So my brother used to live down the street from this bar in Pittsburgh that had video poker machines. Two of them, actually; and virtually anytime you went into the place, there was someone in front of the machine, playing the game.

I didn’t go in often enough to know the names of the people at the consoles, but I got the idea they were regulars. It was that kind of neighborhood bar. The machines, of course, were illegal. But it just wasn’t a big deal. I’m thinking no one who ever walked through the front door of that place would have called the cops to report the illegality. Had they, next time they walked in they might have met, shall we say, a rather chilly reception.

So Gov. Ed Rendell proposes - and local state Rep. Mike Sturla backs - a measure to finally legalize these machines, which so many bars across the state have already and which frankly ain’t a big deal, and I think: eh. Sure. So what? Generate a couple extra bucks for the state at a time of economic crisis? Great idea. Is it going to drag Pennsylvanians to vice and grief and bankruptcy? Please. Some bars which don’t already have the machines may get one. Other bars that already have them won’t have to worry about it any longer.

Unlike Jeff Hawkes, who writes in opposition to the plan today, I didn’t hear Sturla on WITF’s radio program, which Hawkes calls a “house of rationalization built upon a foundation of excuses” - like the fact that video poker is already legal in states like West Virginia, that some 17,000 illegal video poker machines are already out there, and that it could raise money - $1.8 billion, in fact - to help balance the state budget.

Rationalization it may be - but all of it sounds like legitimate rationalization to me.

I get the idea sometimes that the people who oppose this sort of gambling think that the folks I used to see at those video poker machines need to be saved. Probably from themselves. You know what, they didn’t need to be saved. They were just people who liked to play the game, and if they dropped a few bucks on it a night - it wasn’t a big deal. Could they ill afford it? Maybe. But those most at risk from such “regressive” taxation can ill afford a lot of things. If we were really concerned about the poor underclass who will be “taxed” this way, we might try to close the bars themselves - which progressives actually tried about 80 years ago, and you recall how well that worked out.

This is perhaps the libertarian in me, but bottom line, I don’t believe in saving anyone from him- or herself. If people are going to toss coins into video poker machines - and they are - then the state might as well get a cut; and state money, which ain’t exactly growing on trees these days, ought not be spent on enforcement of the existing ban on video poker. Were the state flush with funding we might not be having this conversation, but the state is not flush with funding, and this sort of “voluntary” taxation - i.e., you don’t have to pay it - is better than a broad-based tax hike.

For whether we legalize and tax it or not, people are going to play video poker. I’m sure a lot of people were playing it last night, in fact. They may be slightly poorer for it, but hell - I bet they lost less money in the machine this week than you lost in the stock markets.