This op-ed on gambling says everything that I could say, and a lot I couldn’t. David D’Alessandro’s dad was a gambling addict who took loans from, and was terrorized by, loan sharks to feed his addiction.
Not every person who uses slot machines, crap tables, or roulette wheels, or plays poker, keno, bingo, or baccarat will find organized-crime thugs on their doorsteps. Many, unfortunately, will. Worse, they will find something more treacherous and insidious than three guys with a meat cleaver. They will ruin their lives and the lives of their families.
Why? Frequency and ready access to gambling breeds gambling addicts.
If we have casinos, Massachusetts residents who can’t afford to drive or stay overnight at casino hotels will use public transportation to gamble daily. Massachusetts residents who occasionally travel to Connecticut for “entertainment gambling” will now drive a few miles and gamble frequently. They will risk more and more because it is easy and convenient. The state will essentially become an “addict enabler.”
And then it begins. A little at a time. Credit cards hit their maximums, school tuition payments are delayed, children are told they cannot afford a better college, refinanced and second mortgages increase family debts and often foreclosures. Increased stress about money shortages can cause domestic violence, divorces, and even suicide. Addicts steal from family members and friends. Lies and deceit become a way of life. And the victims are not just the gamblers, but everyone around them.
Shall the state play an even greater role in encouraging and enabling gambling addiction? Shall we outright ruin some people’s lives to enhance the rest of ours?
Or shall we do the humane, decent and mature thing, take responsibility to pay for the things we need, and do so equitably, fairly, and transparently?
As the author says: Together we can.
We need more stories like this. NIMC!
No true liberal or progressive would support casino gambling. While some may argue we need the revenues for schools, hospitals, roads, etc., while some may argue people will gamble anyway so why not let the state profit, or while some may argue it is illiberal to let the state enforce morality I counter with this simple question. Is it fiscally responible, morally prudent, ethically sound, or progressive or liberal to tax the states poorest, weakest, and most vulnerable citizens? I say no.
If anyone wants to make the case further that we should prohibit alcohol and cigarettes from society, which have far greater social cost, then I can understand the argument. Sorry if this is a repeat reference, but the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass/Dartmouth has done a lot of work on this. Check out their reports here- http://www.umassd.ed… . I would definitely encourage people to look at the Barrow PowerPoint presentation done for the New Bedford City Council.
with our definition of “tax.” I’m well aware of the data on who is most likely to gamble, but the essence of taxation is that the state makes you pay. That’s just not so with gambling.
But people that are addicted to gambling essentially are compelled to continue that addiction by their own psychosis and in my view its bad enough that businesses profit off of that but for the state do to so is terrible.
<
p>
And it essentially is a tax, the poor disproportionately buy lottery tickets, gamble, go to casinos, not to mention the elderly as well. And I for one would rather increase taxes on the rich that can afford it than pay for my schools, roads, and hospitals off the backs of the poorest citizens, people that are exempt from many of the taxes the state makes you pay I might add.
the “stupid tax.”
<
p>
It is lousy that it operates as you describe, and effectively operates as a net transfer of wealth from the Lawrences and Chelseas to the Dovers and Carlisles.
If grown adults cannot be trusted to spend their money responsibly, then what can they be trusted to do?
<
p>Clearly there are people for whom gambling is an addiction; but there are also people who are alcoholics, too. Yet the state licenses bars and package stores, and derives tax income from alcohol (and alcoholics). No rational person would argue that by licensing and taxing alcohol, that the state is encouraging alcoholism. The licensing and taxation of a tribal or privately owned casino in Massachusetts is no different.
<
p>If one truly believes that casino gambling should not be allowed in Massachusetts, simply because of the harm that it would cause to certain individuals, then one must also believe that the state should prohibit alcohol, Big Macs, unsafe sex, and tobacco, among other things.
In all your examples (except unsafe sex, which I won’t get into), there is a give and take. Big Macs are awesome, but if you eat too many you’ll get fat. A beer at Fenway is great, but don’t have too many, etc., etc.
<
p>
However, with gambling, though people enjoy it, there is no give — there is only take. Each game is carefully designed. Roulette, for example: red or black is an even money bet. But guess what? Thanks to the 0 and 00, the odds of red or black coming up are slightly less than 50%. And that’s true of every casino game; it is simply mathematically impossible to win, over time. So the casino sells short-term wins and the fantasy of riches, but the games are as fundamentally dishonest as Three Card Monte on the Boston Common. We don’t need it — if someone wants to gamble, Foxwoods is two hours away.
Just checking for consistancy đŸ™‚
n/t
http://www.bluemassg…
I think you’re missing something here.
<
p>
I’m not really a gambler, but you’re forgetting that people enjoy the activity. My gambling is generally limited to the odd football game and the annual NCAA pool. I’m lousy at it, and always lose. But, for my $50, I find the Valpo-Fresno State contest a heck of a lot more exciting than I otherwise would. That is worth $50; if it wasn’t, I wouldn’t spend it.
