This is goodbye, for now.

The regulation of gambling, from where I stand, is currently in a similar state of disarray to the regulation of drugs, although the approach being taken in regards to the former is almost diametrically opposed to the approach to the latter, even though both can have the same devastating impact on society.  While drug experimentation is at least being held constant, perhaps, by the WoD, internet gaming is prospering, with lots of young people being drawn in by the lure of quick cash here.  I've never been addicted to an illicit drug (though I've had my fair share of problems with legal ones), but I do have some experience in trying to ward off the similarly addictive rush of gambling (chemically, the high of gambling can trigger the same sort of dopamine rush as, say, cocaine).  Given the problems that are arising as a result of the proliferation of tribal casinos and online gaming, doesn't it seem a bit inconsistent to do little to curb the gaming industry, while doing a lot to futilely try to curb drug usage?  Personally, the occasional joint/bong hit never did me much harm; past addiction to gambling continues to haunt me to this day, in the form of panic/anxiety.

But one thing that can be said as gambling becomes increasingly legitimized in our society, both in practice and in attitude (it's been that way in the UK for some time now), is that the casual bettor doesn't really have a need for the baseball bat-wielding bookie anymore.  Unless you're taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Harrah's by counting cards at high-stakes blackjack, you're probably not going to be exposing yourself to that kind of risk in the casino environment.  So I guess my main points of this rather unwieldy post was to illustrate why organized crime didn't disappear once Prohibition was repealed and to point out the seeming inconsistency in the way gambling and drugs, which at the core are similar in nature, are being dealt with.

As to the other matter and whether or not crime (both of the violent and organized variety) decreased or not: I would like to see some evidence of that [this is not a request for you to back up what you wrote rather, this is me just dwelling aloud].  It is entirely possible that memebers of organized crime families just shifted their efforts to the next profitable things that government sought to restrict (like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.)  Notice that profits are very high when government restrict...they have to be in order to compensate the producers for the risks that they take...but that, in turn, creates the need to protect the profits by stiffling the competitition in some way shape or form...anti-trust legislation does not pertain to illegal industry.