In all the casino madness we're having here, I keep hearing one pro-casino argument again and again. Well, actually, it's an anti-anti-casino argument:
I guess I just don't understand casino opposition. The idea that poor people can't control themselves and will spin into uncontrolled debt and alcoholism is honestly offensive to me. Under that logic we should also ban fast food joints, movie theaters, bars, baseball, and any other leisure activity out there.
It's kind of a slippery-slope argument, which can be a variety of argument by analogy. If you feel a certain way about x, then you must feel similarly towards purportedly similar y.
Of course, we can all play that game, so I will: Hey, you wanted economic development and new revenues, right? If you support bringing casinos into Massachusetts, why not prostitution? Legalizing hard drugs? Dogfighting? Public executions? Boogity boogity!
Let's just keep to the issue at hand. It's hard enough to untangle the pros and cons of the proposal in front of our faces, without bringing a bunch of smelly red herrings into it.
More to the point: the problem with the comment you quote isn’t so much that it’s an easy-to-manipulate slippery slope, it’s that it’s got two different arguments mashed together. Let’s disentangle them.
<
p>
<
p>
To me, that’s a valid point of view, and it is a legitimate response to the people who argue against casinos by saying that the people who least afford it can be counted on to be sucked into the casinos and to dump their paltry life savings into the slot machines. I have a relatively low tolerance for arguments that the all-knowing and beneficent state should protect us against ourselves by telling us what we may not do with our own money and time, and this particular anti-casino line of argument treads close to the line for me. I’m not saying there’s nothing there, because the data do show an increase in addiction etc. when casinos come in, but I’d urge caution, and close attention to what the data actually show.
<
p>
<
p>
This, I think, is a different argument (at least, most of it is). If you take away the bars and fast food joints, both of which at least serve food (which people actually need to survive), the rest of it — movies, baseball, other leisure activities — fall into the same category as casinos: entertainment, which people go to because they enjoy it. Think about it: when you leave Fenway, having been there for 3 hours after spending $200 on tickets and another $50 on lousy hot dogs and watered-down beer, only to watch Eric Gagne walk in the tying run, what have you got? Bupkes. You actually feel worse when you leave than when you entered. At least at a casino, $250 might keep you there longer than 3 hours.
Let’s see:
<
p>
<
p>
Now, I know some pretty passionate Red Sox fans, but none of them have been written up by the APA (though that may change if Scott Kazmir beats us again tomorrow).
<
p>
So I find the constant comparisons of casinos to clearly less problematic leisure activities mildly offensive (or at least annoying).
<
p>
Pathological gambling is a known thing, it’s been studied, quantified, etc. Making the argument that more casinos -> more pathological gambling -> a bad thing may be offensive, but it’s also fact-based. Sorry, folks.
<
p>
I don’t oppose all gambling, per se, but I don’t see the need to promote more of it. For me, the casino proposal has more risks than benefits.
<
p>
Reasonable people can argue the opposite, but I think they’re wrong and hope they lose on this one.
it’s easier to compare it to alcohol, which also is legal and taxed heavily. The truth is, many people do suffer from alcoholism, and excessive alcohol isn’t “good for you,” save maybe a glass of wine an evening. And alcoholism certainly has destroyed many families. But it’s legal, because for the rest of us, it’s a fine product and should be enjoyed responsibly. Gambling is a service and should be enjoyed responsibly. This notion that poor people can’t control themselves, is, I think more than a little offensive. It’s people with problems of pathological gambling that cannot control themselves, and that, I imagine, crosses class lines.
that we should stop putting forth the argument that poor people can’t control themselves. Lack of self control and addiction are found among people of all income classes. Just so it’s unambiguous, income and wealth are not determinants of character flaws or psychiatric disorders.
<
p>
But the effect of those character flaws and psychiatric disorders is an ever-lighter wallet, and that’s what this argument comes down to: money. Namely, some people are lucky enough to have lots of it; some are not so lucky. The unlucky ones are already close to the edge of poverty, so while the inability to stop oneself from gambling may be distributed equally across all income classes the deleterious effects of this inability most certainly are not.
These are the people who think psychiatrists should be used to help torture people, after all. They’re ready to identify almost any behavior as a “disorder,” because that’s how they make a living. I’m surprised they have gotten to us Red Sox fans yet, actually. Citing them in this way is rather like citing the ABA on appropriate regulation of the legal profession, or the AMA on billing arrangements for doctors.
