We Need Your Help at Next Saturday’s (June 6) Mass. Democratic Party Issues Convention.
At next week’s Democratic Party Issues Convention (Saturday, June 6 in Springfield), opponents of legalizing predatory slot machine gambling in Massachusetts will mount an effort to pass a Resolution “oppos[ing] the legalization of slot machines and any similar efforts to promote addictive and predatory gambling as a means of raising public revenues.” (The full Resolution is printed at the end of this posting.) We need your help collecting delegates’ signatures. You don’t have to be a delegate to help.
[Why do we describe slots as “predatory gambling”? Read below and check out this youtube video: www.tinyurl.com/predatoryslots ]
How Can You Help?
We need your help in Springfield collecting Convention delegates’ signatures:
(a) to bring the Resolution up for a vote,
(b) to demonstrate broad-based support for that Resolution, and
(c) to build a network of supporters who can be marshaled later this Fall to oppose State legislation legalizing predatory slot machine gambling, and licensing slot machine warehouses at the Dog Tracks (which will otherwise shut down when the ban on greyhound racing takes effect).
If you can come to Springfield Friday evening , you can attend — and collect signatures at — these pre-Convention parties:
Fri. 6 to 9 PM LG Tim Murray Reception, McCaffrey s Public House, 1171 Main Street
Fri. 7 to 10 PM Black and Latino Caucus Reception, Montenia’s, 137 State Street
Fri. 8 PM to 2 AM Kick-off Reception, MassMutual Center
Fri. 9 PM to 12 AM Young Dems Reception, Shakago’s, 23 Hampden Street ($5 donation)
If you can be in Springfield early Saturday morning , you can attend — and collect signatures at — two Saturday pre-Convention breakfast events:
Sat. 8:30 AM AFL-CIO Breakfast with Secretary Galvin, Ballroom A
Sat. 8:30 AM Welcome Breakfast with Congressman Capuano, Ballroom B
As delegates enter the Convention building, we hope to create a visible presence — and collect more signatures. Once delegates are seated (by Senate district), we hope to have enough people to collect signatures from each Senate district.
Contact Fred Berman (fredlori@rcn.com or 617-501-1404) if you can help.
You don’t have to be a delegate to help! (You do have to pay $25 for a guest pass if you are not a delegate and wish to enter the Convention building.)
Finally, some of us will stay for an hour or so after the Convention to attend — and collect signatures at — the reception sponsored by the Progressive Dems of Mass, from 4 to 6 PM at Café Lebanon (1390 Main Street).
What’s Wrong With Legalizing the Slots?
Supporters of legalizing slot machines will talk about the potential for new State revenues from gambling, and will make claims about preserving jobs at the Dog Tracks… and they’ll be joined and generously funded by giants from the gambling industry who are waiting for the opportunity to prey upon Massachusetts residents.
Although Massachusetts desperately needs additional revenues, legalizing slot machines is NOT the answer. The only real winners when Dog Tracks are turned into slot machine warehouses (Treasurer Tim Cahill’s description) will be the owners of those tracks and the gambling industry:
Slot machine gambling will largely siphon off revenues from the Mass. Lottery, and away from neighborhood businesses — bars, restaurants, etc. — that depend on the discretionary spending of local residents.
Legalizing and promoting slot machine gambling is as ethical a way to raise State revenues as promoting smoking — and lacing the cigarettes with nicotine to make them more addictive — in order to increase collection of taxes on cigarettes.
Turning the Dog Tracks into slot machine warehouses will preserve few, if any, race track jobs
The social problems attendant to unleashing the new generation of mesmerizing and addictive slot machines — which conveniently take credit cards, so you can lose money you don’t even have… — outweigh the potential additional revenues from gambling taxes.
Slot machine parlors won’t create the jobs that advocates of giant resort casinos have touted, and they won’t attract tourists from other States. They’ll simply suck money from neighborhood residents and businesses, and enrich the owners of the Dog Tracks that Mass. residents voted to close in last year’s election.