<
p>
Most people I know that go to Foxwoods set off with a limit. We’re going to spend $X, and when it is gone, it is gone. Most times they lose $X, sometimes they lose less, and rarely they get their weekend paid for, or more. If they’re skilled at blackjack, they can shift those proportions a bit. The thing is, they spent $X on a leisure activity, they get as much out of it as someone who spent $X on a show or a ball game.
And that must be why I said:
<
p>
However, with gambling, though people enjoy it, there is no give
<
p>
I don’t deny that people enjoy gambling, and my parents gamble regularly, on a responsible basis, at Foxwoods. However, I used to work with someone from Ledyard, and she’ll never forgive the casino for what it did to her town. In short, a nice suburban town became crime-ridden.
<
p>
This is what I fear: casinos as the save-all revenue solution, spreading at an alarming rate, and for what? As you note, people who want to gamble have plenty of opportunities to gamble.
<
p>
But you know what I meant.
the reference to enoyment, but that directly contradicts your theory of no give, all take.
<
p>
It’s not all that different from having any other “sin” establishment in town: a large “gentleman’s” establishment, say.
You distinguish gambling from other “sin” activities because it is all give and no take. I think that, at least in the context described, that is manifestly not so. There is an equal exchange for any individual gambler, just as there is for any individual purchaser of beer or cigareettes.
<
p>
But, at the level of the town itself–Ledyard– the bargain is not so good.
<
p>
This focuses less on the poor gambling addict, and more on the issues to the town, and is, I think, a far stronger argument. It does not require shutting down the lottery (though that net transfer of wealth from Chelsea to Carlisle is asinine), and does not require lecturing people about how they should and should not spend their money. It is simply about previnting the community in which the casino is sited from turning into Atlantic City.
Thank goodness you are there to watch out for me. I wonder, do you have the time to look at some of my other habits and decide for me if they too are worthy of their costs.
I think it is the height of arrogance to say that adults cannot freely decide on what legal activities they wish to spend their money. I work hard for the money I earn. I pay taxes and give to charitable organizations. I pay to educate my children at private schools. There is little leftover. I wish you would let me decide how I will (legally) spend it. I do not gamble.
<
p>
Did I not say there are opportunities? Did I not say my parents gamble responsibly?
<
p>
Your biting sarcasm would be more effective if it was actually based on my argument.
I thought it was that because you feel there is “no give” to gambling, I should be limited in where I am allowed to gamble.
I fear the nanny in the nanny-state.
Where do you draw the line? If the free market wants it, that’s it, we get it?
I elect representatives to limit the forces of the free market, and to limit certain behaviors which have been deemed inappropriate or abhorrent by society; I do not mind these limitations and feel they are sometimes important and justified. Until these elected representatives decide to create laws which limit my behavior, I will continue to enjoy those freedoms which remain available to me. I understand we disagree perhaps on the extent to which these limits are imposed on us, and hold no disrespect to you for your disagreeing with my philosophies, I hope you feel the same way.
n/t
A gambler is not going to lose his ability to drive his car and will not endanger my family and me as we drive home from church. The imbiber at the bar does threaten the safety of my family when he gets behind the wheel. Why does the Commonwealth allow this?
<
p>
A smoker will foul up my air, drive up my health insurance costs and will throw their cigarette litter all over my environment. Why does the Commonwealth allow this?
<
p>
A fast food eater gets fat, sick and costs me money. Why does the Commonwealth allow this?
<
p>
Could it be perhaps that we live in a FREE COUNTRY? A place where we are free to make bad decisions? A place where we can make foolhardy investments, drive too fast, eat and drink too much?
<
p>
We do not need the Government making these decisions for us. If you want to live in such a country, China, North Korea or Saudi Arabia are just half way around the world.
<
p>
This is a common question raised in connection with gambling/casinos, and I think it deserves an answer. There were a couple of scenes in The West Wing that humorously and effectively made the argument that the government does not trust people to spend their money effectively.
<
p>
The whole idea of taxation is based on the presumption that people can’t spend money responsibly, so money must be taken from them by force if necessary to spend on the things they use but would not support themselves. If the military or infrastructure depended on people responsibly spending their money, a trip to the next town over would be a nature hike beset with bandits. From another perspective, the high rate of household debt shows that yes grown adults have trouble spending money responsibly.
<
p>
Obviously, we’re in a balance. We’re not in a command economy — the government lets people spend themselves into poverty. However, whether it be taxes, child support, or the new insurance law, the government does place restrictions on how people spend their money for the greater welfare. It is my believe that a large resort casino close to Boston will greatly impact the general welfare of this Commonwealth. And I further belief that this is an area where the government can and should continue restricted for adults spend their money before their irresponsibility with it further hurts the general welfare.
Perhaps I could have phrased it as “If grown adults cannot be trusted to spend their after-tax income responsibly, then what can they be trusted to do?” đŸ™‚
<
p>Obviously, as a Democrat, I agree with you about taxes and child support, and maybe the new insurance law; but I’m not sure that I can put the “prohibition-of-casino gambling-based-on-preserving-the-general-welfare” argument in the same category as “taxes-are-what-we-pay-for-a- civilized-society.”
<
p>There has to be a limit on what the government should prohibit in the interests of the general welfare. IMHO, casino gambling is one of those instances where the argument against it borders on nanny-statism.
No doubt, D’Alessandro’s is a powerful story, and not the only one like it.
<
p>
But — being pragmatic, the fact is that huge sums of MA money travel to Connecticut each day. A gambling addict who wants to gamble can hang out at the convenience store Keno machine all day, but meanwhile, your average Joe who wants to do a little gambling is giving his (or her) money away to our neighbor to the south.
the local Catholic Church bingo game and spend $50 a night, six nights a week, the way my mother did for twenty years. And that’s not counting the scratch tickets she also bought while at every game. This while my father spent the prime of his life supporting her gambling habit with three jobs so we could pay the mortgage and keep the wolf from the door.
<
p>
My mother disregarded doctor’s orders to go to Foxwoods less than six months after a massive heart attack. She died on the floor in front of the slot machines because she couldn’t keep away, even with her aversion to travel. If the casinos had been closer the damage to our family and her health over time would have been even worse. I only thank God that Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun weren’t built twenty years before she died, because we surely would have lost our family home.
<
p>
Gambling is a drug that destroys lives as surely as crack cocaine, with as little return.
<
p>
Why should we invite this cancer into our state to wreck more lives? And I’m not even getting into the havoc a casino wreaks on the local economy. It is a black hole that sucks the surrounding towns — usually smaller towns which lack the resources to put up an effective opposition — dry.
<
p>
So you’ll pardon me if I want to throw up at talk about the “free market.” I don’t give a shit who gets cash from people who enjoy being played for suckers. Casinos are a curse and a blight to individuals AND to communities, and they enrich only their corporate sponsors and the tribes that build them.
<
p>
And nothing any “pragmatic” armchair economists can say will convince me otherwise.
…its thrill comes from the adrenalin rush, which makes people stupid. Unless they can do card counting, of course. And that is what makes it lucrative for the state lottery. And, for the Roman Catholic Church, Inc. on their bingo nights.
<
p>
That said, the problem that you have regarding casino gambling (the difference between that kind of gambling and lotteries and bingo nights somewhat escapes me) is that other states allow for types of casino gambling (as do dog tracks in MA) and why should MA not allow for the same? To keep the tax money in MA. You will not be allowed to prevent people from going to casinos in CT or NH, or to Nevada, for that matter.
<
p>
Sabutai has raised one significant issue (actually two) Infrastructure enhancements to get the rubes into and out of the casino–who is going to pay for it?. And law enforcement. If those issues weren’t covered by Middleboro’s contract with the Wampanoags, I guess that the Middleboro residents were screwed. Of course, that isn’t to say that the Middleboro residents necessarily have to provide any infrastructure improvements.
<
p>
Note to JimC @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:06:05 PM EDT
<
p>
So the casino sells short-term wins and the fantasy of riches, but the games are as fundamentally dishonest…
<
p>
Actually, they are not fundamentally dishonest. But you have to recognize them for what they are. They are fundamentally entertainment. A different kind of entertainment than the opera, the symphony, or the movies, but entertainment. If people were keep that in mind, they would understand it better. And, to repeat a theme of mine from above, people get adrenalin rushes from movies, too. And that’s why some people buy tickets to see the same stupid movie over and over again.
Pornography is entertainment; maybe your town should allow a private enterprise to open a pornographic drive-in in the town center.
<
p>
You don’t have to answer that. My point is, we set limits on both private sector things that raise money (e.g., drugs, or perhaps a better example would be hemp), and we set limits on certain types of entertainment. The question is not whether gambling is enjoyable or justifiable, the question is what effect it has on the community.
<
p>
Re: the revenue, I have no data on that, but I know this: my town is nicer than Ledyard, CT — and therefore my townhouse is worth a lot more than a comparable one in Ledyard. So the revenue we’re shipping away may go to the state of Connecticut, but the residents aren’t getting it. And I speak as a resident of the Commonwealth.
<
p>
If they don’t a drive-thru porn store can and someday will open up in the town center.
<
p>
Our adult entertainment zone berders the town dump. To date, there have been no cries to open a Foxy Lady East…which would supplement the well known Mashpee Ballet (aka Zachary’s Pub and Strip Joint) which IS in the town center because Mashpee didn’t act.
As are they all.
n/t
…the Fussgaengerzone (pedestrian zone) in downtown Muenchen you will see shops run by the company Beate Uhse. And, just to let you know, they are porn shops.
<
p>
Actually, you don’t have to go into the central city. We were surprised when, after getting off at the Terminal 2 of the Munich airport a couple of weeks ago, there was a Beate Uhse shop.
<
p>
Yes, pornography is entertainment. You really should grow up. And, so is gambling.
= growing up? I never knew it could be so easy.
Look at the economic impact of gambling. At its lowest level, it is taking money from some people, redistributing it to other people, and keeping a decent chunk for the casino, usually owned by out-of-state interests.
<
p>
Doesn’t that sound similar to a tax? People argue vehemently against any form of taxation, claiming that it will reduce economic growth, right? Even though, in many cases, the taxes pay for services that help grease the economy (such as schools, roads, bridges, etc.).
<
p>
So why is taking money right out of the state’s economy without even purporting to spend it on infrastructure and services somehow a good thing? Why isn’t this considered something that will slow economic growth?
<
p>
And while we have things like bingo and the lottery right now, those games aren’t designed to give the same rush of adrenaline as a slot machine, or a roulette wheel. Games of chance are designed to keep you pumping the money in. So people who frequent casinos will gamble more money than they did on the lottery, or a bingo game. If casinos become ubiquitous, easy access to every part of the state, the amount spent on gambling will increase. More money will be taken out of our economy and sent to Vegas.
<
p>
Sure, some money is being given to the state of Connecticut instead of our state, but the amount frequently quoted represents the amount wagered, not the amount ultimately that Massachusetts is losing out on. If that money was wagered in Massachusetts, unless the state is going to operate its own casinos, that money will still go to the same out-of-state interests whether or not its gambled here or in CT.
<
p>
I just don’t see how a casino is a good thing for Massachusetts, given that we know it will take money out of our economy, we know it will increase crime wherever it is located, as we know it will ruin more lives due to its closer presence.
I could quibble on the lottery, but I don’t want to be tedious (I’m tedious enough as is).
can say that again
I just don’t see how a casino is a good thing for Massachusetts, given that we know it will take money out of our economy
<
p>
…the money is already being taken out of our economy, and going into Connecticut’s economy.
<
p>
Look at the history of state lotteries. They basically began with New Hampshire’s. The Massachusetts state government, noting that people who lived in MA would go to NH to play their lottery, decided that it would be really nice for some of that money stay at home, and instituted the MA lottery. And it spread from there.
<
p>
Regarding casino gambling, if you want people from MA to support the CT government, which is what they are doing by going to casinos in CT, say so. Casino gambling, unfortunately, is here to stay. When people had to fly to Las Vegas and Reno to get their thrill, that is one thing (in the olden days, flying was expensive and time consuming) When they only need to drive two hours to an adjacent state to get their thrill, that is something else entirely.
<
p>
On this deal, yes we got screwed. I have seen an economic analysis that shows that over 90% of the payments promised from the Tribe (for the first 5 years) will be sucked into infrastructure improvements. Everyone thinks roads, but a large chunk of money will go into upgrades of the gas, water, electric, and sewerage systems to handle the burden.
<
p>
As for law enforcement, that’s a bit unclear. The Tribal land will apparently have its own police force, but sovereignty issues come into play with crime in the town. The MPD will be beefed up, and will probably have the resources to deal with the resultant crime. Of course, the dirty secret is that “dealing with crime” is largely reactive. That is to say, once the crime is committed, the MPD will try to find the perp. So crime will go up.
Here’s a link to the full agreement- http://static.cbsloc…
<
p>
It seems from reviewing this that the Tribe is the party responsible for infrastructure improvements ultimately, with the caveat that they will seek help from potential state and federal sources. Pre-opening mitigation for Middleborough will be $250K, plus another $2 million for 2 cruisers, 2 advanced life support system, 8 police officers and 16 fire fighters/EMT’s. No mention of a partridge in a pear tree…
<
p>
There is an annual impact payment of $7 million when they open and an agreement of payment in lieu of property taxes.
<
p>
“The Tribe agrees to be responsible for improvements to transportation infrastructure including, but not limited to, road construction, bridges, road maintenance
necessitated by Project construction, and new traffic signals.”
<
p>
“The Tribe shall pay for electric power supply and the actual costs incurred by MGED to upgrade existing electric facilities in order to provide electric power to the
Project Site.”
<
p>
If this proceeds and changes forever the nature of the town of Middleborough, I’m equally curious about the economic impact for the region. I live on the Cape, does this make it more likely new people will come to Southeastern Massachusetts and decide, hey, we’re close to Cape Cod also, and come down?
“It seems from reviewing this that the Tribe is the party responsible for infrastructure improvements ultimately”
<
p>
It does seem that way, sure. However, if one talks to people who work in the respective departments, they have said that where the infrastructure payouts are given a number, the cost of the improvements will exceed the payout from the Tribe. And the argument has already been set up that any shortfall in the cost of the improvements will be paid by Middleboro, as we’re benefiting from these improvements. The Tribe will pay for 2 more cruisers, and chances are we’ll need 3 or 4 more. Guess who’s paying the difference?
<
p>
As for the region, part of the idea is that people on the Cape will decide to hit the casino while they’re there, not the reverse. The traffic snarl is going to make it harder to get to the Cape via 495 or 44, anyway, which will hurt tourism on day trips.
If they did not adequately plan and put into the agreement the actual costs the town will incur, then you’ve got some lousy officials. Now when you say who is paying for the difference, yes that is Middleborough, and out of the $7 million annually it will get from the tribe. That payment has a built in factor to escalate, as long as revenue is met. If Middleborough got hosed in this, the wound is self inflicted.
<
p>
One thing being discussed as far as mitigating impact on the Cape is extension of the commuter rail down to Buzzard’s Bay. That is a project that even before this was being tossed about to remove a large number of cars from that commute off Cape daily.
No doubt that, being 30 minutes from Middleborough, the upper Cape could see an influx of casino employees and casino-related businesses, and a lot of rural property from Bridgewater to West Wareham would likely be flattened to make way for cheap rentals.
<
p>
I assume that many shuttle services would spring up here on the Cape, along with the gawdy advertising.
Thank God we don’t permit billboards around here..
Because they believe in choice, and personal freedom to the greatest degree practicable. That’s why progressives generally support freedom to choose an abortion, freedom to choose whom one wants to love, even if they are of the same gender, and freedom of speech. There are strong regressive arguments against each of these positions — I know better than you when life begins, whom you should love, and what you should say, respectively — but the progressive position is to leave these kinds of personal decisions up to individual adults whenever possible. Gambling is the same: it’s a choice that every adult should be allowed to make for themselves.
<
p>
The editorial, by the way, makes an excellent case for vigorous action against the mafia, and health services for people who suffer from addictions.
… don’t label everyone who disagrees with them on an issue “regressive.”
Toward more gambling? In that sense, a desire to limit gambling strikes me as a move to regress in time to an earlier stage. But, whatever, the labels aren’t a very interesting part of the discussion.
But I have an issue with the label “progressive” anyway. I’m a liberal.
In earlier times, abortion was outlawed in many places, there was less freedom for people of the same gender to marry, and less freedom of speech. That’s why I characterized, I think fairly, advocates for those positions as “regressive.”
<
p>
But if by “defamatory,” you mean, “personally offensive,” then I apologize: I didn’t mean to offend you, just to make an effective argument đŸ™‚
People who oppose gambling are not real progressives.
<
p>
I think the “freedom to gamble” is a little more nebulous than gay rights or abortion rights. And for the fourth or fifth time in this thread, I repeat: I did not and have never called for a ban on gambling.
<
p>
We are all good progressives here at BMG. I forgot myself. I apologize.
Thank you
In some ways, it was a profound mistake to let males know they had anything to do with reproduction – before that, women were creative goddesses and after they were brood chattel.
I hate the term “progressive”
you want to keep things as they were in the now distant past. No legitimate organized gambling.
<
p>
Prior to the creation of the Massachusetts Lottery in the 1970s the daily number and other local gambling was run by the wise guys. Wanting to go back to those days is regressive. Conservatives and regressives keep trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Their frustration in seeing progress causes them to become very angry (Howie Carr) bombastic (Rush Limbaugh) or paranoid (Michael Savage). In any case it is not pretty.
…nee “Savage.” He’s an ex-herbalist who obviously has ingested too much of his own products.
<
p>
(To be clear, “Weiner” is Savage’s original last name. I transliterated it phonetically)
Progressives oppose exploitation and driving people into the poorhouse.
<
p>
Besides, currently anyone can make the choice to go to CT, or NJ, or Vegas. But I’m a voter, and I don’t want said exploitation done on my behalf. Not in my name.
I think there are excellent arguments to be made against casino gambling, but the exploitation/addiction line is not one of them. No one is being forced to go to casinos, any more than they are forced to buy cigarettes, drink soda pop, rock climb, or do any of the myriad things that can be dangerous for homo sapiens.
<
p>
All this is is one group of people trying to boss around another group of people and tell them what they should be doing with their time and money — just because they don’t approve of their decisions and think they should be wiser/smarter/more like them.
you agree with not allowing bars opening in MA, correct? After all, by making alcohol freely available, bars exploit drunkards and send them (and possibly their families) to the poorhouse. Why not just say that CT, NJ, and Vegas can partake in such exploitation, but not us.
they’re known as “dry”
But I don’t see many people in MA pushing for more “dry” towns here. I wonder why.
…Wellesley is pretty much dry. A couple of restaurants in town have liquor licenses, but that’s about it. The town’s VFW hall couldn’t even get a liquor license when it wanted to lease the hall out for private parties.
<
p>
But situated along major thoroughfares into town, but just outside, are dotted with liquor stores. And at least some restaurants in town are set up to do BYOBs (bring your own bottles).
<
p>
It’s a charade.
…but
<
p>
Real progressives support the freedom to gamble…
Because they believe in choice, and personal freedom to the greatest degree practicable.
<
p>
…but sometimes there are other people involved. Like family members.
<
p>
Your exhoration read like something like something like a libertarian. I’m sorry, but the world doesn’t work like that. Certainly not in the USofA.
The term progressive gets thrown around a lot but I just want to say that historically it comes from a firm belief that society can become better, that we can reach that city on a shining hill, and that massive social problems can be overcome. It started with the settlement houses and the first Roosevelt presidency, those houses helped people out of poverty, people addicted to among other things drugs, alcohol, and gambling. In fact many early progressives were evangelical Christians associated with the Social Gospel movement; many supported Prohibition.
<
p>
A progressive does not believe in freedom of choice when that choice will clearly not only harm the individual but violate the freedoms and the choices of those around the individual and hurt the society at large. A libertarian believes in the value of self interest, that in general when left alone people will look after themselves and their families and interference is bad.
<
p>
On the issue of gambling I am a libertarian in the sense that I feel that people have the freedom to bet on sports, bet on races, bet in poker games, and generally agree with the choice arguments. And certainly those bets can ruin peoples lives. But Poker is as much a game of skill as chance, betting on sporting events you still have a nice shot at winning, but a Casino is rigged to screw someone over. Nobody has gone into a Casino and come out a long term winner. They attract crime, they create pockets of poverty around them, and sure everyone wants to go to Las Vegas at least once in their life but nobody wants to live there. I’d rather live in Massachusetts.
<
p>
And again at the end of the day progressives dont want to make the poor poorer and use those revenues to fund government programs, thats certainly not a progressive taxation scheme if ive heard one.
<
p>
If everyone lived and breathed this, then I’d have much less objection to casinos. But gambling has a psychological hold on people, and casinos exploit that. For each person who puts away the $X and is happy for the “entertainment” that it bought them, how many others are there because they are hoping to, or need to, “win”?
<
p>
There is clearly a psychological angle to gambling that is far different from other forms of “entertainment”. (I suspect that the “entertainment” meme is a very clever marketing message created by casino interests.) You don’t hear of people who are addicted to attending baseball games, movies, or the opera, and even fanatics of those activities don’t lose their houses to attend.
Why do you think sports are popular?
I agree with you there đŸ™‚
<
p>
As to what a “progressive” has been, I think your examples demonstrate quite well that the term is a broad one and has had many meanings: there are not too many evangelicals these days I suspect either you or I would consider “progressive,” as the word is currently used.
<
p>
As to what a “progressive” should be: I’m sticking to my themes of tolerance, freedom and pragmatism … call the latter “reality-based,” perhaps. The greatest good for the greatest number, with a core of inviolable personal freedoms, to put it in a nutshell.
<
p>
I agree there is a strong current of command-style “we know what’s best for you,” among some progressives. This is “just the right thing to do,” so do it. That is, “just wrong,” so let’s forbid it, but I don’t find that philosophy particularly appealing, or particularly progressive.
but if you are going to make the type of argument you do in this post, you have to make sure your facts are correct. Sports betting is indeed set up to “screw people over”, as you put it. Sportsbooks don’t set lines so they will lose money, believe me. The vast majority of sportsbettors will lose money in the long run.
<
p>
I say this not just to bring up the small sports point, but to note that I find it interesting that people are always willing to draw a line between some activity that perhaps they like (i.e. sportsbetting) and activites that they don’t like and try to make excuses about why the former should be allowed and the latter banned, even when the real difference between the two is non-existant. It’s all quite interesting.
<
p>
<
p>
Given that Las Vegas is one of the faster-growing cities in the US, I must disagree.
<
p>
Nobody is a tad strong. In fact, my uncle and aunt [by marriage] are big time gamblers. And, it’s certain that they’ve come out ahead. How do I know? Well, he won the freaking lottery for starters. They’ve also won six figure pots playing slot machines. You can’t convince me that they’ve lost a total of $1.5M gambling, but I do know for a fact that they’ve won that much in just their big wins alone.
<
p>
So, very few people come out winners, but with megajackpot slot machines, there are some people who could frequent the casinos weekly and be net winners.
Didn’t you mean to type the word “Libertarian” instead of “Progressive”? If not, then maybe we shouldn’t be regulating anything, and just let people make “intelligent choices” for everything.
Do “real” progressives support looser gun restrictions, since that’s more “choice”?
Do “real” progressives support looser cocaine laws, since that’s more “choice”?
Do “real” progressives support eliminating prostitution laws, since that’s more “choice”?
Do “real” progressives support eliminating zoning laws, since that’s more “choice”?
