by Robert Burk

Created on: June 12, 2009   Last Updated: June 15, 2009

To discuss gambling it seems we must take a moral stand. The debate as to whether or not Connecticut should legalize Keno to balance the States budget is for many people an emotionally charged issue. Considerations of good and evil seem to lurk in the background if they are not brought to the forefront. There are those who say the idea is just wrong, others more pragmatic see it as not as an ideal solution but a necessary one. Whatever Connecticut decides the State, regardless of the moral points brought forward, should not allow moral concerns to dictate which path it eventually walks down. Allowing moral arguments to decide the outcome will only lead to the wrong decision being made. Not that moral consideration should take a back seat in this or any discussion but our moral barometers are often calibrated by cultural influences. Connecticut may discover they were overly sensitive to the moral implications connected to one course of action while being blind to issues with a greater potential to do harm.

Few people are going to argue that gambling is a good thing. Even fewer believe that gambling is something society will eliminate in the near future. Since gambling is not a good thing but it is something we are going to have to live with, the question asked is should Connecticut tap into this potential income stream?

Even if people do spend their money playing games of chance does that make it right for governments to take advantage of what is, with many people, an addiction? Perhaps governments should not be encouraging people to gamble, but in a free society the powers of government to alter the behavior of individuals is limited and are we really in favor of governments being involved in altering moral behavior? Are we ready to give the State a mandate to influence moral behavior, our own included? If the State decides to veer away from active participation in gambling does this mean that this good will off-set the harm done by gamblers who take money earned within Connecticut to another State so they may play games of chance there? Isn't the State better off when money earned here is put to use here? Should we let Connecticut money improve the lives of people elsewhere when this State has so many social works that require funding? If the government provides the game and monitors how it is played it can be better regulated and the profits put towards furthering social ends. Will this social good offset the ills that are said to be associated

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>