The Resolution
Whereas the Democratic Party has a long and proud tradition of advocating for social justice, working for policies that promote the public health, and fighting to protect citizens from exploitive and predatory business practices;
And whereas modern slot machines use neuroscience-informed technology to mesmerize and entrap gamblers and to keep them playing until they have exhausted their resources (“playing to extinction”);
And whereas medical research has documented the highly addictive nature of the brain’s chemical reactions to slot machine stimulation;
And whereas licensing and promoting such addictive, predatory gambling technology for the purpose of raising State revenues goes against the aforementioned values and principles for which the Democratic Party has long stood, and is at odds with the ideals that underlie our Party’s honorable and consistent struggle to end the deceptive and predatory lending, marketing, and pricing practices that have pushed so many families to the brink;
And whereas legalizing slot machines would erode participation in the Lottery and siphon away from local small businesses the discretionary spending on goods and services that they depend on;
And whereas the development of slot machine parlors would neither create significant new jobs, nor increase tourism in Massachusetts;
And whereas evidence from other states indicates that the long-term costs of gambling addiction — increased substance abuse, increased crime, increased family discord and dysfunction — outweigh the short term benefits of licenses and gambling revenues;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Massachusetts Democratic Party, as a matter of both principle and policy, opposes the legalization of slot machines and any similar efforts to promote addictive and predatory gambling as a means of raising public revenues .
(Submitted by delegates Bob Massie, Tom Larkin, and Fred Berman.)
I have seen time and again the willingness of “some” to fund state government by squeezing the poor. THIS slot and casino initiative is just more of the same. See you in Springfield – and thank you for your courage and clarity,.
“Supporters of legalizing slot machines will talk about the potential for new State revenues from gambling, and will make claims about preserving jobs at the Dog Tracks… and they’ll be joined and generously funded by giants from the gambling industry who are waiting for the opportunity to prey upon Massachusetts residents.”
<
p>There’s also the simple libertarian argument about letting one waste his own money, which is the one I make to support my lack of opposition (as opposed to outright support which implies a more active connotation). I actually stay away from the arguments you state above.
<
p>I DO believe the party should come out strongly against the practices of the business which make the activity artificially addictive, which would be the true equivalent to lacing cigarettes with additional nicotene.
What does that mean? What’s the “natural” level of addictiveness for a slot machine?
For cigarettes it means including unnecessary ingredients solely for the purpose of addiction. For gambling it means what I proposed in this comment to keep it from becoming so addictive. Les Bernal responded that there would be no business if my proposals were in place, but I’d still like to try.
how is a slot machine not “actively artificially addictive?”
<
p>They use the best psychology in the world to keep people playing to ‘extinction’ (industry term, not mine), designing slots to get people to play longer (and that’s not even counting the free booze). Active? Check.
<
p>They’re made out of plastic. That’s artificial enough for me. Check. (Weird, weird, weird thing to include in there – Christopher… tangent: do you support the legalization of ‘naturally’ addictive things?)
<
p>And, per your third word in Christopher’s official make-believe term, let’s tackle addictive. The government recognizes this in what they euphemistically label “problem gamblers,” a group of people which literally doubles when there are slot machines within 50 miles. Scientists, including those at MIT, have shown in brain scans how these machines have a similar effect on the brain as heroin. Addictive? Check.
<
p>So we have machines that are designed to be addictive. How does that not fit your absurd, straw-man definition? The fact that you keep beating this bush is patently absurd. If you just want to support slots because you support it, at least you can be honest about your position… I’d respect that so much more than the hopes you try to jump through whenever you discuss this topic.
to not use the technology to enhance the potential for addiction, as stated in the above post…
<
p>
<
p>I don’t find his term “actively artificially addictive”
to be “make believe” or an “absurd, straw-man definition”, it is an apt description.
<
p>I find Christopher to be seeking a compromise, which is the only way groups of people who have differing views will ever find anything close to common ground.
<
p>
I don’t know what hoops you’re accusing me of jumping through and I believe I have been consistent, to wit:
<
p>I’m not chomping at the bit to bring casinos to MA. It’s not my choice for recreation and will not make much difference in my own life. Lack thereof will not cause me to lose any sleep.