<
p>
In short, I think there are good reasons to oppose casinos, but you have to go a long way past an APA statement to call something, “fact-based,” in my judgment.
Does the APA have much credibility on anything?
<
p>
These are the people who think psychiatrists< should be used to help torture people, after all.
<
p>
Your article says that it is the psychologists are split on the matter. Unfortunately, there are two APAs that are relevant to the issue, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, and they are often confused.
There are some true libertarians out there who probably do believe that most of those things should be allowed and that individuals should have the right to do what they want. (Not sure where public executions fit into laissez-faire social policies, though…)
<
p>
But I’m guessing that most of the “let the people gamble” proponents wouldn’t be thrilled with the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana (which doesn’t make it legal, but makes it a civil crime subject to civil fines, freeing up our police, courts, and jails for more important matters).
<
p>
They’ll argue that decriminalization makes it easier for kids to get a hold of it. But doesn’t the construction and state support of casinos make it easier for kids to learn about and eventually try gambling? Doesn’t growing up in a casino culture lead to more kids experimenting with gambling?
<
p>
Sure, maybe it’s just the occasional slot machine at first. But that’s a gateway game. Next thing you know they’re doubling down on 11, placing the 10x odds bet at the craps table and doing who-knows-what with baccarat. (Does anyone know how to play baccarat?)
<
p>
Mom and Dad don’t know what happened to little Timmy. He used to be such a good boy. But now his grades are slipping (senior in college) and he spends all his time online playing “poker” with his “friends.” Well let me tell you, those are NOT his friends! And the women he sees! Wearing cocktail waitress outfits, only talking to him when he tips well… I tell you, the kids these days, oy.
There are many things – alcohol and gambling are just two examples – that are fine for most adults in moderation but can also destroy lives when used unwisely or addictively. The risk of addiction for some shouldn’t justify removing a freedom for everyone. Folks who struggle with their addictions would agree, understanding that it’s not up to us to help them control their behavior (that’s co-dependence), rather they must take responsibility for and learn to manage their own cravings.
First, I’m going to say that economic reasons are a far more persuasive argument, but there’s something in your own calculation when looking at addiction that you don’t consider. Gambling doesn’t effect just individuals, but people – and in ways that alcoholism doesn’t. It’s much harder to drink away a whole family’s fortune than gambling. In a very short time period, an entire family could be ruined – and not even know about it, till it’s too late. At least with alcoholism, there are plenty of signs so you can help people before it becomes too late.
<
p>
That said, I still think economic reasons are far more persuasive – because they effect everyone.
“Gambling doesn’t effect just individuals, but people…”
<
p>
What do you think happens when an angry drunk comes home? How do you think the kids get treated the morning after?
<
p>
“At least with alcoholism, there are plenty of signs so you can help people before it becomes too late.”
<
p>
Do you think alcoholics wear a red hat when their drinking goes from occasional to problem?
<
p>
If you think a family can be ruined quickly by gambling, how do you compare those involved in a drunk driving accident? And here we’re talking not only about the drunk drivers family who apparently ignored the red hat, but passengers of other vehicles on the road who never had time to react to the red hat about to plow into them.
<
p>
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you didn’t think about this enough before you posted.
But I was talking about financial ruin. Even then, an alcoholic often leads to financial ruin, but yes, there are signs. If you live with someone who has an alcohol problem, you’re eventually going to figure it out – and, I’d contend, that will often happen sooner than you’d figure out if someone had a huge gambling problem, which could come in the form of them taking out tens of thousands in debt or stealing all sorts of money that a family would ultimately be responsible for paying back. One of the common stories behind gambling addiction is the shock of finding it out. I don’t know too many family members of alcoholics that were absolutely, positively shocked to find out their spouse or parent drank too much – and I know a lot of alcoholics and their family. It’s easier to hide your trips to Foxwoods than it is the 10 bottles of vodka tucked away in your garage, or the 20 nips scattered about the basement nooks and crannies (the practices of two different alcoholics I know).
<
p>
That said, just because I was talking about finances, doesn’t mean I was trying to take away anything from alcoholism. When you’re talking about personal ruin, there are few diseases that can do it faster. Vehicular homocide is a pretty damn fast way to ruin a life – and of course that would impact a family. Furthermore, I know one too many people who went from having a parent they loved to a parent they never talked to because of their drinking problem.
