Great Boston Globe article today on gambling (KY race included)

[MiltonFriedman]

562,000+ readers isn't too shabby though .... even if they move their lips while reading.

[oldbookguy]

Well, we do not need to move our lips, only our fingers and all be writing them!

obg

[ktulu22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Why do state governments treat casinos and their would-be owners this way? It can't be from any inherent objections to gambling -- 42 states have government-run lotteries, with annual revenues of more than $50 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely consistent for a state to allow lotteries and disallow other kinds of gambling, if the public policy is against people trying to make their livelihood from gambling, rather than against all types of gambling. The purpose of a state or charitable lottery isn't to reward the winner, but to entice people to contribute to raise funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

All or nothing. "Ok to gamble on this, but not that" doesn't and shouldn't fly

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Why do state governments treat casinos and their would-be owners this way? It can't be from any inherent objections to gambling -- 42 states have government-run lotteries, with annual revenues of more than $50 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely consistent for a state to allow lotteries and disallow other kinds of gambling, if the public policy is against people trying to make their livelihood from gambling, rather than against all types of gambling. The purpose of a state or charitable lottery isn't to reward the winner, but to entice people to contribute to raise funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

All or nothing. "Ok to gamble on this, but not that" doesn't and shouldn't fly

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the kind of response that's going to persuade people to your point of view. It's very easy to make public policy distinctions between charitable or state-run lotteries, and professional gambling. People who contribute to a lottery don't expect to make their livelihood from winning ticket to winning ticket.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if poker proponents don't stop engaging in straw man arguments, they're never going to win.

[oldbookguy]

Received a reply today from Jacoby.

Following is his reply and mine back:


jacoby@globe.com wrote:
That's very interesting; I never knew the FAQ's had that obvious
contradiction. I'll have to see if I can learn anything more about it.

++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeff Jacoby
Op-Ed columnist
The Boston Globe

617-929-3168 (phone)
617-929-2098 (fax)

Most recent columns:
http://www.boston.com/globe/editoria...on/oped/jacoby

My Reply:

Thanks for the reply Jeff.

Though the FAQ's are interesting, more interesting is the company legally offering wagering on cards; solitaire and others.

Of GREATER interest, this company WorldWinner.com manages 'SKILL' wagering offered on AOL Games, YAHOO! Games and I believe MSN Games, all marketed right next to children's accounts / games.

And the Family Values groups have NO problem here, only poker. Odd?

XXXX XXXXX

ps-I look forward to a story on this!