Breakthrough?

[Editor's note: This was actually written last night, but LJ was busted so I didn't get to post it. Just treat it like a late-night ramble.]

So I got a link to this article from the BARGE list, a collection of poker players, mainly, but certainly present are gamblers of all stripes. Here's the gist of the article: this optometrist from Virginia was a kind of petty sports gambler who started increasing stakes after encouragement from a guy he met in a bar. This guy happened to be a police detective, and eventually this detective assembled a SWAT team to take the optometrist at his home. During that operation, there was an accident, and a member of the SWAT team accidentally shot and killed the optometrist. That's the story.

So...that's tragic, and it makes good copy. But the "story" is just an illustration for the column, which is basically asking questions about the regulation of people's lives, etc. The questions are important, and certainly some of the circles in which I run (or at least have encountered) ask these kinds of questions all the time. Here's the quote from the article that grabbed me: "Because there is almost never a complaining victim in vice crimes, law enforcement offers must go to extraordinary lengths to investigate and prosecute these crimes." Of course...that makes perfect sense to me. It's probably where people get the idea of a "victimless crime."

Now...I should say from the outset that I don't really believe in the victimless crime. I definitely believe in stupid laws, but I'm posting here from the stance that "crime" should actually mean something...that there is harm involved...to people, society, economics...I don't know...something. But "vice." That's one of those fiddly bits, I guess.

So I ask my readers. What do you think is the state's interest in this kind of thing? Pick your poison: gambling, drugs, sex (prostitution, pornography, sodomy)...whatever is up your alley (so to speak; no sodomy jokes, please ;) ). I'm not looking for justification, I'm just looking for a line of reasoning. I'll take whatever you got, just as long as it makes some kind of sense. I'm not looking for an argument; that is, I'm not taking this opportunity to try and change anyone's mind. I'm just, at this moment, genuinely confused as to what would motivate an attempt at legislative control for...well...vice, I guess. I'm leaving this purposely vague. Why do we have laws banning gambling? Why do we have laws banning certain drugs? What else have we banned that I have just previously not even known about because it didn't happen to be a hobby of mine, and why is that banned?

I don't know. It's just late, I guess, and I get passed a link to a column and get antsy. Probably I got started cooking when I had to think about Robtopia today. I'm just trying to decide if I'm having a moment of clarity or a moment of insanity here. :) Surely I'll feel better in the morning. Peace!

A moment of Zen

Just saw this in a Slashdot comment. The caption/title is "Only in America." Sweeeeet.

P.S.

Regarding my earlier post about vice laws: Argh.

Net Neutrality - a primer

Recently, kawaiiryuko was looking for petitioners for Net Neutrality. A little after that, I caught this blog entry from Space Nerd Wil Wheaton, also about Net Neutrality. In it, he links to this Adam Green post which, while ostensibly about Net Neutrality, is really a weird diatribe against Mike McCurry, IMO. In any case, Wheaton recommends reading the Green post if you're new to the Net Neutrality scene. Even better, I recommend this article from Slate (linked to from the Green post), which is concisely illustrative of the issues being addressed here. The Slate article makes a good intro, and the Green post has ways to get involved.

And there's my Net Neutrality PSA. Save the Internet. And smell ya later!