<
p>
So, in no way was I trying to downplay alcoholism. I just simply wasn’t talking about things such as child abuse, drunk driving and other risks associated with alcoholism. Do we really need to turn any of these posts into a “which awful disease is the worst.” They’re all bad and they all ruin lives, they just do it in different ways.
You are absolutely right that the slippery slope argument you bring up is flawed — no question about it. But I do think it's valid to bring up apple-to-apple comparisons, such as asking why if casinos “rearrange” money to out-of-state corporations, why Target et al. pass the test and casinos don't.
And in (partial) defense of the thread of anti-moralistic argument in the quoted comment, I hardly think it is a red herring to suggest that when it comes to casinos, people should have the right to gamble if they so choose. This is arguable, of course, but that part of the argument should be separated from the flawed slippery-slope part of it. The anti-moralistic point of view is legitimate, and needs to be addressed by both sides.
…only as useful as the characteristics that were chosen for the analogy. That’s one reason why arguments by analogy are often suspect.
<
p>
That is not the reason for my posting comment, however. The reason for my comment is something that I read in Der Spiegel’s on-line English language edition, that may be of interest to subatai. A brief excerpt
<
p>
<
p>
Much more at http://www.spiegel.d…
<
p>
A couple of days ago, subatai and I were analogizing the Belian situation with that of Czechoslovakia: a possible amicable divorce in the case of Belgium. From what is described in the cited article, maybe that will come to pass.
People have been writing articles about a “Belgian divorce” for at least a decade. The country is so devolved, that it barely holds together as a unit — the regions can even manage their own foreign policy in certain competences. The hassle of separation isn’t worth the few powers left for each region to gain (not to mention the thorny issues of what to do with the German-speaking minority, and the status of Bruxelles).
…I have no idea as to the veracity of the points mentioned in the article, nor do I have a personal interest in the matter. I just thought you might be interested in the article.
<
p>
One question, though. With the advent of the EU, is there really any need for nation states in the EU-zone? I know that the UK likes to pretend that it is independent of Europe, but it isn’t really. The exchange rate of the British Pound sterling vs. the US$ seems to track the exchange rate of the Euro vs. the US$ fairly closely (with some delay), even though the UK is not part of the Euro-zone.
<
p>
Any opinion?
<
p>
BTW, I was amused, and amazed, at how well the Czech Republic handled its divorce from Slovakia. And, from what I have read, both sections are now doing quite well. The divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to both sections.
… did some work in both countries back in the 90s. His report was that they are (or were) doing great.
Nation-states don’t exist because they have their own currency. They have their own currency because they exist. All the nations that use the US dollar at a pegged value — should they merge with the United States? Should the nations using the Caribbean dollar merge?
<
p>
Nationalism is the most powerful ideological force of the modern era, and it’s not because people like their money to have different colors than their neighbors’ money.
…The Euro has not much to do with the EU–yet. But the main impact of the EU was the relatively free movement of goods and services, and, more importantly labor, within the EU-zone.
<
p>
It is the last–free movement of labor–that is lost on most self-described free-marketeers. GATT does not provide for free movement of labor, nor does NAFTA, and that is their failings.
Back to the main point.
<
p>
I’m struck by how the pro-casino crowd assumes opposition is based on morals.
<
p>
As I’ve said before, most of the opposition I’ve seen isn’t anti-gambling, it’s anti-casino. Granted, there are groups who are opposed on moral grounds, but most of what I’ve seen is based on economic impact.
<
p>
I agree. In fact, when scratch at the surface a little further, most of the opposition is anti-casino patron. It’s not that they don’t like the caisnos, they don’t like the people that go there. Thus Gary’s “justifiable NIMBY-ism.”
<
p>
Did you read Derrick Z. Jackson’s piece in the Globe yesterday? He used the word “Machiavellian” twice in the same piece to describe the casino proposal. Sounds like he’s keeping an open mind, eh?
<
p>
I disagree that argument by analogy is inherently flawed. Lawyers do it all of the time. The argument is only as useful as the analogy. There’s nothing wrong with comparing two alike things, so long as they are sufficiently alike to justify the comparison.
… is some anti-casino employer arguments out there. Job creation is only great if the particular kinds and mixes of jobs created are not undesirable.