<
p>
If by “real progressive” you mean libertarian, than sure. But, claiming that allowing more choice is the bedrock of progressivism is just plain wrong. For both conservatives and progressives, choice is a tool used only in how it serves other causes or visions.
I don’t think the casino issue (or any of the other issues you mention) come down to a “progressive” versus “libertarian” mindset. I consider myself to be a pragmatic liberal, by which I mean that analysis of the costs and benefits of a policy is more important than strict “progressive” or “libertarian” ideology.
<
p>
So the costs weighed against the benefits is the key calculation, and I think the casino is actually a pretty close question that could go either way.
<
p>
<
p>
This seems to be correct.
ask is would I want it near me. I would definitely not, so my sympathies would be with the people in the town who are opposed even if they are in the minority.
…that there is no good bottom line for the townspeople or state and local governments.
<
p>
People will always gamble, indulge in pornography, prostitution, drugs. Why do we spend so much taxpayer money to stop it? Perhaps the governments should monopolize the markets instead.
<
p>
In Europe prostitution is sanctioned and taxed in some countries. The Danes make a fortune on pornography. Here in the US, Nevada permits gambling as well as prostitution. The Catholic Church makes money on gambling. Some states already have state owned liquor stores.
<
p>
I’m sick and tired reading of all the drug crime in the US. The “War on Drugs” failed miserably. Time for the goverment to open areas that allow access to drugs, to be consumed on premises. These places would be immune from liability from deaths. Let the income derived pay for social needs. Now, all we are doing is building a drug centered economy the taxpayer money. Alcoholic beverages are already taxed, their sales limited and they constitute the largest drug problems in the US.
<
p>
Let the “sinners” pay the tab for social progress.
I think government will eventually take over “social sins” for the “public good”.
If you would not live next a casino, would not have it next to your child’s school, would not have it next to your mother’s house, would not have it snarling traffic on your way to work, would not have a family member working there because their other job disappeared when the casino came to town —
<
p>
Then how can you support one in Middleborough, New Bedford, or any other community?
<
p>
The issue is not freedom of choice, the issue is quality of life, and it’s bigger than one person. I support freedom of speech, and I love rock ‘n’ roll, but I think we have enough nightclubs.
Come on, JC. Accepting for the sake of argument that casinos blight the towns where they are located, we have zoning rules and regulations that allow us to strike a balance.
<
p>
I do think the quality of life argument is a much stronger one, however, than that advanced in the Op-Ed.
Casinos draw crime, which is illegal. Our laws don’t stop the problems casinos exacerbate — not cause, mind you, exacerbate.
<
p>
But I’m done with this, really. I don’t see anyone who is in the middle, so all I’m doing is annoying people who disagree with me. That’s not my goal.
<
p>
But I agree we should call it a day for debates about casinos and the meaning of modern progressivism. Here is a wee beer for you on a hot day:
<
p>
—-| 0 | 0|
—-| U
n/t
You have convinced me. Not on the save-me-from-myself grounds, but on not turning Middleborough into ATlantic City grounds.
We liberals — “progressives,” if you like — are in favor of “the nanny state,” aren’t we? Sure, it’s a label used to dismiss our ideas, but social programs ranging from universal health care to mandatory seat-belt laws are examples of the nanny state in action. (I guess “inaction” would be the right phrase for universal health care.)
<
p>
Don’t we believe in a balance between community needs and individual rights? I always thought so. If not, well, let’s abolish zoning laws right now. Why shouldn’t my neighbor be allowed to open a for-profit toxic-waste dump in his backyard? It’s his property, isn’t it?
<
p>
To argue otherwise, as others have pointed out here, is the libertarian view, not the liberal view.
<
p>
The sole exception should be speech, which deserves absolute protection because of the First Amendment. The founders understood that none of our other rights and responsibilities could be protected without the right to speak.
<
p>
Given all this, if a ban on casino gambling can be shown to be good for society, then it ought to be banned. There is no right to gamble any more than there is a right to drive on the left-hand side of the street or smoke crack.
<
p>
The principle is the same in all of these: community needs trump individual rights.
<
p>
Long live the nanny state.
You are correct about all of this, and I would even add that it’s more about balancing community needs and individual “wants”, not “rights”, since there is no sort of natural “right” to gamble any more than there is a natural right to engage in sexual activity with anyone you want, ingest any chemicals you want, etc. Even speech, which seems much clearer as a “right” isn’t as straightforward as you suggest, since I doubt you would find many arguing for an “absolute” right to free speech (queue up the examples of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, blasting political slogans on a megaphone at 3AM, etc.).
<
p>
The point is that everything is on a spectrum which is mostly a gray area. There are really few things that should “obviously” be allowed or banned, at least not without community discussion of the underlying issues.
<
p>
So I agree with your community versus the individual idea, but I would ask whether it makes sense to have a predisposition towards allowing the “individual want” activity with the burden of proof on those who want to ban it, the reason being that people seem to want to ban activities they don’t personally like (or engage in) while allowing the ones they do, without real consideration of the costs and benefits.