<
p>I have proposed ways to ameliorate the more harmful aspects per my comment which I linked to above. The aspects I want to prohibit are the factors which I see as “artificially” raising the addiction level above what simply insert-coin-pull-lever would be.
<
p>There are enough examples of those not addicted that we shouldn’t tell people not to waste their money. Just don’t come crying to me when you lose.
<
p>I was hoping that more people who helped get him elected would be more willing to hear out Governor Patrick on this issue even if they ultimately do not share his conclusion.
<
p>The arguments relative to addiction and the effects thereof can all be made about alcohol as well, yet the latter is legal and regulated.
<
p>Finally, I’m not the one beating this bush. It comes up again and again and maybe I should just ignore it if you don’t want to hear another perspective. However, I have NEVER initiated the discussion on this matter.
<
p>So, I’ll bite – what do YOU think my motives are if you don’t think I’m being honest about them? I certainly don’t have ties to the industry!
I had a great comment written and it got sucked into the void of the internet (I miss the old soapblox comment system — wouldn’t have lost the comment if we still had it).
<
p>Suffice it to say, not only did I “hear out” Governor Patrick, I used to be in favor of casinos in places like New Bedford for a while when I was at UMASS Dartmouth. It was before I studied the issue — I figured, how could things in New Bedford get worse? However, I did this funny little thing. Instead of jumping through hoops to find a more-comfortable opinion, making up make-believe terms to create new arguments (“artificially addictive”) that seem more winnable (=straw man), I studied the actual issue more. I curious as to why some people had so much opposition to it. Maybe they knew something I didn’t?
<
p>The funny thing about it was that the more I studied it, the less I liked it. What did I learn?
<
p>1. The small resurgence that was going on at NB at the time would have been quickly squashed by a casino, as there’s never room for small businesses when a casino moves in. My favorite restaurants in downtown New Bedford all would have gone under.
<
p>2. Even institutions that I thought “safe” wouldn’t fare well — it was close to Cape Cod and would have hurt the entire Cape industry as a casino in NB would suck people out of the Cape’s tourist industry and put them in the casino. Even nonprofit organizations like the Whaling Museum in NB could have been hurt (and that place is cool).
<
p>3. I didn’t think things could get worse in a place like NB when it comes to issues like addictions, but then I read about how slot machines double the addiction rate. The last place in the world that could use another 3-5% of the population being addicts is NB, the heroine capital of America.
<
p>Indeed, I wish more soft-liners would ‘hear me out.’
<
p>Consider this:
<
p>
<
p>You’re absolutely right. There are similar problems with alcohol as there is to gambling addictions — and we keep alcohol legal and regulated. Guess what? We keep gambling in the state of Massachusetts legal and regulated. Just like we ban the worst kinds of alcohol — and we absolutely do ban some forms of alcohol — we ban the absolute worst kinds of gambling, Class 3. If something is literally twice as addictive as another, similar thing that already addicts a fair number of people, there’s probably a good argument it should be banned.
<
p>I understand that you’re not “chomping at the bit” for casinos. You seem largely apathetic. In my opinion, that’s a problem. This is an issue where far too many people are lulled into a false sense of security. Since we don’t have slots in this state, we’re largely insulated from them. We don’t understand the worst implications that come with them. May I make a suggestion? Instead of passive support, why not passive opposition — just to slots. It’s the worst kind of gambling — they’re machines literally designed to prey on people, not for fun and games. No one’s trying to stop church hall bingo and almost no one’s trying to end scratch tickets or the daily lotto. We’re just trying to keep out the very sophisticated machines that are literally designed to entice people to ‘spend to extinction’ — the industry’s term, not mine.
I suppose it’s possible the term “artificially addictive” is one I coined, but I certainly don’t think the concept is. I define it as deliberate attempts to enhance the power and chance for an activity to become addicted for the express purpose of keeping people hooked. Cigarettes are the easiest example to describe in that they will be somewhat addictive anyway, but the manufacturers add extra nicotene to make sure that they are.
<
p>As far as I know most alcoholics became addicted and are addicted to the forms that are perfectly legal. I’m not familiar with the forms that are so potent as to be illegal.
<
p>Contrary to what appears to be your assessment I too have kept an open mind regarding this issue. It was discussions like these with people on your side of the issue that led me to think about and ultimately propose the regulations and restrictions I linked to above.
<
p>Okay, so cigarettes add nicotine to make them extra addictive. Slot machines have been designed and redesigned over the years to maximize the rate at which people spend to exhaustion – both addictions by design. Does that not meet your definition of purposefully addictive? Slot machines aren’t some completely harmless fun anymore, where you throw your quarter in and push the lever down. It’s much more than that. The casino industry stripped the levers from the designs because it it a) made it longer per roll and b) wore people out over time, so they’d actually stop gambling. It snapped them out of the ‘zone’ a semi-trance which is what casinos seek to put people in… where they spin and spin till their money runs out. The industry got rid of the coin slots because that took too long, the coins were too heavy for the amount people were spending and people are far more likely to spend money that’s on a card… to the extent where many are spending upwards of a 100x more than a penny per roll on the “penny slots.”
<
p>I agree with you that we shouldn’t try to ban gambling, people are going to gamble. But we do ban the most addictive types of things. Slot machines aren’t the cigarettes of the gambling industry. They’re the heroin.
It appears that what you describe would in fact meet my criteria for artificially enhancing the potential for addiction. As such, I have suggested restrictions like prohibiting the use of debit cards and requiring that tokens (which must be purchased from a human teller who can cut you off) be used to feed machines. I am missing one detail though. If it’s not by pulling a lever, how does one operate these machines?
Buttons have replaced the lever a long time ago… this is a perfect example of why I think you should read more about these machines and how they “prey” on people.
<
p>I’m not going to have a detailed critique, but there’s no way Massachusetts would or could restrict these machines to require tokens and lever. If they slots go in, they’re going to go in the way the lobby wants them to do so. It’s naive to think otherwise.
What does that mean? Do they lock ’em up at night? Is there some point where the “addictiveness” can be quantified and should we start taking a look at some of the other areas where humans reach that critical point? The point where society must intervene and protect us from our own foolishness.
to get people to play as often as they can, until they play to “extinction.” The vast majority of a casino’s profits come from slots — and moreover, from a very small subset of “problem gamblers” who use those slots. Slot machines literally double the rate of gambling addicts within 50 miles of a casino or slot parlor — the federal government’s numbers.
<
p>A predator hunts prey. These machines hunt profits from a small subset of the population, their prey. That’s why they’re “predatory.”
<
p>
<
p>That’s a separate argument. If there’s something you feel is too addictive or needs more regulation, feel free to start writing posts on it. You don’t see me asking why you’re not so upset about people who use “predatory” and “lending” together… because there’s no sense in arguing another topic and straw men are lame. (Theme for the day, no?). This argument is about slot machines and how they literally double the rate of gambling addiction, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
but by your own words they’re not very effective. They don’t work on me. They only “work” on problem gamblers, a small proportion of all those who choose to spend their money being entertained by playing these machines. You mentioned they can “double the rate of gambling addicts” but don’t explain what percentage of the whole the gambling addicts comprise. To me it’s another case of limit the benign behavior of the majority to protect a minority from injuring themselves.
per CBO numbers, though it could be higher. Not enough research has been done on this by any stretch of the imagination.
<
p>But let’s use the CBO’s numbers as a baseline. That’s 1 in 20 people, or 1 in 5 families, facing financial ruin. It’s 1 in 5 families largely removing themselves from the economy. It’s over two hundred thousand new addicts in Massachusetts – and all the causes and expenses that brings. Don’t forget, too, that it effects some communities worse than others — and many of the communities worst effected are the ones most vulnerable.
Maybe now I will.
It seems to me you have already won the debate on racinos and slot parlors….see…Top of the Senate’s agenda today: gambling
<
p>so your argument must be against the proposal coming in the fall to allow destination resort casinos in Massachusetts.