<
p>
This particular argument seems to be a variation on the “shoe on the other foot” test that is a time honored technique for sniffing out hypocrisy. Of course it is then linked to a slippery slope argument that doesn’t necessarily wash.
<
p>
Argument by analogy can be formally valid, but the devil as to whether a valid argument by analogy holds up is in the details.
<
p>
It’s not OK to Approve Prostitution
Gambling is like Prostitution
Therefore its not OK to Approve Gambling
<
p>
The trick is to make sure the parts in question are indeed analogous. This is usually done by examining the unstated premises. So if approving gambling is like approving prostitution, the question to ask is in what way?. What properties of gambling make approval OK and are similar properties existent in prostitution? Are there properties of the two that are dissimilar and would affect the reasonableness of approval with different outcomes?
<
p>
I suspect that answers to these questions would illuminate why, in many ways, gambling isn’t like prostitution. So while the argument is valid in its form, it’s unstated premises are flawed to make it incorrect in its conclusions.
<
p>
The slippery slope argument is like an implied series of these arguments by analogous substitution where the substituted item is ever increasingly more of something,… in this case more of a vice. The problem is that, although it could work as an argument, to show that it does you’d have to show that the characteristics of the thing being substituted wouldn’t ever change in a way that breaks the analogy. You’d have to say that Approving any vice no matter how bad is like approving gambling. You’d then have to prove that any vice no matter how harmless or harmful is similar in enough in characteristics to gambling that any differences are not salient toward an approval test. If you could show that then the slippery slope argument might hold, but unlikely.
THREE resorts? Coming on line at the same time? Competing with existing civic and convention centers? Yeah, THAT’LL work!
<
p>
I have a good friend at Genzyme, and he told me when they were building the underbooked Seaport – to compete with the Hynes and the Bayside Expo – that Boston needs to get it through its head that it is NOT a major convention/resort destination. The weather is unreliable/sucky about 8 months of the year. The summer is hot and smelly. The attractions are…well…let’s jsut say that most convention goers aren’t dreaming at night of visiting Walden Pond and the Paul Revere house.
<
p>
Do-It-All-Deval is trying to propose a political solution to an economic problem – not looking at where or how many casinos might make money, but where are the solons with the juice. Which has zilch to do with the economic success or failure of casino gambling.
It is reasonable to discuss whether 3 should come online at the same time, and whether three casinos are economically viable. To what extent they would compete, versus complement existing business is also fair. You can’t just write it off, without supporting your premise.
<
p>
Your friend at Genzyme may not have anticipated the BCEC being named the Convention Center of the Year by Event Solutions. You might want to consider other advice. See the following- http://www.massconve…
<
p>
Clearly, it has enhanced our ability to draw conventions.
<
p>
I suppose if you don’t want casinos, but one acknowledges the need for revenue to provide for things like property tax relief and infrastructure, then let’s put taxes on the table.
What ARE the salaries of those administrators over there?
<
p>
As far as the property tax rate goes, you have a chance to affect that already. At your town meeting. The state has little or nothing to do with it. The ‘property tax relief’ talked about is for an additional 100,000 abatements – STATE WIDE.
And 100,000 abatements are bad how?
<
p>
So as far your town meeting remark, I guess it’s the same as everything else- people want to complain about it, but not actually make reductions needed in budgets. Same old story…..
<
p>
Well, since the premise about the BCEC was incorrect, you now turn your attention to the Hynes. The Hynes is viable, even Romney appointees on a state commission agreed with that- http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
The Hynes has 12 events booked from mid-September to mid-October, according to the MCCA, two of them with 5000 or more attendees. The economic benefit report indicates that the two halls generated $528 million in economic impact, and that it costs $37.2 million to run the two facilities. The direct tax benefit was just under $20 million.
I already brough my Heinlein books back to the library, and it may be good reading.
http://www.massconve…
<
p>
The “Convention Center of the Year” award from ESM has absolutely NOTHING to do with a city’s ability to draw meetings or conventions. The award is based on a facility’s customer service to the event organizers and exhibitors, nothing more.
<
p>
I’ve been in the conference industry (healthcare) for over a decade and read ESM on a regular basis. That award means squat.
<
p>
I will tell you that Boston is not considered a “destination city” like Miami, San Diego, LV, etc. Those cities are attractive because of the weather, facilities and nightlife. Boston comes up short on all three.
