Pythonesque language used by spin doctors

[maryfield48]

This sentence is part of the press release announcing Barney Frank's proposed Internet Gambling Regulation Bill (The Legislation forum thread is here ).

"The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are prevented under prohibition regimes."

So prohibiting gambling doesn't prevent underage or compulsive gambling?

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
"The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are prevented under prohibition regimes."

So prohibiting gambling doesn't prevent underage or compulsive gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

By prohibition regime, as opposed to actual prohibition, I think the writer means that outlawing an activity is not equivalent to ending it. See prostitution and the prohibition of alcohol, for example. Gambling is illegal, for example, where I live, yet I gamble!! Go figure.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are prevented under prohibition regimes."

So prohibiting gambling doesn't prevent underage or compulsive gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

By prohibition regime, as opposed to actual prohibition, I think the writer means that outlawing an activity is not equivalent to ending it. See prostitution and the prohibition of alcohol, for example. Gambling is illegal, for example, where I live, yet I gamble!! Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

So d'you think Frank is making an argument against drug prohibition also? What about automatic weapons?

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
So d'you think Frank is making an argument against drug prohibition also? What about automatic weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't Frank argue against drug prohibition, too? Are you seriously suggesting that outlawing drugs in this country has had any kind of POSITIVE effect? If so, you're not paying attention.

Outlawing drugs, gambling, prostitution or anything else does not stop it from happening. Kids are already breaking the law if they are gambling, so what's one more regulation going to do? Compulsive gamblers are addicts. This falls squarely under "Well, duh", but maybe I should explain it to you, anyway: addictions are not tempered by laws. Addicts will do what is necessary to get a fix. The legality of the vice is not an issue.

SpaceAce

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So d'you think Frank is making an argument against drug prohibition also? What about automatic weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't Frank argue against drug prohibition, too? Are you seriously suggesting that outlawing drugs in this country has had any kind of POSITIVE effect? If so, you're not paying attention.

Outlawing drugs, gambling, prostitution or anything else does not stop it from happening. Kids are already breaking the law if they are gambling, so what's one more regulation going to do? Compulsive gamblers are addicts. This falls squarely under "Well, duh", but maybe I should explain it to you, anyway: addictions are not tempered by laws. Addicts will do what is necessary to get a fix. The legality of the vice is not an issue.

SpaceAce

[/ QUOTE ]

Further, it is fairly well-known that it is cheaper and more effective in terms of helping the abusers and reducing crime, etc. to provide treatment, education and soft coercion as opposed to a criminalize and punish approach. Only in our strangely puritanical/permissive society does something like the "war on drugs", for example, make sense.

I think Rep. Frank likely would approach these kinds of social ills with a multi-pronged, practical approach that focuses on course-correcting toward desired outcomes while perserving social values like freedom of choice, individual responsibility and concern for others. You know, like a rational and tolerant person would approach it.

I don't know Frank's position on automatic weapons, but it seems to me that again US society is way to extreme in how we (don't) manage firearms. Surely we need to strike a better balance between controls and the extreme permissiveness we now *enjoy*.

[maryfield48]

This has probably become a Politics thread. I'll just say that I wasn't saying anything about the merits of prohibition. Just wondering whether the people who crafted the the press release intended to convey a general anti-prohibition philosophy.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know Frank's position on automatic weapons, but it seems to me that again US society is way to extreme in how we (don't) manage firearms. Surely we need to strike a better balance between controls and the extreme permissiveness we now *enjoy*.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the record, it's perfectly legal to own an automatic weapon with the proper background check and tax stamp.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
This has probably become a Politics thread. I'll just say that I wasn't saying anything about the merits of prohibition. Just wondering whether the people who crafted the the press release intended to convey a general anti-prohibition philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, the writer was def biased in his writing, he took an "anti-prohibition" stance with his wording, and conveyed it pretty clearly.