<
p>I think you are doing a grave disservice to Massachusetts by fighting against the casino resorts.
<
p>The one proposed for Palmer includes the following:
<
p>
<
p>If you want to continue to shift revenue, jobs, and opportunities away from Massachusetts and down to Connecticut, then fighting the resort casino is the way to go. If you want to watch Central/Western Mass continue to decline, then go right ahead and keep fighting. Have you ever been to Palmer and the surrounding towns? Have you seen the empty store fronts? Local businesses in our area are supporting the casino because they know it will bring people to the area and revitalize it. We need this.
<
p>So when you fight to protect the few vulnerable people who will succumb to gambling addiction, you are also fighting to hurt many more who want to stay in this area and survive.
<
p>If you are so outraged by casino gambling, I think you should put all of your efforts into making drinking at clubs, bars, restaurants and parties illegal, because that behavior causes far more deaths and lives damaged then casino gambling could ever do.
that anyone who ever supports casinos only ever looks at it from one angle — the supposed benefits and money we’re ‘losing.’
<
p>Why do they never include all the costs that come with them?
<
p>Why do politicians that are heavily lobbied by the industry and are just jumping for casinos never want to have real, nonpartisan studies on the implications from casinos — from their impacts on small businesses to addiction and crime to traffic.
<
p>Why is it that the glitz of a new “ultra” resort blinds them to the fact that they kill local businesses across entire regions – and that those business losses can hurt the economy far more than any “benefits” that come with casinos.
<
p>Why is it that people who have studied the issue in depth almost always seem to oppose casinos?
<
p>Why is it that the opposition can’t ever handle just discussing the issue at hand — and always grasps at straws trying to find some other argument they think they can win, on some other issue, as justification for the abuse and harm they wish to inflict on this state?
<
p>So many questions… so few willing answers.
<
p>All I can say is that there’s a reason why the head lobbyist of the entire casino industry said he’d never want a casino in his hometown.
<
p>
I won’t sign anything of the sort. Don’t like gambling? I don’t blame you. Do what I do; don’t gamble. Outsourcing Massachusetts’ gambling dollars to Connecticut is idiotic. Build the damn thing in Palmer and move on. Don’t approve? Don’t go.
Don’t approve, don’t go?
<
p>What happens when so many people decide to go that the local businesses for miles upon miles go under — businesses that probably employ near or as many people, whilst doing so with local ownership. Local ownership = the money spent at that business stays in the community and is spent in the local economy. Money spent at the major casino resort = watering Sheldon’s very green lawn in the desert.
<
p>For further critique, I refer you to my comment just above your’s. http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>I do tire of intellectual laziness.
And I truly believe, at this point, having read virtually every post appearing on this site on this issue that the subject can no longer be rationally discussed.
<
p>I’m sorry. Rational, good people can disagree on this subject–and the ones who view the issue as I do are not rubes to be considered intellectually lazy or challenged. I repeat: reasonable people can disagree.
<
p>I’m not signing anything as a chair of a town committee at this convention. You may label me “narrow” if you choose. I’m okay with that. I know people in Palmer–and they are desperate for this. I say give it a go and see what happens. If the people I know in Worcester aren’t driving to Foxwoods but to Palmer instead, that’s a win. Sorry.
unfortunately verbal abuse is the price one pays for supporting the resort casinos. Thank you for the courage for speaking out. I know people who want the casino but are terrified of stating so because the anti-casino people are so passionate they become ugly.
Thanks for your courage.
The courage for speaking out? She wrote a largely anonymous comment at the bottom of a thread read by a tiny fraction of the state. I do the same thing almost every day. What we do at BMG is not “courageous.” People dying for the country is courageous. A single parent raising a child through hoops and obstacles is courageous. Someone battling through cancer, but forcing a smile on their face, is courageous. Let’s get some perspective, here, okay?
<
p>And I didn’t “abuse” light. Light and I have posted here for a very, very long time. We’re both adults. I called Light out for dumbing the issue down, that’s all.