…as LBJ might have said. We liberals — “progressives,” if you like — are in favor of “the nanny state,” aren’t we? Sure, it’s a label used to dismiss our ideas….
<
p>
Conservatives are in favor of the nanny state too; the only issue with them is who is getting nannied. Self-described conservatives are all in favor of corporate welfare. Indeed, it was Tom DeLay in the late 1990s who insisted on keeping the mohair subsidy in the federal budget. It was a laugh riot. One of the beneficiaries of the mohair subsidy was then-ABC commentator Sam Donaldson who, somewhat sheepishly (oops, another subsidy) acknowledged that he was a recipient of the mohair subsidy, and that he would continue to be one as long as the federal government wanted to throw money in his direction. I can’t fault him for that opinion.
<
p>
Regarding The sole exception should be speech, which deserves absolute protection because of the First Amendment I recognize your exhortation, but unfortunately the courts–not even the federal courts agree with you. Numerous exceptions have been made (erroneously in my view–I actually do agree with you) for free speech and free press. Apart from the “fighting words” exception (a stupid exception) and the Michigan case a few years ago in which a man was prosecuted for daring to use an expletive within the earshot of a female (case wasn’t thrown out ab initio, but I don’t know what happened to it) there were two cases that should give you pause. US vs. Schenk and US vs. Frohwerk. They were cases that stemmed from the WWI era, and basically they said that persons have the right to free speech and press, but only what the federal government will allow you to have. The opinions in the cases are available on findlaw.com and may be available on the Cornell law school web site.
<
p>
The opinion in the Schenk case is the source of the “you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater” comment, but I can assure you that that case had nothing to do with fire, or a crowded theater. You don’t have a right to free speech (Schenk), or a free press (Frohwerk) despite what the 1st amendment says.
Schenck lost, but Schenck proved to be a victory. After Holmes carved out his “clear and present danger” standard, it began to occur to people — including Holmes — that speech that did not post a clear-and-present danger could not be banned.
<
p>
Anyway, I’m a 98 percent free-speech absolutist. I’m not hugely troubled by the exceptions that have been carved out — obscenity (a legal concept; not mere pornography); fighting words; and speech that poses a true danger to national security along the lines explained by Hughes in Near v. Minnesota.
<
p>
On the other hand, I’m worried as hell about the current Supreme Court.
…for example, the “fighting words” exception is silly. “Fighting words” should be a defense against an assault/battery charge, not an affirmative criminal offense. There is a difference.
<
p>
You may be right about the repercussions of Schenck and Frohwerk, but there was the disturbing case Terminiello(sp?) stemming from, if memory serves, 1948. It was what I refer to as the “hecklers’ veto” case. It upheld free speech by, if memory serves, one vote. And, if memory also serves one of the dissenters was one of the prosecutors on the Nurnberg trials. I was astonished.
<
p>
Yes “I’m worried as hell about the current Supreme Court” be afraid. Be very afraid.
<
p>
I agree with your general sentiment, but I’d like to exercise my right to free speech WITHOUT getting my ass kicked.
…you might want to consider using words that would not, by any reasonable jury would be considered fighting words. (Note to the lawyers here: “reasonable jury” means “whose verdict would not be overturned by the judge”).
<
p>
I could recite here a litany of words that, if spouted to another person, would probably rightly be considered “fighting words.” But, if I did, I’d be banned. If you want to use one or more of what would likely be considered “fighting words, that is your right, and the result might be that your ass would be kicked in. On the other hand, your use of “fighting words” might reasonably have been considered provocative of your ass having been kicked in. As such, your use of “fighting words” might reasonably have been deemed to be partially responsible for the act. In point of fact, it is possible that your use of “fighting words” would have been incitement for your ass having been kicked in.
<
p>
It is the case that you would not have needed to use any of the “fighting words” in your discourse with another person to get the same point across. If you did not use the “fighting words” in your discourse with another person who might kick your ass, there would have been no “fighting words” defense for the kicker of your ass, would there have been?
<
p>
And that’s the point. It’s the words that you use, not the sentiment that you express, that is in issue with “fighting words.”
Some words are “fighting words” regardless of context? If so that makes no sense.
Judges judge. The courts decide whether a particular exercise of speech constitutes “fighting words” on a case-by-case basis. The standard is whether those words would incite a reasonable person to immediate violence. Tone of voice, the proximity of the speaker to the target, and other types of context are always taken into account.
That makes much more sense.
<
p>
Shaky doctrine, overall.
by Ron Merullo. This give you a sense of a kind of world that David D’Alessandro is talking about. The world he describes of con men and thugs is possibly a bit different now. I remember similar but milder scenarios from the bookies and baboot games around my uncles.
<
p>
I cant read through all the responses tonight. Someone has probably noted that in the gambling described in this column was illegal–which has complications of its own.