HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-Type: text/html
Pubdate: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 Source: Halifax Daily News (Canada) Contact: http://www.hfxnews.southam.ca/ Copyright: 1999 The Daily News. Author: Fred McMahon WE'VE LEGALIZED THE WRONG SIN Gambling wasn't a problem until the government stepped in Throughout history, vast criminal organizations have been built on the triad of three great sins - sex, illicit substances, and gambling. Now we've given government a legal monopoly over gambling, and our bureaucratic mobsters have hooked Nova Scotians on a billion-dollar habit - or so we learned last week as a Christmas Eve present from the Alcohol and Gaming Authority's annual report. Of these three great sins, gambling was the worst to legalize. There are good reasons to legalize prostitution or even hard drugs. They destroy lives despite their illegality. Legalization, under strict control, might help limit these pathologies. Everything was different with gambling. It was the only great sin society, in all these thousands of years, had largely solved. Before the legalization, a few lost souls ruined their lives in illicit gaming dens or in Los Vegas or Atlantic City. Such ruination was rare. The numbers paled in comparison to lives ruined through drugs or the sex trade. Not any more. Gambling was legalized because it seemed a solved problem. Now, the predictable has happened. Addiction has taken root and tragic stories abound. It's not just the lives ruined, but also the money taken out of the local economy that does damage. And, there's the big new addict, government, which loves the rush of gambling revenues. This is government's most unfair tax, built on dreams and desperation, and paid by the least fortunate in society. Nothing could be more perverse than legalizing a sin because it had been banished as an evil. We should only consider legalizing sins that remain destructive despite their illegality, such as the sex and drug trades - not marijuana, but the hard drugs that ruin lives. This isn't because prostitution or hard drugs are good things, but because we may be able to limit their destructiveness through legalization and control. That was the motivation for overturning prohibition, and it worked. Prohibition did not solve society's problem with alcohol; it made the problem worse. Easy money from rum-running built criminal empires on violent foundations. This is true today of the drug trade and, to a lesser extent, the sex trade. The illegality of the sex trade is more pretense than reality. Every city has a bountiful listing of massage parlours and escort services. Unlike gambling before legalization, lives are being ruined everyday by the sex trade, particularly the lives of women, at worst working on the street for vicious pimps - and all too often not women, but girls. This is the worst of all worlds. It's illegal, but prevalent and entirely unregulated. Legalizing prostitution and giving the prostitutes some legal protection, while isolating the trade to a non-residential district - the solution in much of Europe - would lessen victimization. Let's tax it. That would turn a costly enforcement problem into a revenue stream. Notice the difference between this and gambling. Instead of recreating a problem - the case with gambling - we would bring an existing problem under government control. Instead of increasing victimization, we would lessen it. Instead of finding new ways of diverting income from the least fortunate into government coffers, we would divert revenue from criminal elements into government coffers. The same logic applies to the drug trade, ironically to the hardest drugs. The case for legalizing soft drugs is weak. They create few large society-wide problems. But criminal empires, and vast cash flows, are built on hard drugs. Legalization would cut the foundations out from under these evil empires and, by bringing drugs under the purview of law, lessen the everyday occurrence of vicious petty crime to feed the addiction. Regulated outlets would supply drugs to known addicts who would be closely monitored in exchange for their supply. The case for legalizing hard drugs is similar to the one for prostitution - legalization would lessen victimization, reduce revenue for criminal rings, and bring new revenue for government. The complications are graver. Would legalization bring more control or more addicts? Still, this is worthy of debate. Gambling is the only sin for which there was no reason for debate, no coherent argument for legalization. It was a solved, healed wound we didn't need to reopen. So we legalized it. Our government, like an out-of-control addict, continues to pin its hopes on more gambling. Our economic-development policies are so bankrupt the government actually conceives of Halifax's casino as an economic development strategy - even though it will just take money out of more productive businesses. Then an unproductive government and the casino, like dirty dealers, take their split of the take. - --- MAP posted-by: Rich O'Grady