[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Just as correct, perhaps more so:

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom to drink is like freedom to inhale crack or inject heroin. You may enjoy it once or twice or a hundred times. You may be that one unlikely person impervious to its evil lure. But in most cases the addiction will eventually win.

Every day around the country, people -- regular people like you or me -- lose their job or home or car or wife or kids or all of the above because they cannot stop drinking. Regular people go to jail. Regular people commit suicide. Because of drinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly wouldn't say that this is "more so" because of the bolded sentence. Most people who drink aren't alcoholics. The same could be said about poker players.

I know numerous people, about my age (college) who stopped playing poker simply because they got sick of it, or because they lost their initial $40 investment and didn't feel like reloading.

I do wonder how many gamblers are real gambling addicts. If one assumes that 10% of a population gambles at least a few times a year (which sounds low, but we'll be on the safe side), and 1% are gambling addicts (which is the actual estimate I hear), then 10% of the at-risk population is addicted to gambling. It makes the alcohol comparison look apt.

The most vexing thing about this column, to me, is this: the author makes straw-man arguments about something that has negative consequences for some people. Those who don't experience the negative consequences produce a backlash (this thread). Meanwhile, if the columnist just says, "Look, I realize plenty of people can play poker and be OK, but let's remember those who get in trouble through gambling," then it might actually do something for those who are addicted to gambling.