Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner )
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Legal Sin in New York State? - (nf)
Message-ID: <5224@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 22:25:31 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5224
Posted: Sat Jan 28 22:25:31 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 04:22:06 EST
Lines: 24

#R:rocksvax:-120100:uiucdcs:36200077:000:1082
uiucdcs!renner    Jan 28 11:11:00 1984

   /***** uiucdcs:net.flame / shark!hutch /  5:45 pm  Jan 27, 1984 */
>  The fact that the state(s) support an "immoral" activity means that a
>  conflict of interest exists, and that there is less chance that anything
>  will really get done where people are being hurt, directly or indirectly,
>  by that activity.  That is an unfortunate but real side effect of the
>  often beneficial state monitoring of "immoral" activities.
>  
>  The problem is hardly as simple or as easy as it should be, because if
>  the state STOPS its involvement, then the criminal element happily jumps
>  into the breach.  If it isn't already there trying hard to take more.


This analysis seems to miss the third alternative.  The state does not have
to either control or prohibit any activity.  If gambling and prostitution
were legal but not state-sponsored, then the state's only interest is to
collect taxes and license fees.  If the taxes and license requirements are
reasonable, then the criminal element has no incentive to jump into the
breach.

Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner