From My Cold, Dead Hands

http://www.channel3000.com/news/14916807/detail.html

If you parents are having such problems raising your children to be non-violent, or at least not criminal members of society, maybe you should try a different tact. Allowing or asking for the government to regulate what your children are exposed to is not going to ameliorate the very influences that you consider worst for your child. Instead, I would recommend that you talk to your kids and find out what they think about the things that you're trying to keep them from. Instead of categorically banning an activity, as that is not likely to work, talk to your kids and then if they have mistaken notions or are confused about something, you can view it as an opportunity to be a good parent and give your children a bit of truth that the schools won't give them.

In regulating ethics, government policy is a poor panacea for the perceived ills of society. If the government had any say into what you do, then the things that are declared illegal would actually not be committed because of the fear of the results or because of the respect an individual holds for the government. Usually, though, the most important consideration into doing something that is considered illegal, is whether or not you will get caught.

Of course, during an election year, it is easy to grab headlines by attacking a small fraction of society that, because of its very nature, does not have any effective organization to meaningfully resist attempts to oppress them for political points. Gamers are, at turns, obnoxious, profane, and passionate, but they are citizens of the country who are not deserving of this discrimination.

Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that this proposed legislation from Sen. Jon Erpenbach is at best misinformed or misguided. I admit that it would be a good idea to move 17 year criminal offenders as the juveniles that they still are, but I think it is rather dubious that a simple tax on video games is going to raise enough money to cover the proposed expenses. Personally, I see this as a problem of definition. In this case, the definition of what is, exactly, a non violent offense. For instance, how much would the cost go down if, instead of holding children for having a small amount of Marijuana, why not confiscate their pot and take them home to their parents? Instead of having the state teach a lesson, why not let the responsibilities of parenting fall upon the parents?

Besides, this tax is just going to pull money out of the state coffers, as people will just go online, to amazon.com and such, and buy their video games without an extra insipid tax.