This year school taxes alone will be almost $3000 because teachers can go on strike, get raises that add over 20% to their salary for the next 4 years, argued about $5 versus $10 co-pays. And I don’t live in a McMansion – not even close. And I cannot move because nothing is selling.

Wish I could go on strike and make unreasonable demands. But I might get a $190 rebate – yippee!!

Stop the overspending by our bloated PA legislature – and give real property tax relief!!

You know, I wonder if some taxpayers will see enough relief to offset their casino losses? Wait – that’s it! The state sends “relief” to the school districts, who then parcel out the cash to taxpayers, who turn around and pump it right back to Harrisburg via the slots! Bravo, Governor Rendell and our fearless representatives in the General Assembly! Your exercises in self-preservation never cease to amaze…

True, not all the money is not going to be used as intended or promised.
As for the act of gambling, no one is twisting anyone’s arms. Tobacco, alcohol-each addictive. People have to take responsiblity for their own actions.

But when the entity we have chosen to lead us as our governing body sets the dinner table with temptations so many are helpless to ignore, responsibilities become confused and muddied. I agree that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, but the administration is also responsible for its actions. Offering a temptation like gambling, a proven addiction for so many, simply to increase revenue, deserves a closer look.
JP

Since we’re considering issues that may or may not flare moral indignation in some, pd, once you’ve legalized drug use and prostitution, would you place any age limits on those “activities”? If it’s morally acceptable for society to nudge along legalized prostitution (and, IMO, by removing laws against it that is exactly what we’d be doing), would it make any sense to draw any sort of line at all? If society and government says it is perfectly acceptable for an 18 year old to sell her (or his) body, what’s wrong with a 17 year old doing it? 16? What about 15 or younger? The same quandary applies with drug use. Once it’s legalized, what sense would it make to enforce any age limits? If we tell an 18 year old, “Hey, it’s your life – snort that coke, if you want”, why should we tell the 17 and younger crowd anything different? I’m not arguing that by legalizing prostitution and drug use, every one of America’s teenagers would suddenly transform into millions of junkies and prostitutes (although I believe you’d see an increase in both areas), but aren’t laws meant to discourage behavior? I realize the effectiveness of the drug and prostitution laws can certainly be debated, but by removing them, isn’t society implicitly (or explicitly, for some) saying that there is nothing MORALLY wrong in selling yourself (or having someone sell you – we haven’t even discussed those ramifications yet) or providing a kid with drugs? I’m not going on a Christian-charged rant here, but I ask these questions from a pure humanist perspective. What would it say about society if we legally permitted two of the most physically and psychologically destructive activities imaginable, adopting a laissez-faire attitude toward both? The things you seemingly dismiss as “vices” have ruined literally millions of lives and destroyed family after family. You act like prostitution and drug use should be lumped in with activities like golf and line dancing – perfectly acceptable in moderation. Or is your main concern the amount of cash Washington and Harrisburg could rake in annually by turning prostitutes and addicts into yet another steady “revenue source”?

Again, our laws in these areas aren’t perfect, and I personally believe we should re-orient our anti-drug efforts toward rehabilitation. However, this is no reason to scrap our legal efforts entirely and adopt the “if it feels good, tax it” utilitarian method of thinking. There are things nobody should be able to make money off, pd – not even the government.

I have to argue that because a society vice is currently illegal and is a money maker for organized crime, that it be legalized, regulated and taxed for the benefit of the government just ain’t right. The thought process being that it will take the money out of the hands of criminals and by regulating the activity it will become safe and respectable to participate. There is a stigma attached to both drug use and prostitution and rightly so. They both destroy lives, families and marriages. And who becomes the government’s pusher? Do we start dealing with the South American drug cartels? Whether the US legalizes drugs or not, the drug cartels will continue to eliminate competition…the money is too great. Or does the US start growing its own or supporting pharmas by contracting them to produce a high quality heroin at a cheap price, so the government’s profit margin stays high? Suddenly, the US government appears to be a cartel and a powerful one at that. Along the lines of the gun-control arguments of a few weeks ago on this blog, the answer lies in family support by society, youth programs in the inner city where drug use and prostitution are prevalent, etc. Of course these are human vices and have been around for years and years, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to rid our society of them. I have to argue that legalization is not the way to rid ourselves of them, but a way to show we have surrendered to them.
JP

Please stop this insane discussion. Drugs and prostitution are illegal for a reason. As the Gent mentions above, these are “destructive activities.” I know it can be argued that smoking and drinking are also destructive activities and they are leagal. However, smoking and drinking in moderation does not destroy families, lives and degrade our societies. I won’t even go in to the diseases that are spread via prostitution and drug use, and the burdon they place on our already strapped healthcare system. With each passing day personal surrvival becomes more difficult. I won’t go in to the whole economic crisis discussion, but we can’t open up more pits of despair into which the helpless can throw themselves. To paraphrase JP above, we cannot surrender ourselves to vices through legalization in hopes of better controlling them. How about murder then. We can set age limits you know. You have to be 18 to legally kill. The person you kill has to be a “bad” person or have done something bad(the definition of bad to be determined at a later time). Sure it’s a ridiculous premis, but to me so is leaglized prostitutiion and drugs. Would it have made any difference if Gov Spitzer was participating in a legal activity? Not to his wife and family I’m sure. Would it matter as much if the Govenor had a few cocktails and maybe a cigar every now and then. I think not. What would make anyone think our state or federal government could control either activity in an effective and efficient manner.

Very well put, JP…

...So I haven’t read all these posts. Shame on me.

But I think you CAN legislate morality. Indeed, all laws are an attempt to do just that. We say driving too fast is wrong, underage drinking is wrong and running a stop sign is wrong. All attempts to legislate what is right and wrong…which is, in the end, what we call “morality.”

The grand experiment of The Netherlands hasn’t turned out exactly as hoped. Having pot-addled people on the streets isn’t really what most people want for their communities. Ditto most other drugs.

If we can all agree that abuse of any drug is bad (including alcohol) then why can’t we say that legislating against it is good?

No law will stop people from TRYING to get away with things (see: speed limits) but they will create a society that sees reckless behavior as bad…and from where I sit, that’s good!

I know all the arguments about prostitution and drugs; I just think we have to “take a stand.” We have to say; “This isn’t acceptable in our community/state/nation.

In addition, we have to state clearly, “We’ll give you all the help you need.”

Pilt

Good post, Pilt.

In a society such as ours, we need a system by which to prosecute those that do break the law. Even those laws of civilized man that need not be written down. Thou shall not kill, nor steal, nor covet your neighbors wife and so on are all sins if you will, that a civilized society expects people to inherently avoid and distain. For the huge majority of peace loving people laws are not necessary. But, as I mentioned, there must be a system to prosecute those that do not adhere to these natural laws. To accomplish this peace in the human community we have written a set of laws and consequences for breaking them and breaking the trust of society. Without this system and the technicalities that accompany it, we would be reduced to a band of vigilanties. This I see as the need for laws, not as a Big Brother control mechanism, but as a society doing all it can to evolve to something better than we are.
JP

My last word is this: I really appreciate everyone’s input here (yes, even you, pd – kidding…). We managed to take a thread about slots relief and turn it into an honest and thorough discussion about drug legalization (without tossing insults at each other). I’m not sure if we accomplished anything, but it was one of the best threads I’ve participated in for a while. This is what blogging should be. As the campaign season REALLY begins in full swing, let’s try to keep it going.

As I finished my last comment, my thoughts were the same. Many comments ago I mentioned to PD that a comparison of slots and prostitution was ridiculous, but good for conversation and away it went. Its been fun.
JP