"Morals" and the bad economy

[panerd]

So I have a friend who is very religious and also very conservative. He doesn't drink, gamble, go to prostitutes, shoot up heroin, etc. But he is also steadfast in those beliefs. I don't happen to share any of them (well I don't do heroin or whores but don't have a problem with other people doing them) but I respect him a lot more then the "cafeteria" moral authority.

Apparently Delaware is now considering legalizing sports gambling and I have seen on the news over the last few weeks that a lot of places are considering repealing the Sunday blue laws. I even think that it may not be out of the realm of possibility (who thought there would be a black president two years ago) that we see legal marijuana in this country in the near future.

Is there any bigger hypocrite than somebody who is opposed to something for moral reasons and then will legalize it to make money? Sorry but as much as I would love this country to have even more freedom it is a shame that it takes somebody making money off of it to change their mind. So sad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

{scratches head}

So your friend is the state of Delaware?

Or is the missing part of your post that he thinks these changes are great ideas?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head}

So your friend is the state of Delaware?

Or is the missing part of your post that he thinks these changes are great ideas?

Not sure why I included my friend. I guess I was just giving an example of someone who I don't agree with but who at least has principles. Any politician who has crusaded about the ruins of vices and then legalizies them to make money is as low as you can get.

[Lathum]

Yeah, I was a little confused also.

I will say this, if we took all the "immoral" things, weed, online poker, prostitution, online sports betting/ gambling, and made them legal and taxed them, our economy would be in a much better place.

There are litteraly billions of dollars going elsewhere.

[stevew]

I just hope that the recession makes PA allow beer and wine sales in many more places. It's assinine right now

[lordscarlet]

So are the politicians pushing for this against vices, or is this a sign of the shifting to more liberal elected officials?

[sterlingice]

I'm going to say that at the end of the day, it looks like the vice of greed is winning out over preachings against gluttony, lust, etc

SI

[Galaxy]

Isn't Delaware a rather strong democratic state?

[RainMaker]

I don't think the government should be determining what is moral and immoral most of the time. I don't consider sports gambling immoral at all and I'm sure a lot of other people agree. If you do, don't go to the sportsbook. Pretty simple solution.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Isn't Delaware a rather strong democratic state?

I thought the opposite, that Delaware was incredibly pro-business--Credit Card companies, for example, like to incorporate in Delaware because of weaker controls over the amount of interest they can charge...

[lordscarlet]

based on wiki:

dem governor since 1993 (3 individuals)
senators: biden since 1973, a rep from 71-2001 and then dem from 01-present in the other seat

house: (easier because they only have one member) repub since 1993, dem for 10 years before that, repub for 20 before that

I didn't bother looking at the state level.

[lungs]

What's immoral about smoking dope?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

based on wiki:

dem governor since 1993 (3 individuals)
senators: biden since 1973, a rep from 71-2001 and then dem from 01-present in the other seat

house: (easier because they only have one member) repub since 1993, dem for 10 years before that, repub for 20 before that

I didn't bother looking at the state level.

Wait yer telling me the entire STATE of Delaware has more Senators than Congressmen?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Wait yer telling me the entire STATE of Delaware has more Senators than Congressmen?

Smallest state in the Union.

It's not the only state like that, either:

Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming all have two Senators but a single At-Large Representative.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I thought the opposite, that Delaware was incredibly pro-business--Credit Card companies, for example, like to incorporate in Delaware because of weaker controls over the amount of interest they can charge...

They could be liberal on social issues.

[path12]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Smallest state in the Union..

Rhode Island is totally gonna kick your ass for that.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

They could be liberal on social issues.

Sure, which is why if they were both liberal and pro-business, it is kind of surprising that they would still have blue laws in place.

[Raiders Army]

I think to a certain extent we all have morals that are subjective to need.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

They could be liberal on social issues.

From my limited recollection growing up in Maryland, they're not, at least by northern standards. All of the Delmarva Peninsula is a bunch of hick farmers with few redeeming qualities (I think they were selling 30 racks there for 8 dollars though the last time I passed through, and since they're near Philly they have good sports bars.) They have an extremely pro-business climate because they're basically a domestic Switzerland/Caymans, and it brings in money to the state to the detriment of consumers and litigants elsewhere, with a side benefit this coziness leads to corruption of their political class. (Biden's heavily tied in with MBNA for example.) They're just desperate to get some revenues from elsewhere due to the absence of any revenue generating businesses coming from or actually residing in their entire state.

