UPDATE (by David): Here is the full text of the resolution, taken from this post — I am told it is exactly what was adopted:
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.
and when only the proponents are allowed to speak (and they did, longer than they should have) there was nothing fair about it.
I wish you would post a comment so I could give you a worthless too.
Much time was spent on the count, including a hand count and then even a standing count.
<
p>May this link be useful.
I am not delusional Ryan. I appreciate your efforts at ridicule to try to get me to back away from my opinion. It’s called verbal abuse and control, which is why many people who are for the resort casino simply don’t speak up.
I haven’t seen a single, major union organize heavily over the issue, getting hundreds of their members to appear at hearings or rallies.
<
p>/snark off
John Walsh seems to being criticized from both sides. A resolution passed that I don’t recall John supporting. Passed does not mean every delegate or every Democrat supports it or that there are not legitimate arguments on both sides.
<
p>The convention is over, but the debate continues. Your position will carry more weight if you stick to presenting your facts.
Don’t the rules provide for equal time for both sides?
Not for resolutions
This resolution was anti-slots.
<
p>Liveandletlive would like to think people were incapable of deciding for themselves, but in reality 4x the necessary number of signatures for this resolution were signed. It’s been a huge issue in Massachusetts for two years. Convention goers are usually more informed than regular voters/nonvoters. People clearly knew enough to make up their minds – a fact reflected, I think, in the closeness of the vote.
That sucks too. I liked the resolution, but it was a one-sided argument, because proposers get to put their argument into the text of the resolution. Wouldn’t hurt to examine that.
Yes, I think you have a point. Ryan didn’t really address the objection being made on process. Is it really the case that opponents of the resolution were not allowed to speak? Was no debate time provided for? Ultimately, it is the assembly and NOT the dais that should control debate time by making appropriate motions. The motion can be for overall time and let the chips fall where they may, overall time plus per speaker time limits, or time intentionally and evenly divided between the two sides. If time is to be divided there could be different microphones for pro and con speakers, or color-coded paddles could be provided indicating a speakers intention before he is recognized.
I don’t disagree with what you’ve said: maybe there should be time for speeches to be made, both pro and con. But you can’t say that it was “unfair.” The resolutions are like that because they’re not a part of the platform. Obviously, the party doesn’t think they should take as much time. If there were pros and cons, that’s another half hour to the convention. What if two or three groups wanted resolutions, since they’re easier to get up for a vote? You’re suddenly talking another hour or two. Nonbinding resolutions have a lower bar and simpler process for a reason.
note that those who don’t like the outcome of the vote are now whining about the process. If the delegates didn’t like it, they didn’t have to vote for it.
<
p>But they did.
<
p>Its not like this is a new issue that no one knows anything about.
it wasn’t.
A 2/3 vote was needed to consider resolutions. Once that vote was obtained, a simple majority was needed to approve of any given resolution.
I still don’t believe it was a majority though. It was a tie.
Also, was it incorporated into the platform, or is it a standalone sort of thing?
the proposed resolution posted here
Help Pass a Resolution at Dem Convention Against Legalizing Predatory Slot Machine Gambling
were stating they would sign the petition because they would like to see this issue come to the floor so it could be debated, well, it wasn’t. All the anti-casino talking points were put out there, there wasn’t a mention of the benefits of a resort casino in Massachusetts.
There was no debate about the difference between slot parlors/racinos and resorts. There was pretty much an across the board statement that slot machines would not be acceptable in any capacity in Massachusetts. I just can’t believe it.
The casino and slot lobbies are NEVER able to get their message out. I mean, it’s not as if they’ve spent millions on lobbying politicians and spending on political ads in the state of Massachusetts. It’s a wonder anyone voted against the proposal! All these people were just so utterly misinformed — and it’s all that darned Susan Tucker’s fault, for sneaking in a few funny liners (and getting called on it). Why, if only people weren’t polluted so, they’d know that legalizing slots shall surely not only solve the entire budget mess, but end world hunger, too.