Mr. Superiority…Courage comes in many forms. Speaking out when you know you will get blasted with ridicule and denigration does take courage.
<
p>I know lightiris is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, she probably doesn’t even care what you think, and for that matter neither should I.
<
p>Lightiris did not “dumbdown” the issue, you just think the the pro-casino arguments are dumb so you apply denigrating terms when you respond to comments.
<
p>In the interest of following the advice that I gave you during the debate over what Miss USA said about gay marriage…I am going to learn to not care what you think. It should only take me a few seconds.
<
p>So speak on >>>>
<
p>
I care what Light thinks. I’m sure Light cares at least somewhat about what I think. She responded, after all.
<
p>You can go on thinking whatever you’d like to think – tis your prerogative. You can think I think the world of myself. I don’t. I’m a humanist. We all have value. I don’t think I’m any better than you, Light or any other random person. The very reason why I care about this issue is because of my humanism. This will destroy lives — and I’m not just talking about the addicts. I’m talking about families, friends and neighbors. I’m talking about hardworking, paycheck to paycheck people who had the courage to take on a loan to achieve their dreams of opening up a restaurant, only to see it all come down to ruin – financial and otherwise – because casinos were introduced into Massachusetts. You seemingly forget about that kind of courage.
<
p>Supporting casinos is the easy decision. That’s the side that has all the money, lobbyists and ability to control the message. That’s the side able to fight a battle of attrition, paid all the while they do so. The only opposition to casinos are loose coalitions of citizens, almost all volunteers, coming from all walks of life. If there are any “courageous” people in the group (and I don’t consider myself one), it’s the few who stand up to the politicians in their states and communities, going door to door, spending endless hours trying to educate the populace on the full impacts we are able to tell thus far, for much of the information has been intentionally kept from society. Often these are the people who have had their lives ruined by the industry – the small business owner who lost everything, the child of an addict, or the person who thought they were playing a game of harmless fun, until it was too late. Those are the heroes in this fight.
I hope you do decide to sign things as a Chair. We sorely lack leadership in this state. I think you’re a great poster and an intelligent person. If there’s something you believe in, you should stick behind it. If you think the platform process was a flawed process that resulted in a bad document, I hope you commit to your conscience and try to convince other folks of your passions.
there can be reasonable disagreement on this issue.
<
p>That said, I don’t find “don’t like casinos? don’t go” to be at all reasonable. It ignores all the implications of casinos — good or bad. It ignores the fact that, yes, slot machines and casinos will impact this state and my life whether or not I ever step foot inside Mohegan Sun: Palmer, Ma.
<
p>I cry intellectual laziness not to be mean or as an insult, but as an honest critique. I expect a higher caliber comment coming from you. It’s not intellectually curious to ignore implications that exist whether people use slot machines or not, or whether people have control in using them or not.
<
p>I don’t mean to be offensive, so please don’t take it that way. I don’t expect everyone to be interested in every topic — I could care less about Adam Lambert, for example, though lots more care about him than Deval Patrick. My mother wouldn’t have the slightest interest in any political conversation, she’s far too interested in what Nancy Grace has to say. Different strokes for different folks. Not interested in casinos? Fine. But please don’t try to reduce this into a debate that leaves out most of the important implications.
<
p>BTW: If 3-5% of people in Worcester who weren’t driving to Foxwoods when then ‘spend to extinction’ because of a new casino in the area (the federal statistics) how is that a win for families, communities or even the economy? If 20% of the small businesses within 50 miles of Palmer are wiped off the map, how is that a win for Massachusetts? Slots are only a “win” for the House. Even resort casinos make the vast majority of their profits coming from a small subset of the population that live within a small area of the casino itself. This obviously has a tremendous impact on individual lives, communities and small businesses — casinos don’t exist in a vacuum, they are the vacuum.
<
p>PS: I thought I posted this comment a few minutes ago. That’s why it’s appearing under “one more thing.”
do honestly feel that anyone who disagrees with you on this is intellectually lazy.
<
p>We have debated the casino so many times it’s like playing a broken record. We know all the arguments for it and against it, so now you have to resort to name calling in order to try to ridicule people in the hopes they will be shamed into becoming anti-casino.