But it's been awhile, so maybe my recollection is off.

[RainMaker]

I always thought Delware and the states around it leaned libertarian in a lot of aspects. I know some of the states have lax business laws and no sales tax.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by path12

Rhode Island is totally gonna kick your ass for that.

Is Rhode Island still in the Union?

Okay, so maybe they are, but they've a larger population than Delaware (2ND-smallest state in the Union), and thus two Representatives to Delaware's one.

Forgive me the grievous error.

[sterlingice]

Ok, so South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming are all going to kick your ass... if there any people there to do it

List of U.S. states by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I always thought Delaware and the states around it leaned libertarian in a lot of aspects. I know some of the states have lax business laws and no sales tax.

New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania? Not really.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Is Rhode Island still in the Union?

Still? They weren't for the first 20 years or so, and we'd probably be better off if they still weren't. One big, dirty, corrupt city. Newport is nice though. And they are the only state east of the Mississippi where prostitution is legal.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ok, so South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming are all going to kick your ass... if there any people there to do it

List of U.S. states by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SI

Okay, at this point I'm talking land-mass, not population. Delaware really IS the 2nd smallest by that metric.

[molson]

Morality isn't the whole thing to take into consideration when you consider legalizing the bad stuff. You also risk creating issues that also cost money for society (crime, alcoholism, higher insurance costs, etc).

If Oregon legalizes marijuana, they'll have even MORE dirty hippies, who will only be able to afford marijuana with their welfare checks.

[Galaxy]

This is an interesting subject, considering the problems south of the border (and Forbes just listed Joaquin Guzma, head of one of Mexico's biggest drug cartels, with personal fortune of $1 billion).

[Drake]

If all it takes is a bit of adversity to get someone to toss their morals aside, they never had them in the first place.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Drake

If all it takes is a bit of adversity to get someone to toss their morals aside, they never had them in the first place.

Or the people tossing them aside were using them for expedient political cover, not morality purposes, in the first place.

[MrDNA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I just hope that the recession makes PA allow beer and wine sales in many more places. It's assinine right now

Halleluah! I want to grab a sixer of craft brew when I'm getting my other groceries, please.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Morality isn't the whole thing to take into consideration when you consider legalizing the bad stuff. You also risk creating issues that also cost money for society (crime, alcoholism, higher insurance costs, etc).

If Oregon legalizes marijuana, they'll have even MORE dirty hippies, who will only be able to afford marijuana with their welfare checks.

The government has no business dictating morality to me. And Oregon is near the bottom of the country in per capita welfare receipients. That is not a problem for them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The government has no business dictating morality to me. And Oregon is near the bottom of the country in per capita welfare receipients. That is not a problem for them.

My post wasn't about morality. It was about the actual financial cost of legalization of things that are potentially destructive.

It could be worth it, it might not be - but that's where I think the analysis should be, and not whether something is moral or not.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania? Not really.Still? They weren't for the first 20 years or so, and we'd probably be better off if they still weren't. One big, dirty, corrupt city. Newport is nice though. And they are the only state east of the Mississippi where prostitution is legal.

what? prostitution is legal???

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

My post wasn't about morality. It was about the actual financial cost of legalization of things that are potentially destructive.

It could be worth it, it might not be - but that's where I think the analysis should be, and not whether something is moral or not.

Well I also don't think we should be determining what is legal and not based on whether it is "worth it".

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what? prostitution is legal???

Why do you think Mo Vaughn spent so much time down there at the Foxy Lady?

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Rhode_Island

In Rhode Island the act of prostitution (engaging in sexual activity in exchange for money) is legal because there is no specific statute that defines it and makes it illegal. Street prostitution, however, is specifically defined and made illegal: Loitering for Indecent Purposes (Chapter 11-34-8) and Soliciting from Motor Vehicles for Indecent Purposes (Chapter 11-34-9).^[1][2][3][4] Operating a brothel is also illegal (Chapter 11-34-5). Otherwise, prostitution is not regulated by the state of Rhode Island.