<
p>
I’ve managed conferences held in Boston before and it’s a tough place to draw attendence, for the most part.
At least we’re doing something about the weather.
Hey, I can concede the point about the meaning of a trophy, though good customer service can’t hurt. However, the BCEC has attracted new business and money to the city, I don’t think that can be denied.
IIRC, BCEC and Hynes are under the same management. Even if the BCEC has increased revenue I’d be surprised if they’re even slightly in the black. I could be wrong, though.
<
p>
And yes, I agree any convention brings in dollars to the area but Boston never needed both the BCEC and the Hynes. Hell, we only have a short convention season anyway. Once the weather starts to turn lousy there is really no demand.
<
p>
One facility would suffice and since the BCEC is newer they should sell off the Hynes. That place truly and completely sucks when it comes to holding an event there. I still have nightmares.
<
p>
One more thing … it’s gonna cost a lot of money in the future when the BCEC is renamed the “Menino Center.” LOL.
<
p>
There are two issues here: how big town budgets are, and how they are financed. I’ll leave the budget issue aside for today, and look at the financing issue.
<
p>
My beef with property taxes is that they tend to be somewhat regressive (retired people with fixed incomes tend to get shafted).
<
p>
State income tax is progressive. So state funding of town-related expenditures (otherwise funded by property taxes), all else equal, shifts the burden from local property tax to state income tax. I.e. from a regressive tax to a progressive tax.
<
p>
Of course, there are a ton of complications (richer towns may ‘win’ at expense of poorer towns, etc.), but I see state aid as a useful way to address the inherent problems in a property tax-based system.
And if you are in an officially ‘rich’ town waiting for the state to help out, with more than 50% of the kids in the Federal school lunch program and living in hotel units, you become sceptical about exactly who IS poor whan an officially ‘poor’ city can afford $60,000 per year for a ‘Peace Coordinator’, and become disinclined to believe a word about property tax relief.
I thought that it meant that they had so much peace that they needed to put someone in charge of all that peace.
<
p>
Next time someone growls “You want a peace of me?” at R&L, the other party has coordinator with whom to check.
<
p>
“No thank you. I see on the coordinator’s board that I’m due for a peace of another fellow. Perhaps next time I’m feeling peaceful. Good day.”
But as taxable income tends to be less than actual income due to dependents and exemptions (I just noticed there’s a $700/head exemption if you’re over 65, 2006 Form 1 Item 2c), the state tax is effectively progressive.
<
p>
As per the rest, your humor serves you better than your cynicism, Peter.
…that the MA state income tax is flat. It is not, given the number of “exclusions” and “deductions” that the state income tax law provides for. I forget what they call them, personal exemption, deduction for SS taxes, deduction for rental expense. You’ll have to look at your own MA state income tax form to see all of them.
<
p>
The MA state income tax is not flat. If it was, none of those exemptions or deductions would be there.
… is there a state capital gains tax on unearned income? If not then the state income tax in, in effect, regressive.
is there a state capital gains tax on unearned income
<
p>
…regarding cap gains, but the state income tax includes bank interest (with a minor deduction for interest from in-state banks). So I would be surprised if the MA state income tax excluded cap gains and dividends from the income tax base (to which the “rate” is applied).
<
p>
It’s been so long since I looked at the MA income tax form that I really don’t recall what the 5+% tax rate is applied to and what the 11+% rate is applied to.
<
p>
The point being that the MA state income tax is not flat.
I’m a little fuzzy on the concept of “unearned income”. Unless it drops from the sky into my yard I presumably did something to earn it.
<
p>
http://www.bankrate….
<
p>
Massachusetts imposes two tax rates:
<
p>
— A 5.3% rate that applies to wages, interest and dividends and long-term capital gains.
<
p>
— A 12% rate applies to short-term capital gains, long- and short-term capital gains on collectibles and installment sales before 1996 that are classified as capital gain income.
<
p>
I’m also a bit confused by the higher capital gains rate. If I invest in a company, the company does well and I sell some stock before the proscribed amount of time I pay 12%. If I take the same money and go to Foxwoods or one of the soon to be shiny new Mass casinos and win money even quicker I pay 5.3%.
<
p>
College economics was a long time ago but I don’t get it.