<
p>/snark off
<
p>Get over it Liveandletlive. There was a standing count on this and a lot of time spent on the vote. It wasn’t a “tie.” It was a victory for people who realize slots are predatory, hurt the local economy and are bad policy for Massachusetts.
Due diligence is the best road to take. I once attended a town meeting where the loudest voice on a close voice vote was the town manager shouting into his microphone. I asked the moderator to have the manager step away from the microphone. He did not like that.
I will agree and disagree with a number of issues. I have posted on this so many times here on BMG that it seems to as much a habit as a real debate. By the way debate is so critical on every issue and I for one appreciate the time we all take to make our points known and understood.
<
p>So here goes I agreed with the resolution that Slots is not the way to go in Massachusetts and I am also very certain that the leadership in the House does not agree as they are looking for jobs for their supporters in key areas and to reward contributors. That is my own opinion of where the debate has centered currently. Now make racinos or slot warehouses no matter the reason is a bad idea for Massachusetts no matter the jobs created we will never see the kinds of revenue we would hope for and the human costs would certainly consume that quickly.
<
p>As far a resort casinos go I support them and here is why in regions out side of eastern metropolitan Boston the ability to grow the economy is anemic the ability to grow even small business is based on such a small population with lower incomes in most areas that real growth is never truly achieved.
<
p>If I suggested to you that a company was going to come into the South coast and build a convention center and performance hall that would host Broadway shows and have facilities to host major conventions of national importance like say Apple World and they were going to build several hotels and restaurants and provide construction jobs and then hire thousands of local workers to staff this new area would you be intrigued? How about they attached a major water park and an 36 hole championship golf course and a state of the art tennis stadium which may some day host world competitions would that change the interest level? By the way include the growth in spending from visitors that now will pay Hotel Motel tax prepared, food tax, Buy gas to travel from so Massachusetts gas tax and while here they visit Old Sturbridge village, the Constitution, Plymouth plantation and during the summer head down to the national seashore on Cape Cod all the while looking for places to shop and eat as they travel the region. I suppose you would say wow that sounds wonderful when can we start now I suggest to you that their is one condition you may be concerned about let say they want to add to this 1 million square feet of entertainment a 40,000 square foot casino with some slots some game tables of various games of chance and they will sell Massachusetts State lottery tickets Alcohol and cigarettes and pay the tax on those forms of entertainment would you kill the deal. The answer we got yesterday in Springfield is 50 50 at best it depends on where you live and where you were in the convention hall yesterday.
<
p>You should read the other posts here on the convention to get a real feel for all the opinions on how the day went before you jump up and down on this thread. Living and struggling in Suburban Boston is so much different then say the Western reaches or Worcester or New Bedford that some times we lose focus on that fact we think Massachusetts is small enough to all be the same. How many of us think the MBTA is statewide and that in order to save our planet we all need to ride a bus or train to work. Well the MBTA may serve a large portion of Boston Workers it does nothing for anyone out side of 128/95 unless you are lucky to have a commuter rail link near by, reminds me of the old western where towns were made and others turned to ghost towns when the railroad went right instead of left.
<
p>This is a regional issue that should be left to the regions that may or may not attract this kind of investment. If the state receives added revenue from new development then truly our revenues will go up and deficits will go down how much it all depends. Are these the solution to Massachusetts, well I think only a fool would think so, are they new development that wants to enter our state, at a time when major corporations are running or walking from Massachusetts, it for now would seem so.
<
p>I don’t think this issue is an easy call just like the vote yesterday was not an easy call by the Chairman and by the delegates voting. As I stated on other posts Senator Tucker did more harm then good with her childish actions, she oversold the issue and may have resulted in a closer vote then would have happened. This is certainly my opinion as a result of seeing the vote shift in my Delegation.
<
p>So keep up the debate I think it is a valuable discussion I believe in principal with the opposition to SLOT parlors but I will restate I do think there is a place for a new resort in Massachusetts where tourism is a critical industry for our economy.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
You make this hypothetical resort destination casino seem like it’s a tourism wonderland.
