week and closed them down sometimes. Because it was youthful FUN.
My state tried letting 18 year olds drink 25 years ago. Big mistake. They went berzerk going to bars and driving home drunk. So many of them died that the law was repealed a year later.
Quote: WizardYou have to draw a line somewhere regarding who is a minor. In my opinion, if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to drink and gamble. 18 seems a good number to me.
I'm not following your logic. If the 21 year old switched to coffee because alcohol was now legal for him, and thus not fun anymore, it would argue in favor of my "forbidden fruit" theory. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but it wasn't a good segue into your next point. I never said utility maximization is the desired goal. I'm more in favor of freedom maximization -- for adults, and as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
I didn't mean to imply the chimpanzee and murder comments were made at the same time. I was referring to this one, "So I suppose we should repeal laws against all forms of drug use, and for that matter, burglary, rape, kidnaping [sic], and murder? Because "people are going to do what they want", no matter what?."
That's been my point all along: eighteen-year-olds are not able to give informed consent in the matter of risking their lives for dubious political goals, so they should not be allowed (encouraged) to join the armed forces. The same argument applies to not allowing eighteen-year-olds to drink and/or gamble: they are not mature enough to handle the consequences. Obviously, both 18 and 21 are arbitrary numbers, so would 12 be, in the sense that we could say that anyone who enters puberty is an adult. Therefore, I default to the scientific measure of maturity, which is when the final stages of mental development are complete. This occurs at age 26. I actually have no problem whatsoever with not allowing drinking, gambling, OR enlistment in the armed forces until that age. If this seems extreme, keep in mind that given that the current generation should reasonably expect to live well into their late 80s, the proportions of their lives that are considered "pre-adult" would be the same as the current calculation of 21, with a life expectancy in the low 70s.
I actually equate freedom maximization, with the qualifications you give, with utility maximization. And utility maximization should be the ONLY goal of government, as in, "the greatest good for the greatest number". This, unfortunately, often means decreasing the utility (happiness) of certain individuals or classes of individuals. I may want to play the trombone out on my lawn tonight before I go to bed, which would give me great utility, but I have to defer to the common good and refrain from doing so. Prohibitions against drug use, suicide, and speeding all are utility maximizations, i.e., using the principle that personal freedom ends where negative consequences for others begin.
Perhaps the concept of "negative externalities" is relevant here. Negative externalities are negative consequences of behavior or actions that do not fall on the individual or entity performing those actions. Air pollution is a good example; so is raising chickens in your backyard. Underage drinking inflicts severe negative externalities on the community (as does drug use, suicide, and gambling, to mention other examples I've touched on), and that is the reason for prohibiting it even though it gives maximum utility and maximum freedom to the minor who wishes to drink. That he may do so illegally nonetheless is neither here nor there; all the law can do is make something illegal. Enforcement is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
The analogy with allowing severe crimes was a somewhat sarcastic response to the assertion that laws are useless because "people will do what they want". However, chimpanzees do rape, steal, and murder, which probably has something to do with the fact that they have no laws against underage drinking or gambling.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Drinking has immediate bad consequences, like dying on the way home. On the other hand, 18 year olds have NO MONEY, so losing $20 isn't going to change their lives. They have no money, have no access to money, have no property. Gambling can be a learning experience for them. Keeping a problem gambler out of a casino means nothing. He can always buy lottery tickets or find a game somewhere or play poker online. You can't protect people from themselves.
Quote: rudeboyoimy best friend in college dropped $30,000 online playing poker. for two weeks i kept trying to get a hold of him and he wouldnt answer. i find out through a mutual friend he bought an oz of cocaine. wasnt going to classes. and locked himself in his room. he was living in a dormitory for grad students. when his parents came down to see him im guessing because he wasnt answering any calls they knocked on his dorm room and got no response. they got the door open and found him in a pool of blood. he slit his wrists with scissors. i got him into poker and have been living with that guilt ever since.
Problem gamblers will always find a way to play. They say if a man isn't a problem gambler by the time he's 18, he probably never will be. What they mean is a risk taker, somebody who takes risks just for fun, when there's no reason, just for the adrenaline rush. Thats all gambling is, risk taking. Scientists say the part of your brain that makes logical decisions is half the size of the part of the brain that deals with fight or flight. So when the logical part is screaming at you to quit playing, the large part is bathed in exciting adrenaline, egging you on for more. Some people never learn to listen to the logical part and ignore the other.
Quote: mkl654321And utility maximization should be the ONLY goal of government, as in, "the greatest good for the greatest number". This, unfortunately, often means decreasing the utility (happiness) of certain individuals or classes of individuals.
Karl Marx couldn't have said it any better.
Quote: WizardKarl Marx couldn't have said it any better.
I thought Marx DID say it. Its called spreading the misery equally, kinda like a manure spreader. Once everybody is equally miserable, and you have no hope of a better life, you die inside and half the country drowns their misery in vodka.
Quote: WizardKarl Marx couldn't have said it any better.
Marx wasn't entirely wrong about many things, though his basic premise was flawed. It's not an insult (though you meant it as one) to compare my thinking to that of Marx. He was a deep thinker. But the concept of utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number--goes back much farther than Marx, to Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and John Stuart Mill, all 18th-century philosophers. So the comparison with Marx is invalid--he actually didn't believe in utilitarianism; rather, he advocated UNEVEN distribution of resources according to the needs of the state, completely ignoring the happiness of any individual or class of individuals.
I don't see how anyone can object to the concept of government providing the greatest good for the greatest number. In a world of finite resources, it seems fairest to allocate those resources to where they can do the most good. That's all that utilitarianism is--it has little, if anything, to do with the theories of Karl Marx.
