I’m no fan of Deval Patrick, either, but I was definitely sympathetic to his plan to bring casinos into Massachusetts, especially if the choice is between opening those establishments and seizing more cash from already overtaxed working people. (I can only assume this is what the Massachusetts legislature is planning with an on-the-ropes Democratic governor like Patrick “leading” the state.) Indeed, I still hold out hope that New Hampshire will eventually allow casnios in the northern part of the state rather than institute a sales or income tax, which seems more likely all the time. (It’s going to be for the children, of course.) Not much hope, but a boy can dream, can’t he?

In a perfect world, of course, we wouldn’t have a bunch of scared-of-their-own-shadow busybodies deciding what adults can and can’t do with their own money, or passing judgment on those activities in the form of “sin taxes.” I also know this is no silver bullet. Certainly, gambling hasn’t turned Connecticut into a low-tax state. Nevada has done alright. Phil has a better idea of the effect in New Jersey I’m guessing, but judged by Corzine’s recent squaking bluster about hard choices for revenue, I’ll take it they aren’t moving to abolish the state income tax or anything. But as bad precedents and options go, at least there is some measure of choice for individuals, if not for casino owners, in these plans.

As a somewhat unrelated addendum, the revenue junkies running the New York City have the bizarre ability–a superpower, really–to make one nostalgic for the days of filing those April forms in Taxachusetts.

UPDATE: A reader just emailed to ask if I believe adults should be able to do absolutely anything with their money and I see their point. Obviously, there are limits that I should probably enumerate. For instance, I may be pro-gambling, but against allowing adults to use their cash to, say, buy vials of bubonic plague to create mass casualty terror attacks or child pornography. I’ll try to be more clear in the future.