I’ve already lost the ability to play in an online poker tournament on Saturday nights because someone I’ve never met decided I was incapable of doing it responsibly.
Editor’s Letter
by Melissa Fine
Right or Wrong?
Legislating morality is a slippery slope
As I write this month’s letter, we in Las Vegas are preparing for the Nevada caucus: our opportunity to tell the world who we think is best-suited to run our great nation. The cameras have been chasing Presidential hopefuls for what seems like ages now, zooming in to capture each candidate’s perfectly polished “message of change” at every sound bite stop along the way to the White House.
Naturally, in this political climate, my thoughts are centered on those issues that are closest to my heart—most of which fall under the large umbrella of “civil liberties.”
In this issue of Strictly Slots, Rob Wiser touches on the topic of personal freedoms in his article, “The War on Slots.” As you will read, it seems that certain members of the “Religious Right” feel that there’s a real threat to our men and women in the military who are stationed overseas. I’m not talking about terrorists or ruthless dictators. Apparently, our soldiers know how to handle them. I’m talking about a far more insidious threat: slot machines. Right there on American bases. And, if you believe Rep. Lincoln Davis (D–Tenn.), who introduced a bill entitled the Warrant Officer Aaron Walsh Stop DOD-Sponsored Gambling Act, the only way to protect our troops is to rip the one-armed bandits out of the rec rooms before they destroy more innocent lives.
Now, let me say for the record that I do realize some people become addicted to gambling, and I am not minimizing the destruction that any addiction can cause to a person and the ones they love. But I think that removing slot machines from overseas bases because a small percentage of soldiers have made the leap from “responsible play” to “reckless abuse” is absurd on many levels.
First, banning the slots on bases simply won’t make a difference. Slot machines are only allowed if the host country permits gaming. Which means that chances are good there are off-base casinos nearby. Sure, it’s not as convenient for a soldier to go off the base in search of a slot, but that won’t deter the addicted gambler who, like all addicts, will travel far and wide to get a “fix.”
If the move to ban slots is truly motivated by a desire to help our troops, would it not make more sense to offer those who are addicted true assistance, in the form of rehabilitation and regular meetings? As Wiser points out in his feature, the military provides help for just about every other physical and psychological ailment a service member may face, including other addictions. Why is problem gambling any different?
Even more disturbing to me is that, according to Wiser’s feature, Davis opposes gambling on “moral grounds.” Presumably, it’s his moral convictions that led him to introduce this bill. Which, if he succeeds in passing it, begs the question: “What’s next?” Alcohol is frequently served on bases. And it’s safe to say that, in such a large population, you’ll find a minority of people who have problems with drinking. For those few people, I’m sure their addiction has caused them a lot of pain. But would Davis, or some other self-appointed member of the morality police, deny all soldiers the right to buy a beer on base? Or is excessive drinking somehow less reprehensible than gambling?
Legislating morality is a very slippery slope. I’ve already lost the ability to play in an online poker tournament on Saturday nights because someone I’ve never met decided I was incapable of doing it responsibly. How long before my rights to read what I want, say what I want, and print what I want are impinged on?
With every freedom comes an enormous amount of responsibility. As Americans, we must be accountable for our actions. And we should never take our rights for granted. But as I look to elect our next President, I want to be certain I am voting for someone who will represent me, not parent me.
As for Rep. Davis, he should remember that the troops so in need of his "moral protection" are the very ones defending his right to voice his opinion in the first place.