Stars & Stripes reports that Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis is pushing to ban gambling at U.S. military bases overseas:
Davis, a Democrat, is behind a new congressional push to ban gambling at overseas military bases because of what he feels is its inherently addictive nature. The Southern Baptist admits that he opposes gambling on moral grounds, but insists that's not the issue behind his latest efforts. "We've got research to show that 30,000 of our troops may be pathological gamblers, and we ought to be ashamed that we're adding to that," he said.
So they can be trusted with nuclear weapons but not with a roll of quarters? Davis does go on to say that this is more about government endorsing gambling than anything else, but it's not like they don't have a lottery in his home state. And while it doesn't seem like a terribly good idea to have slots on base (the article says the military operates some 5,400 machines around the world), soldiers are going to gamble, and the government really has no business acting in loco parentis. It's bad enough that the troops aren't able to have a beer in a combat zone, but at least there's a rationale for that restriction. This is just the nanny state extending its control into the military. And we've seen it before, most recently when a coalition of anti-porn groups pushed for stricter enforcement of the Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996, which was supposed to ban the sale of skin mags at on-base stores. The move was widely ridiculed, and an unscientific poll from Military.com shows why--people want our troops to be treated like adults. Davis does make one good point though. Officials warn that the machines are an important source of revenue (estimated at $130 million), financing internet access, youth sports, and renovations at morale and welfare centers. Davis rightly says it's "ludicrous" that soldiers have to pay for such things themselves. Perhaps we could redirect those funds towards free beer and porn for the troops.