The Economist's online debate on legalized gambling continues today, as Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko and Les Bernal of Stop Predatory Gambling post their rebuttals. From Balko's rebuttal:
Les Bernal's introductory argument borrows a bit of the right's moral rectitude and the left's paternalism, and ends with an odd attempt to tie his own position to patriotism and civic virtue. What it lacks is any data showing gambling to be a drag on the general social welfare, much less one severe enough to merit government prohibition—and all the expense, violence and infringements on civil liberties that accompany it.
And from Bernal's:
How does a seventh-grade English teacher who appears as "a short, middle-aged woman, wearing a heavy winter coat and scarf" suddenly become a bank robber? Has such a bank robber ever before existed?
The government programme of casinos and lotteries is based on addicted or heavily indebted citizens just like this woman.
Be sure to vote for the argument you find more persuasive!