<
p>People go to casinos to gamble, see a show, or attend a conference. While there, they eat at the casino restaurants. They stay at the casino. This is their job. They are good at it.
<
p>People go to Foxwoods to gamble. They don’t leave and check out Mystic Seaport or the Aquarium.
<
p>People go to Vegas to participate in some sort of imagined bacchanal – and to gamble. They do not leave and check out the Hoover Dam and whatever else Nevada has to offer.
<
p>In Connecticut the casinos have cannibalized local business, decreased property values, increased crime and the “thousands of local workers” to staff all those low income jobs actually had to be brought into the area – and as a result, put pressure on local school systems. Forbes consistently ranks the types of employment found at these types of casinos, including ‘gaming dealers’ as among the worst paying in America. Gambling addiction centers in CT have increased from 1 to 16. And remember – behind each problem gambler is a family, employer and community also effected.
<
p>On the “South Coast” where we have been debating casinos for 2 years now, there are severe water problems and environmental considerations of which may not be aware – and which would make the bucolic Casino Disney world you describe either an impossibility or a disaster.
<
p>If we really want an honest debate on issue – let’s please start with a realistic vision of what “resort destination casinos” really are.
Let see I have only been to Mohegan Suns on a business trip to view and study under Doctor Norm Richards about their Fuel Cell facility (state of the art and cutting edge technology) so I am not a gambler at all. Yet I do see the flyers in the mail and on the web for the resorts in Vegas and Reno that are much more then gambling pits. Still you raise great points about the jobs created and couldn’t this be taken care of through carefully crafted legislation. It use to be that we stood for a Living Wage in the Democratic Party. I hope we can advocate more aggressively for this in all aspects of the economy so maybe it is our own fault for low wages. Also why not requirement on the license that clearly states 51% of all workers must be from in state as a condition. I think this may be an issue that needs to be looked at closely before any other consideration is taken. I do believe that the gaming industry certainly would take simple Slot parlors at Suffolk Downs and Raynham with out batting an eye pure profit and no effort why would we even consider this as a possible solution to revenue and growing and economy is way beyond my ability to fantasize but I do think a resort in the true sense will sell and will help by bring one more chair to the economic table.
<
p>But to just say come on in would be truly foolish it needs to be on our terms not their’s
<
p>One of the key issues you leave out for small business dying in Conn around the casino’s is because items are cheaper in the casino’s because they are not subject to any state tax the playing field is not equal and yes why would you spend more a block away. Again this goes to my suggestion to have clearly licensed resorts subject to all taxes in the commonwealth and approved by regions where placed and also subject to local property taxes as any other corporation would be who put up a similar complex Like lets say Raytheon or Oracle or Apple.
<
p>The devil is certainly in the details and this is only starting to scratch the surface of those issues more questions more discussion more input is needed.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
And to the desert for a hike, it was awesome. There were hundreds of people at the Dam, most of them looked like tourists, so I think you might be wrong about that.
<
p>Also, since Foxwoods has bought properties in Mystic, they probably see their success and Mystic’s as linked (pdf)
<
p>
This data is old and I don’t pretend to know the long term impact of casinos on CT, but if you really want to have a realistic conversation, the notion that a resort style casino won’t have any positive tourism effect is going to be have to backed up with some hard data to win me over.
that might be an acceptable argument. We know that is not the case. The main income for casinos is gambling. You can add resort onto the name, but is still mainly a casino enterprise. The casinos depend on primarily on gamblers from outside the geographic area where they are located. The costs of the dark side of gambling are borne by all the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Regardless of what is included in legislation, slot machines are designed to addict.
<
p>80%-90% of casino reveues are generated by ~ 10% of slot patrons. A casino is not profitable without slots.