I think the idea is that if you have enough money to invest, you can afford to pay more taxes on any winnings. And that capital gains aren’t really earned through blood and sweat, you just used your brain (I thought work smarter was a good thing?).
<
p>
Here’s my proposal for tax reform:
<
p>
1. Set a single tax rate at x%, where x% generates the same revenue as 5.3% + 12% (or whatever the budget target is).
<
p>
2. Do not introduce casinos and abolish the lottery, which I believe is regressive (is it offensive to note that the people buying smokes and scratch tickets at Cumby’s aren’t always well-to-do?). Increase x to cover the difference.
<
p>
3. Eac year reward 0.1% (or so) of MA taxpayers (excl. non-human entities like corps) randomly with 10x whatever their tax bill was. Hell, pick 10 people to get 1000x. Adjust x to cover the difference. This step a) retains the excitement of lotteries and b) provides a positive incentive for not cheating on your taxes. To avoid recursion problems, winnings are tax free!
But can I make one suggestion? Give people extra chances if they choose to use the 5.7 rate
Then the payouts may be self-funding.
“earned” vs. “unearned” income is nothing more that public relations. All income is earned, it’s merely a matter of how it is earned.
<
p>
So-called earned income is income that is earned through labor, of some sort or another–even if it is little more than sitting in an office.
<
p>
So-called unearned income is earned through investments.
<
p>
It’s an emotive distinction, nothing more, nothing less.
The main point of this thread is confirmed by many of the comments on it. An extraordinary number of false or misleading arguments are being put forward in defense of casinos.
<
p>
First among them: Opposing casinos is not a patronizing way to prevent poor people from gambling. Poor people have lots of opportunities to gamble. They can play poker or 21 with each other. They can make side bets on which pigeon will fly off the bench first. Casinos are not about gambling in any ordinary sense. Casinos are about licensing huge, out-of-state, and repeatedly corrupt entrepreneurs to come into Massachusetts and take out profits based on the fact that a limited number of licenses have been issued. And slot machines have been designed to take advantage of a particular vulnerability in the human operating system, which often responds not that much differently than a pigeon’s to the schedule of reinforcements they offer.
<
p>
I repeat: Casinos are a state monopoly granted to large, private, out-of-state interests. The only social benefit they offer is shortening the travel time that would be required to get to a more distant casino. They cannibalize jobs and resources from surrounding businesses. The true libertarian would say “let a thousand casinos bloom.” Let’s have one on every street corner. Why make anyone travel even ten miles to gamble? If there’s a building and a parking lot, put in a casino. Of course, if that were done, investors would not invest. The profitability of casinos (with Las Vegas as an exception) depends on government restrictions. So there’s no libertarian argument in favor of them. (Las Vegas casinos, which are not monopolies, depend heavily in the entertainment as a loss leader to draw in the gamblers from distant places. As casinos increase in number, and entertainment venues of comparable appeal, proliferate, profitability, and revenues, must fall.)
<
p>
Revenue: Casinos are not the only alternative to higher property taxes. Casinos are being conceived as tax farms so that our politicians won’t have to bite the bullet and go about putting together a fair and adequate income tax code. (Massachusetts, by the way, is not “Taxachusetts” by any reasonable standard of revenue as a proportion of earnings in the state.) Instead of being straightforward and facing up to the lies of Grover Norquist and his henchpeople, the state will assign the task of raising revenue to private interests. Revenue raised by ordinary taxes takes about an extra 25 cents on the dollar to collect. The Lottery probably costs over twice that in overhead. If the Connecticut figures for Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are accurate, the public is spending about $1.10 for every $1 that goes into the public treasury. So there’s no serious revenue argument, except the profoundly divisive position that people hooked on gambling should pay more for our public services that people who are not.
<
p>
Alcohol and cigarettes: It would not be unreasonable to regulate cigarettes out of existence. They are barely 150 years old in their modern and most dangerous form (smoke that can be easily inhaled, as opposed to pipe and cigar smoke). Alcohol is historically a different matter. But the fact is that when a society chooses to make alcohol more difficult to purchase (say by increasing the spacing between outlets) the proportion of alcohol abusers and alcoholics goes down in the population. So, even there, a pure libertarian argument is hard to sustain. But alcohol is another big business with a huge lobbying budget available to put forth the smiling face of libertarianism.
<
p>
I could go on. But I have gone on.