<
p>I am not ashamed that I support the resort casinos, and I am not going to change my mind. I will not call you names or ridicule you in order to make you feel bad for your opinions. Stop the verbal battering please.
If I weren’t “verbally battering” people, however would you fulfill the part of a courageous hero battling those nasty BMG commenters trying to destroy the world make points? Now you get to call the anti-slot crowd on how big and powerful and mean they are, that they’d want to spare communities and small businesses the damage that slots would cause through lost small businesses, crime and addiction. BTW: THAT’S my first intentionally condescending comment of the day. How’d I do?
<
p>Now, for the serious part of my post. The internet is 2-d. I was not condescending to Light, I just pointed out a flaw in Light’s argument. You chose to read “intellectually lazy” as condescending; I was just trying to write something quick and precise. I suspect that anyway I would have tried to make that point, you would have decried how mean and condescending we people are who actually care about how this will impact lives, communities and small businesses. You shouldn’t try to read into things that people say on the internet, because you can’t hear the tone of their voice or gauge their body language. All that is left is their language, which is often written hastily in terms of the blogosphere. When I write, I mean what I write – please don’t insert your own hidden meaning into it. If ever I’m condescending again, I’ll let you know.
<
p>I’ve enjoyed my conversations with Christopher on this point because we’ve had a nice back and forth. I respected what Sab had to say: Gave his comment a six. I’d love for nothing more than this state to commission a detailed, comprehensive, non-partisan, non-industry report on slot machines and what their full impact would be in this state, pros and cons. We’ve never had that. The few studies that ever seem to get done are the ones the industry pays for – the even rarer studies that aren’t tend to reflect very negatively on the industry itself, such as the Congressional Budget Office’s report a few years back. When it comes to slots, I want more information, not less. Respectful debates comes along with that process — but that process just hasn’t ever begun in the Commonwealth. All we ever seem to get is “ka-ching” which is offensive, at best.
once you get past the first paragraph where you try to convey that I think I am some kind of hero, which I don’t.
There is no way to read the term “intellectually lazy” in any way but condescending. You are right that body lanquage and facial expressions play an important role in communication. So were you smiling when you said it? Winking maybe?
The casino issue is an incredibly heated issue Ryan, I have just recently allowed myself to be free with my opinion about it. It is not easy to be a person for the casino when you are surrounded by vocal and passionate people who are against it. I was just at a meeting the other night and had the damn nerve to say I was pro-casino. I was hissed at. I’m learning to not care what people think.
Or about other people?
<
p>I’m not smiling or winking and laughing or crying when I ask these questions. I’d like for you to consider how these decisions impact other people. Would you be willing to go the home of a parent and his or her child and tell them you were pro-casino if the reason why the parent was single was because the ex-spouse spent the child’s college fund on slots without the family’s knowledge? Or lost their house?
<
p>Would you be willing to go to one of the homes of a family who lost their lifelong small business in Detroit because of casinos? The casinos in that city have driven out around 20% of the city’s small businesses in short order — and that was before the last few recessions. Maybe if you went to a family’s home that was ruined by slots and large-scale resort casinos, I’d say what you were doing was courageous. Though, others may say its condescending.
<
p>I also gave you a list of other, honest questions on a different post in reply to one of your comments that you can free to answer, too. Also, feel free to explain why the lead lobbyist for casinos in all of America wouldn’t want a casino near where he lives.
You know why? I think it should be debated. I’ll sign most amendments even if I end up voting against them.
<
p>Listen, if delegates want a three-hour shmoozefest before they head home at 1pm, don’t sign up for the convention. I’m growing tired of people who bail after the semi-celebrity speaker leaves the podium.
<
p>Once a year, we speak as a rank-and-file, and it’s our best shot to be listened to in a formal way. I favor debate, and opening up the process. The 250 signatures rule (similar to the 15% nomination rule) is in my mind a way to keep the nutso/LaRouche stuff off the ballot; this doesn’t qualify.as a voice.
that also used to be on our old platform – an opposition to casino gambling – but don’t quote me.
get gay marriages, have abortions, walk around with some dope and not get arrested, and a myriad of other things…
<
p>But God forbid they should be allowed to drop dollars into a slot machine. How very puritan of you.
