"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-William Pitt, British prime-minister (1759-1806)

With the resumption of Parliament the long maligned long gun registry will (maybe) meet its Waterloo. As an an example of what happens when ideology engages in sacrilegious acts with party politics the long gun registry has no equal in Canadian politics. Politicians preyed on urban dwelling Canadians frightened by what they saw on the television about crime in the US. Our police chiefs (elected to run police forces and not set policy) opined that knowledge of whether a firearm was in a residence would make a police officers jobs safer. And to top it all off that holy grail of the anti-gun crowd - The Montreal Massacre was lite once more into a blazing fervour! Huzzah said the masses - we will prove to the world how civilized we are by supporting the "necessity" of long gun control (the handguns everyone is afraid of have been strictly controlled and registered for years - except by the actual bad people of course).

So the government of the day(s)announced they had a plan - why this thing will cost a mere 100M$ to set up and pay for itself with "user fees" (or as I like to call this stuff taxes"). Contracts were awarded, people hired, politicians celebrated! A 100M$ would insure that we would know for sure if a farmer in Saskatchewan had a .410 coach gun tucked away to clear out the varmints’ in his barn because (here it comes) he will TELL us. This simple (and erroneous) assumption began the long, slow and phenomenally expensive LGR debacle. Why you ask, well here’s a couple of reasons – that farmer in Saskatchewan, that hunter in Quebec, that target shooter in Metcalfe – we all wondered how exactly the registry was going to protect anyone. After all it wasn’t like criminals were going to meekly fill in the forms and tell Police what they had; the LGR was “targeted” towards the non-criminal members of society. When this point was raised it was shouted down by Police Chiefs with the “knowledge is power” argument. Well I am not a police officer but I’m pretty sure rule #1 is to assume that ANY situation is dangerous and to conduct yourself accordingly (regardless of what the LGR says or doesn't say).

So One (1) Billion dollars later we have a long gun registry that tracks the firearms of all Canadians.  What happened of course is that the government (in a desperate attempt to get people to use it) caved on the user fees.  For One (1) Billion dollars we have now a reasonable competent system in place.  However what we don't have in place is increased public safety from criminals nor do are our brave police officers any safer than they were before.  What could we done with One (1) Billion dollars? Well we could have hired so many police officers that you couldn’t walk three steps without tripping over one. For One (1) Billion dollars we could of built more prisons where the message of “you use a gun in a crime and you do serious time” would be delivered one day at a time.

Any "necessity" born of Politics is predestined to fail everyone except those who take credit for the idea.  Such is the case of the LGR - may it rest in peace.

"Mama always told me not to look into the eye's of the sun, But mama, that's where the fun is" - Bruce Springsteen

So the Government of Ontario has seen fit to announce on-line gambling as an extension of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporations "service" to the good citizens of Ontario. This was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press as follows;

"The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. estimate that Canadians spend nearly $1 billion a year at a unregulated gambling sites and want a piece of the action. Ontario's cash-strapped government is eager to find new revenue streams to eliminate its massive deficit and fund expensive promises ahead of the 2011 election."

Personally I find phrases like "piece of the action" and "expensive promises" heart-warming as an (over) taxed-payer in this province. What really concerns me though is that in the endless gold rush to grab more and more of our money the government we elected to represent us, our collective values and to set a higher standard for the world to see somehow seems to have forgotten that just because people do or want something it isn't the government’s role to make it easier for them to get it.

Let’s take the 2010 equivalent of a Nazi - that's right I am talking about you smokers! The Nanny state mentality of our provincial and federal governments results in passing laws right, left and centre to insure that practitioners of this particular habit experience the maximum bullshit level in their use of a legal product (and one that the provincial government generates huge tax income from). Despite this incongruity I least get the feeling that they (our fearless leaders) have grasped the concept that smoking, as a rule, is not good for you. Now here's my thesis - neither is gambling. When Bob Rae was in opposition he opined that "gambling was a tax on the poor" and when he was elected famously opened the first Casino in this province. Since that moral flip-flop our governments (remember we elected them) have been hooked on gambling revenue with all the style and class you would expect from a 12 hit a day crack whore working a corner in some urban hell.

If you make gambling easier then, wait for it, PEOPLE WILL GAMBLE MORE. The government knows this and is already rubbing its greedy little hands together in anticipation of all the money they pry from those who can least afford it. Their defence – why people are already gambling on-line – why shouldn’t we get a taste as well (think the Godfather). I can think of reason, ITS NOT GOOD FOR YOU. In other words I expect my government to promote values that we as a society have, crazy old fashioned things like work for your money – don’t expect to “win” it. Manage your debt so you are not an encumbrance to those in your life; don’t assume that we, as a group of hardworking individuals, are somehow responsible for the various miscreants our entitlement based social welfare system creates. 

I am a realist, I know that people will gamble regardless of risk to themselves (and smoke, and drive drunk,  own pit bulls, pay "eco" fees etc) and we can't expect (nor should we want) our government to control everything about our behaviour(s) (see earlier Nanny State comment) but at the same time I don't expect them to just give up and jump on the same gravy train either.  So here’s the thing Mr. McGuinty, you got it on cigarettes, what is it about about making gambling easier you don’t get? If I walked in and said lets sell smokes in schools you would (justifiably) have me burned at the stake. Gambling destroys families, causes chaos and death – why in any god’s name would our elected representatives want to promote this through making access easier?

There are times I believe that I cannot be cynical enough to truly understand the depth of greed and culpability our “leaders” are capable of….