[bhlloy]

We absolutely should not be making decisions on what is morally correct based on how much money we can make off of it, no matter how bad the economy. Legalizing and taxing crack could probably wipe out most of the debt problems in a number of our largest states, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

That being said, I am totally in favor of a sensible discussion about some issues and if the current economy is a reason to do that so be it. I don't haven't smoked weed in about 4 years and I gamble maybe twice a year when I am in Vegas or back in the UK, but I see no reason for either to be illegal given some of the alternative vices that society deems "acceptable" .

[Sgran]

I'm not sure that it's always so clear who has the moral high ground in these cases. There is a lot of data that suggests regulation is better than prohibition in many areas. In the Netherlands, for example, the legalization of soft drugs resulted in a decrease in hard drug use. Prostitutes there are required to have regular VD and AIDS tests, and they're given more sex-ed counseling. Groups that support decriminalization of drugs point to the personal and economic benefits of harm reduction over incarceration. Hunters make similar arguments in favor of gun use.

Now, if you're asking whether it's okay to compromise your morality if big money is involved, well, um, what other test of morality is there if not personal gain? By definition (or at least by mine) morality is the sacrifice of personal gain for the greater good. I suppose you could derive your morality from religious teachings (rather than altruism) that say that all pleasures of the flesh are wrong, but even then it's hard to think of a case where compromising your beliefs is fine provided there's sufficient economic gain.

[CraigSca]

As probably the only person on this board who actually lives in Delaware - Delaware is a very pro-democrat state, has been for years and I don't see that changing for a very long time.

[Marc Vaughan]

From a personal perspective I'd always found hard times actually improve peoples morals and outlook on life hugely.

Its when the s*it hits the fan when you find out who true friends are and when people rally around to help each other. When things are good people tend to compare against others and get jealous, when times are bad most people work together for the common good ...

Have Fun,

Marc 'looking for the silver lining in everything' Vaughan
PS - Strangely I don't see legalising drug taking or gambling as moral or immoral myself; its just changing the point at which the decision is made about doing it from the court system to an individual. This is 'freedom', although I am against both acts on a personal level, in many ways I think society protects people far to much from making decisions and dealing with the consequences myself (and I fail to see for instance why betting on sports is fine online in America but online poker isn't, ditto why Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal but smoking hash isn't).

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the government should be determining what is moral and immoral most of the time. I don't consider sports gambling immoral at all and I'm sure a lot of other people agree. If you do, don't go to the sportsbook. Pretty simple solution.

It's not moral/immoral; the distinction is legal/illegal.

Gambling, drugs, prostitution are illegal in many states because the federal and/or state government determined that the risk borne by those activities outweighed civic gains which would be made by regulating them.

But, it's not a morality issue (unless religious zealots get involved)

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well I also don't think we should be determining what is legal and not based on whether it is "worth it".

You don't think they should making decisions based on fiscal responsibility?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by panerd

Is there any bigger hypocrite than somebody who is opposed to something for moral reasons and then will legalize it to make money?

I'm not clear on this point. Are there politicians in Deleware that have been anti-gambling crusaders that are now supporting allowing sports betting?

Online poker would be a good example of what I suspect is happening in DE. The Republican leaders that added the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to the Port Security Act in conference in 2006 are gone, and the ranks of Republicans that pushed for the move have been thinned considerably. If Congress votes to repeal the law and make online gambling legal and taxable, would that be hypocritical? Not really. It owould just be a reflection of the fundamental shift in the leadership selected by the voters.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well I also don't think we should be determining what is legal and not based on whether it is "worth it".

There will always be an aspect of this within any society.

For a simple example look at smoking and drinking, both are equally as immoral as other recreational drugs (ie. they are harmful to you when done to exess, can lead to harm to others etc.) - but they're legal (1) because they have a history of being legal and a large amount of users who would be upset if they weren't, (2) the goverments around the world make huge amounts of money off them.

On a similar note it could be argued that many 'fines' in place in society are just taxes present and set in such a way as to dissuade the vast majority of people from acting in a way detrimental to society - in England they effectively say its 'legal' to smoke in a non-smoking carriage on a train if you are happy to pay £50 for the priviledge for instance, similarly if you're caught without a ticket on a UK train you gain a £10 fine (in addition to having to purchase a ticket) rather than a prosecution.