<
p>The entire industry focus is to cause a patron to “Play to Extinction.” That means until the patron has exhausted all personal revenue sources, maxed his/her credit cards, re-mortgaged his home, cleaned out bank accounts, borrowed or stolen from friends and relatives and employers.
<
p>The industry insists that Gambling Addiction is only 1% of the population. That is a misrepresentation.
<
p>From Tom Larkin —
The Gambling industry tries to simplify it by claiming that Pathological Gamblers are only “1%” of the US population.
<
p>When projections are done on “active gamblers”, those who actually gamble, the projections rise significantly;
<
p>-Pathological gamblers about 4%
-Problem gamblers about 9%
-At Risk gamblers about 18%
<
p>The National Gambling Impact Study Commission-1999, demonstrated that the numbers of pathological and problem gamblers DOUBLE, within a 50 mile radius of new gambling sites.
<
p>So the industry CREATES, actually increases the numbers. Problem and at risk gamblers are pathological gamblers “in waiting”.
<
p>From a recent Las Vegas Sun article:
<
p>Nevada, gambling capital of America, has also long been the country’s problem gambling capital.
The only significant statewide study on the topic, in 2002, showed that about
<
p>6.4 percent of the state’s adults
<
p>were either problem or pathological gamblers – almost one in 15 Nevadans. And Gamblers Anonymous has more active chapters in the Las Vegas Valley than in any other metropolitan area in the world.
<
p>That being said, there is no state that has expanded gambling that is in better fiscal shape than the Commonwealth, most are significantly worse.
<
p>Illinois is so deep in deficit that their surefire plan is to legalize more casinos.
<
p>Indiana legalized racinos to save their dying race tracks only to have to bail out the racinos with tax breaks.
<
p>And California has legalized additional slots that remain unclaimed because the discretionary income is not available.
<
p>Twin Rivers has defaulted and faces the potential of bankruptcy. (The investors are those who would have funded the proposed Middleboro Mega Monster.)
<
p>It has been estimated that for every $1 generated in revenue, it costs the state $3 or $4 in additional costs, mostly social costs caused by addiction.
<
p>Casinos bring with them a 24 hour business that operates 7 days a week with no holidays.
<
p>They bring with them, of necessity, additional people and traffic and accidents. They also bring with them additional crime.
<
p>They have brought with them the likes of Jack Abramoff and Glenn Marshall and others who have been charged, convicted and are serving jail time. Does the Commonwealth not have enough corruption of its own?
<
p>Predatory Gambling is not a revenue source and we should continue to discuss the reason why it isn’t.
<
p>There are additional issues that have been addressed in the impact studies offered by the communities surrounding the proposed Palmer casino. The jobs created are overstated. The revenues are overstated. The costs are understated. Worth the read!
My initial take on the resort casinos was more positive than not – there are many addiction risks in the world, and we don’t make them all illegal. We leave people free to drink alcohol or smoke, although many are harmed by addiction to these substances. Why wouldn’t casino gambling be handled the same way, particularly since casino gambling is already occurring across state lines? In sum, leave people free to choose, don’t prevent the many who could enjoy casinos without getting into trouble from having that opportunity to protect the relatively few who can’t, and devote sufficient funding to making treatment available for those who fall into addiction.
<
p>I’ve found my position shifting after catching a program on cable about gambling addicts, however. The show had in-depth interviews and follow up on people whose lives were completely consumed/destroyed by their addiction to slots. It was far more than people spending more of their income on gambling than others, perhaps paternalistically, might think wise – one of the women even embezzled from her church to fund her addiction. None started out as irresponsible people – they were ordinary, working folks who realized too late that their attraction to slots was like a terminal illness that would destroy them and their families unless they found treatment and the help they needed to stop.
<
p>Despite the stirring top headline on this post, the resolution’s passage yesterday wasn’t a big win. The vote in the hall on the resolution was very close. Opinions are sharply divided on the gambling issue.