<
p>Where’s the amendment to ban scratchies? When I worked at stop and shop, Thursdays and Fridays were full of people cashing checks and promptly spending them all on the idiot tax, right before my eyes. You need to go all or nothing on this issue.
On the other hand, we don’t allow heroin or crack or Class 3 slots in Massachusetts. All of them destroy communities. Go to some other parts of the country, Joe, that have been destroyed by casinos. They haven’t exactly been the panacea in Atlantic City, have they? I somehow think that city would trade all the corruption and dilapidated, bankrupt casinos for the 150+ small businesses casinos put out of business there, don’t you? That’s thousands upon thousands of jobs that were killed, as well as local owners who cared about and invested in their communities that went away.
Shouldn’t people be afforded the choice to go to a casino in Massachusetts?
<
p>It’s a pretty simple yes or no. Yes, I think people should have the right to go to a casino in Massachusetts. No, I don’t think people should have the right to go to a casino in Massachusetts.
I’m much more about “will casinos do anything to help the Mass. economy.”
<
p>Judging from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the answer is a firm, “maybe.”
The real question, the question we use (or should use) to be guiding all economic policy, is if something makes policy sense for the state of Massachusetts – in this case slot machines. We have all sorts of laws, rules and regulations about what companies can and can’t build, sell or provide in the Commonwealth – why should casinos be any different?
<
p>A lot of people would love to buy fireworks, but can’t in Massachusetts. Enough people complained about liquor banned on Sundays that the state changed the law. If you feel that passionately about slots, regardless of any policy implications (your actual, constitutional right), then feel free to voice your opinion and lobby your elected leaders. I disagree and will stand in opposition to casinos.
<
p>However, I’m sorry, but the Declaration of Independence didn’t read ‘you have the right to life, liberty and Class 3 gambling.’ This is very much a question that’s left up to our representative democracy. I’m thankful to live in a state that has made the right policy decision about a convoluted and sometimes difficult topic.
Ok I agree I will sign on to the amendment on Saturday I think the idea of Slot warehouses or race tracks is a really bad Idea it does solely focus on the addictive nature of the gambling and the house always wins. These have no value beyond a potential revenue generator. but like our current sources these are subject to peoples interest and ability to lose. What I won’t support is the idea that Massachusetts cannot open a resort casino. May I point out that many of these “Casinos” as they are called are so much more then gambling halls they offer real entertainment, great restaurants and a host of other amenities that attract not just gamblers but families and children. True the gambling is a key and even a majority income generator for the complex but the resorts like Foxwoods and Mohegan Suns as examples bring jobs and small businesses to a region that sorely needs a boost. They are not likely to attract a fortune 500 campuses in these locations mainly because of a lack of skilled manpower and other infrastructure requirements. Which among other reasons I think these in the right locations like the south coast, Berkshires, and even upper North Shore, areas, which rely on tourism, are potentially good locations.
<
p>Also unlike many other endeavors the Casinos have the resources to self-finance unlike most and maybe even every other endeavor currently in the state. Did anyone see the WSJ article on Dayton Ohio losing NCR corporate headquarters to Georgia because Georgia offered them $60 Million in tax incentives while Ohio was only able to offer $31 Million? That is one example of the kind of competition we face in trying to attract new business to Massachusetts. Dayton so far in this recession has lost 13,000 jobs thus is an additional lose of 1300 high paying white-collar jobs.
<
p>I repeat I support the amendment on the premise that slot warehouses and urban and suburban settings are not good locations for this kind of industry but a top end resort community in a tourist area of the state would be a great jump start for local economies that have for a long time lagged behind Eastern Massachusetts. I also would suggest that I would not allow the State to over rule a local decision on allowing a resort to be built in their community this would be local option only.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
How about a regional option if the siting impacts multiple communities? Your post is compelling.