The second of these laws incidentally caused lots of students when I was at University to travel without tickets, simply put a normal ticket to Uni and back was around £5 so you only had to dodge the conductors two days on the trot to break even and if you managed it three days in a row then you made a profit - not exactly what the fine was meant to encourage, but an unintended consequence of changing something from being 'illegal' (ie. prosecution/potentially jail/criminal record) to a fixed fine with no other criminalisation ...

(there are some more effects along these lines in the fantastic book - "Freakonomics" by the way)

[revrew]

While I agree that standing against something as immoral until it becomes financially beneficial is the definition of "selling out" and hypocrisy, beware judging a person's morality on outward appearance only.

I, for example, would consider taking mind- and personality-altering drugs to be immoral. (I don't have a problem with drugs - such as medicines or caffeine - that affect only the physical self). And while I don't know that much about heroin or marijuana, to be honest, I suspect they fall into my "immoral" category.

That said, I don't believe possession or consumption of these drugs on private property ought to be a crime under our constitutional definition of government. OUI of these drugs, yes. Selling these drugs, especially to minors, yes. But possession? No. Not ALL things I believe are immoral should be legislated against. I don't believe in a theocracy, but a constitutionally limited republic.

You need to take into account a person's understanding of ethics, government, and economy before you can truly call the person a hypocrite.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't think they should making decisions based on fiscal responsibility?

If they did, we would make prescription drugs illegal considering how much that costs our government fiscally.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by revrew

I, for example, would consider taking mind- and personality-altering drugs to be immoral. (I don't have a problem with drugs - such as medicines or caffeine - that affect only the physical self). And while I don't know that much about heroin or marijuana, to be honest, I suspect they fall into my "immoral" category.

Out of interest are you against alcohol then (as that often changes peoples personalities - hence the term 'angry drunk' etc.).

Also what if you are depressed because of a hormone imbalance and a drug is prescribed to you to balance this out and help you lead a normal life? ... not trying to be blaise about things but imho the world isn't particularly black and white on this sort of subject at all.

[CamEdwards]

Delaware already has Dover Downs, so I'm not sure that sports betting is a huge leap for the state.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Delaware already has Dover Downs, so I'm not sure that sports betting is a huge leap for the state.

Yeah but sports gambling is a whole other genre all together. I actually take trips to Vegas because of sports gambling and I can do the rest out here in Missouri. I am not saying everyone is like this but sports gambling is a big deal for a lot of people that I know. And they are from different aspects of my life like work and my girlfriend's family so its not like it is only my close friends (who would obviosuly share common interests).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah but sports gambling is a whole other genre all together. I actually take trips to Vegas because of sports gambling and I can do the rest out here in Missouri. I am not saying everyone is like this but sports gambling is a big deal for a lot of people that I know. And they are from different aspects of my life like work and my girlfriend's family so its not like it is only my close friends (who would obviosuly share common interests).

Anyone who wants to bet on sports though can just do it online. Just seems silly not allow something that would bring in a ton of money when people are going to do regardless.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Anyone who wants to bet on sports though can just do it online. Just seems silly not allow something that would bring in a ton of money when people are going to do regardless.

I guess I agree because I do have an online account and bet on it. But there is something to be said about being able to get the cash right after the game and no uncertainty about the possibility that you might not ever see your money again. But I totally agree about being able to do it at a local casino or even better at a local gas station/gambling station. Of course I probably would still use my online account if I had to drive 20 minutes to Harrah's everytime I wanted to place a bet.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I guess I agree because I do have an online account and bet on it. But there is something to be said about being able to get the cash right after the game and no uncertainty about the possibility that you might not ever see your money again. But I totally agree about being able to do it at a local casino or even better at a local gas station/gambling station. Of course I probably would still use my online account if I had to drive 20 minutes to Harrah's everytime I wanted to place a bet.

I have two reasons for wanting it. First, it's my money and I should be able to do what I want with it. Gambling is a personal choice and has no ill physical effects. I won't die younger or make the people around me unsafe. It's a form of recreation.

The other is that I hate when governments make something illegal that is so easily available. Marijuana is another. Rather safe drug (compared to what we legally allow in society) that is ridiculously easy to acquire. Why not regulate and tax it instead of letting some thugs and cartels make all the money? Same for gambling. It's easy to do online and I'd rather see my state get the tax money from the casino than some island off the shore of South America. Laws or not, it's going to take place, so why not benefit from it?