<
p>I’d offer the trajectory of my thinking on this issue as an object lesson for casino/racino opponents. Lighten up on the statistics and accusing those in favor of ill-intent. Spend more time and focus on telling the personal stories of people who have lived with and suffered from gambling addiction after slots became readily available to them in their neighborhoods. Winning on this issue is likely more about moving hearts than minds.
There is a flaw
<
p>
<
p>Tom is quoted correctly but both numbers are correct as a result of the pool you use as the basis of the factors
<
p>If you look at population alone and Pathological and Problem gamblers you would arrive at something below 1%
If you look at just people who gamble then the % goes up. If you then took Pathological and Problem Gamblers and used them as a basis for how many are involved in serious crime then I am sure you may get a 60% factor which would be more shocking.
<
p>So figures do say what we craft them to say but please do not say one is wrong and one is right they are both right just a different perspective.
<
p>I do find a flaw though in your conversation and that is the gambling that already takes place here in Massachusetts maybe you should take a trip to Suffolk Downs on a Tuesday afternoon in the Summer and see the people standing there with their last dollar trying to decide what horse is the biggest long shot and thus their big winner for the day. How about trying the Guy who entered a local library and went nuts when he found out the Public Printer was off line for repairs and he could not print the racing form out(real story eyewitness) or lets add in the family waiting in the car for Mom and Dad at the quickly mart in buying scratch tickets so they could double up so they had money for groceries. Forget about the kids crying when none of the tickets paid off (again unfortunately eye witnessed) Gambling is a problem. Ever been to a bingo at the local church and see them come in with the penny jars hoping to hit it big at Christmas time and the tears when their luck ran out (again eye witnessed) there are to many stories about the negatives of gambling. I even remember in the town I grew up in the local small Varity store where we bought milk and cigarettes for Dad and place the 2 on the horse in the 6th with the owner.
<
p>The effects of Gambling will not go away in Massachusetts if casinos don’t come here they are already here and maybe that discussion needs to be in the full light of day not hidden as it is today. Lets not suggest that unethical events will occur with our legislature if resorts come to Massachusetts what do you think is hitting the campaign accounts and the personal gift accounts as we sit here pasting today. It is here!
<
p>So the question is what do you do about the problem, Tough Ethics good start, Tough GA for gamblers still not really happening in Massachusetts, what program do you take the funds from to pay for the services we currently need? Lets raid the Lottery and cut the pay out to city and towns further today to pay for the social cost of public gambling.
<
p>Ok so I am being snarky but if I have a false statement point it out, don’t hide and say something is going to happen that never happened before because it is all here and has been for Decades we just chose to ignore it publicly.
<
p>Now are Resort Casinos going to make it better or worse good question I have not seen a real comprehensive study on it and maybe we should promote that as a key step in the process. If we find that the increase over the current pool is smaller then we think then maybe that will drive the discussion in one direction if we find it is bigger then how big and how do we deal with it, can we deal with it is their revenue and are their programs that will improve the result? Again questions we need answers for in order to advance the discussions.
<
p>Yet blanket facts as wrong and right is not accurate and should not be represented as such it is simply a methodology issue not right and wrong. But good points to ad to the dialogue lets keep up the disccusion.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Statistics can be analyzed to inflate or downplay the outcome of any particular proposal. It’s called spin.
Mr. Quinn:
<
p>You’ve made some pretty impressive comments! And you seem to have witnessed things others overlook.
<
p>Allow me to begin with the statistical information.
<
p>When we make an assumption that 1/3 of people will never gamble, of the available pool of potential gamblers, it certainly appears that the potential “at risk” is 50% of those remaining. A point we might argue mathematically, but rather than challenge my mathematical inabilities, the article from the Las Vegas Sun indicated that the only study that had been done in Nevada showed that + 6% of residents had gambling problems.
<
p>6% of a population having gambling problems is a far cry from the 1% the Gambling Industry consistently claims.
<
p>One of the concerns has been that most of the studies that are produced have been funded by the “Industry” and are self-serving.
