Going into Reverse -- a bad idea?

Sen. Voinovich (R-Ohio) is a man whom I have met and admire. However, his office has made the following statement (actually from the Dispatch): http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2009/06/voinovich_decries_stricklands.shtml.

As I consider myself quite "liberal" when it comes to civil rights, I think it is a person's right to gamble once they understand the consequences. Although gambling is addictive, gambling is not quite on the level of other addictive activities that we legitimately let others engage in, such as drinking or smoking. Gambling is an activity that is as American as apple pie. After all, what is a 401(k) but a calculated risk?

Putting the gambling machine into horse racing venues seems reasonable to me. Horse racing is a form of gambling in many states; betting on horses is a studious form of gambling, but gambling nonetheless. The voters of Ohio rejected a constitutional amendment to permit a casino near Wilmington, but what if the measure was a mere statute or regulation or permit? Would the voters have been so opposed?

This sort of anti-modern, moral-dictating rhetoric is what drives many young people, moderates, and civil-rights "liberals" from the Republican Party. We ought to leave people well enough alone, and let them make their own educated decisions.