Quote: EvenBobI thought Marx DID say it. Its called spreading the misery equally, kinda like a manure spreader. Once everybody is equally miserable, and you have no hope of a better life, you die inside and half the country drowns their misery in vodka.
Marx never advocated equal distribution of resources. Rather, he postulated "to each according to his need"--by definition, an uneven distribution. In any case, no true Marxist state has ever existed---only totalitarianism in the guise of Communism/Marxism. Soviet Russia was neither communist nor Marxist---they just called themselves those things.
In any case, what I am advocating is UTILITARIANISM, a philosophy which predates Marxism by a hundred years. It has little, if anything, to do with communism or Marxism.
Quote: mkl654321
I don't see how anyone can object to the concept of government providing the greatest good for the greatest number.
It doesn't work because it rewards sloth, laziness, ineptness, and stupidity. It punishes the creative, those who work hard and contribute the most. Its never worked and never will work. Duh..
Quote: EvenBobIt doesn't work because it rewards sloth, laziness, ineptness, and stupidity. It punishes the creative, those who work hard and contribute the most. Its never worked and never will work. Duh..
That's based on the childishly naive and stupid premise that every person exists in some kind of vacuum. In the real world, what benefits my neighbor also benefits me, and conversely, even if I'm successful and rich, I won't be very happy if everyone around me is poor and dying.
Once again, you are confusing utilitarianism with socialism. The two concepts/philosophies are completely dissimilar.
The ultra-conservative wingnut philosophy you spew is based on the flawed premise that everyone who is wealthy got that way because of good ol' Horatio Alger pluck, hard work, and talent, while the poor are that way because they're stupid and lazy. That is an absurd notion, but it's worth remarking that it still is in the rich man's interests to not have all those undeserving poor people (as in, undeserving of life) dying at his feet. For one thing, they might cough on him.
Quote: mkl654321The ultra-conservative wingnut philosophy you spew is based on the flawed premise that everyone who is wealthy got that way because of good ol' Horatio Alger pluck, hard work, and talent, while the poor are that way because they're stupid and lazy.
No, thats pretty much it most of the time. There are exceptions, but poor people in a successful country, who remain poor all their lives, are almost always lazy, or have mental problems. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Legal to get ripped off by a state run lottery but illegal to gamble at 0.48 percent house edge at a high limit blackjack table!
Besides,... we all know that females often get themselves in a spot of difficulty while gambling and get themselves out of a bit of financial difficulty in a very old fashioned manner. So bring on those 18 year old girls!!
Casinos don't care about underage gambling... they only care about their licenses.
One major casino had a pit boss who upon being presented with a 21 year old UCLA student's legitimate birth certificate congratulated the young man on his three year old Player's Club card!
I think it was hilarious when that Laughlin casino ejected the 20 year old pilot of the plane that had flown in some gamblers. He is competent and capable to fly passengers for hire but too immature to feed 2.50 into a slot machine?
Quote: EvenBobThe largest casino in my state lets 18 year olds gamble and they act just like everybody else, except they have very little money.
Is that a state that has forfeited federal highway assistance?
Quote: mkl654321It still is in the rich man's interests to not have all those undeserving poor people (as in, undeserving of life) dying at his feet. For one thing, they might cough on him.
The last of the Marxist threats betrays a lack of understanding in that the so-called "rich man" would have taken adequate steps to avoid such a problem.
I'm guessing it's an Indian casino so they don't need to worry about that. A lot of Indian casinos have an 18 year-old limit, Soaring Eagle in Michigan, for one. Federal highway assistance is forfeited if you lower the drinking age, not the gambling age, I think.Quote: SanchoPanzaIs that a state that has forfeited federal highway assistance?
------------------------
By the way, I think the gambling age should be lowered. I think 18 is a good age for everything, as most people are going off to college, living away from home, are no longer legal "minors," etc. They should be able to make adult decisions for themselves at that point.
As an interesting aside, this past weekend while playing craps, the pit boss asked to see the ID of a guy that was playing. After reviewing the ID, the pit boss turned the ID over to security. A security guy then came over and told the player that he would have to collect his chips, cash out, and leave. It seems the date of expiration of his ID, as of the day before. This, of course, was at about 12:35 in the morning, so his ID was expired for 35 minutes. And apparently he had been playing since about 10, or so he told the security guy. It was interesting to me on several levels. The security explained to the guy that kicking him out was based solely on the gaming commission. That once the ID was reviewed, and the expiration date noted, they had to kick him out, or face fines or worse. Security even told him that should he go to another casino, and they not ask for ID, he'd be ok, but once he was asked for ID and it was seen that his ID was expired, he would be asked to leave.
It was also interesting that even though the ID was legitimate, albeit expired, and clearly showed the guy's date of birth, and that he was of age to be in a casino, that the security could not use any of that information, simply because the ID was expired.
This was a Nevada driver's license, by the way. The other interesting thing is that here in Arizona, our licenses don't expire until we turn 65. So the concept of an expired driver's license took me by surprise as well.
To his credit, the guy, while expressing a bit of annoyance at having been carded and then asked to leave, put up no resistance, and did not argue with security. He just seemed hurt at having to leave.
Quote: EvenBobNo, thats pretty much it most of the time. There are exceptions, but poor people in a successful country, who remain poor all their lives, are almost always lazy, or have mental problems. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Amazing. What an asshole attitude. Aside from being completely wrong, the callousness of that statement is truly breathtaking. There's no such thing as bad luck? No such thing as bad health? No such thing as being fired, laid off, having your business fail?
I realize that this attitude is part of the conservative mythology, but I've never seen it stated quite this baldly. In a karmic world, you would need help some day and people would gather in a circle and watch you bleed to death without lifting a finger to help you, because your injuries/illness are obviously the result of your laziness and/or stupidity.