<
p>When I review the annual lottery sales for my town which is in the millions and hear the cries that $48 for CPA (Community Protection Act) is unaffordable, we clearly have priorities skewed.
<
p>The lottery ads, for those who pay attention, that proclaim the amount the lottery has funded education are offensive, IMO.
<
p>And like you, Mr. Quinn, I have watched those who can’t afford the cost of the tickets dole out their last dollars in the hopes of “striking it rich.”
<
p>But the lottery is currently legal and not part of the current discussion.
<
p>Should we, as a state, expand and promote that as a revenue source?
<
p>When LWV estimates that for every $1 generated in revenue, the cost is $3 or $4, is that the sensible fiscal route?
<
p>Find a state that has expanded slot machines that is in better financial condition that the Commonwealth and it might make sense.
<
p>New Jersey? California? Rhode Island? Illinois?
Jpowell first things first unless your 10 years old and a friend of my sons here it is Ed not Mr. Quinn that is my father. I put my name on the posts not so I have a record of my conversations but so people can see that I will stand behind the fact that yes I wrote something, but do not assume that everything I write is cast in granite because none of it it. I am a firm believer that when I do not agree I will discuss and in some cases debate and as a result I may change my mind and in others you may change yours based on the evidence offered and in other cases we may part agreeing to disagree.
<
p>I hope that is most peoples position on BMG and the world but obviously that is not very true of the world.
<
p>Next issue if you could post a link to the report I think that would advance the discussion, offering us the info that is obviously important to the discussion.
<
p>One of the points I made was one that seems to be lost when we enter into the debate or seems glossed over to me and that is that Gambling’s Problems exist in Massachusetts because we already have several forms of gambling in the state both sanctioned and un sanctioned. What I have not seen was a deep concern for those already struggling and a fact sheet on how many more addicted personalities will result if a resort casino is added to the mix. Thus far the suggestion is that Gambling addiction does not exist and the introduction of a Casino would suddenly blossom into a massive social problem. I on the other hand think the added problem is an incremental increase not a blossom
I believe as a social ill we are already suffering from it.
<
p>Yet I do not see the cry for the closing of Racetracks or the elimination of the Lottery. Especially the Lottery will likely make you a target of most City and Towns the MMA at the least and the state Treasurers office and the Hundreds of Employees who work for the lottery not to mention the Keno and ticket stores on every corner of every down town.
<
p>Now I was rather young when the lottery started back in the 70’s but I do clearly remember the conversation of the sky would fall and the devil would rise if the state entered the numbers rackets, although I will agree and have offered first hand accounts of seeing the sky fall on individuals I do not see the wholesale effects of the sky falling etc that was promised.
<
p>Yet I can be convinced if the facts warrant it.
<
p>May I also suggest that only 4 states in the USA do not have a form of Casino why even here in Massachusetts we have 2 Casinos. That is correct we have two casino boats out of Lynn that provide all kinds of Gaming out side of US waters. So your suggestions that those 4 states have a better economy then remaining 46 is a little weak
<
p>Here is where I got my info from have a look it is shocking how wide spread it is Even NH has Racinos.
<
p>http://www.nationalcasinodirec…
<
p>So if the argument can be made that some how the sky will fall because we are going from none to some then what does it look like when you go from some to more? I have not seen this offered in the discussion yet.
<
p>Please do not think I talk about this issue lightly I think it is complicated and delicate and deserves full consideration, should we have slot parlors in my opinion NO! that is just what they appear to be little more then attempts to fleece the people walking in the door. is a Resort setting better I think it can be and maybe worth the attempt if done right. But I am discussing the issue and still making up my mind as more facts surface.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
I don’t know how much it will effect things, but congratulations on getting this passed.
The entire resolution was read, all that was needed was…
<
p>
<
p>The talking points against slot machines were promoted to the delegates.
to…
<
p>Montville Town Profile
&
<
p>Comparative Analysis of Crime Rates: Connecticut, the United States and Adjacent Northeast States – 1960 to 2007