The study relied primarily on informant interviews, but the interviews were complemented by participant observation field notes, public opinion poll data, secondary accounts, and public documents. One hypothesis derived from the study is that the more broad-based the support for legalization of a vice, the easier the establishment of legitimacy for the legalization movement and the more likely the movement's success. A second hypothesis holds that in a campaign where legalization advocates emphasize the economic benefits of legalized gambling rather than the social rationale, opponents can be successful when they are sufficiently powerful to authoritatively challenge the need for reform; they challenge the estimates of benefits; they refute points which otherwise normalize the opposition; and they show that problems caused by legalization are endemic rather than restricted to certain locales. A third hypothesis is that material interests determine whether one can afford the luxury of expressing symbolic interests. Another hypothesis holds that the imposition of outsider status reinforces the marginality of the deviant and contributes to the maintenance of stigmatization. The final hypothesis is that the success of either group is tied to its ability to downplay the issue which the other side presents as central. Models of the legalization of vice are presented. References accompany each chapter.