So says the growing chorus of opposition to what I call Governor Deval Patrick’s plan to expand gambling addiction in Massachusetts. Although as a candidate he opposed casino gambling, Patrick has made casino gambling the centerpiece of his economic program. This has come as a surprise to those of us who supported him from early on.
The Boston Globe reports that while the governor’s support for his own program has been “tepid,” a far-flung network of opponents from the Massachusetts Council of Churches to the Massachusetts Restaurant Association is mobilizing against it. Restauranteurs are rightfully concerned that massive “resort casinos” will undermine existing businesses:
Over the past several years there has been a well-funded effort to expand gaming in the Commonwealth. Proposals to allow thousands of slot machines at the state’s racetracks have been unsuccessful thus far. There are important economic risks that could result from expanding gaming, in addition to the well-documented social costs.
The MRA opposes all efforts to expand gaming and allow slot machines at racetracks.
* The restaurant industry is vital to the state’s economy and our success is directly correlated to people’s discretionary income. The expansion of gaming would divert much of that discretionary income out of the economy,the same income that is presently used for dining out.
* The huge revenues that would be created by slot machines would allow these establishments to attract customers away from our businesses with their free or subsidized food, beverages, and entertainment.
* The restaurant industry is vital to the state’s economy. We employ over 9% of the Massachusetts workforce and contributed over $591 million in sales tax on meals last year. Expanded gaming would put this very important economic engine at great peril.
* Our industry is currently being challenged by the economy. Today, operators are facing huge increases in the cost of doing business. Some of these factors include healthcare, energy, and the overall vulnerability in the commodities market.
Restaurants are good neighbors and are owned by many people who have invested in their communities. The livelihoods of many are dependent upon the success of these small businesses. To shift the income of a few businesses (racetracks) would be benefiting a few at the expense of many.
Meanwhile, a pro-gambling addiction state legislator plans to stage a procasino hearing featuring… (drum roll please) — the gambling industry!
The Springfield Republican reports:
BOSTON – Hoping to create some momentum, a pro-casino legislator plans to hold a hearing on Beacon Hill that will emphasize the economic benefits of expanded gambling.
State Rep. David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater, said he invited representatives of some gambling companies including Harrah’s Entertainment of Las Vegas and owners of the state’s four horse and dog tracks.
“We had the anti-gaming hearing, the can’t-do hearing,” said Flynn, co-chairman of the Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets. “This is a can-do hearing.”
Oh yeah. And top officials of the Patrick administration will be there too.
that Deval Patrick would be a reformer. A Democratic reformer. And in some ways he is.
<
p>But an economic program premised on hooking people on slots is not only a bad idea, but it is a non-starter and only serves to delay discussion of real short and long term solutions.
Remember I said it here, I will say it often and I will say it loudly. It is unfortunate this particular page has a right wing slant but I picked it based upon the title, which is highly appropriate.
http://escapefrommassachusetts…
As the Governor said, gambling is neither a panacea nor the end of civilization, and I would hardly call it the centerpiece of his program. While I certainly think the license-plate counting method that one study used is meaningless, it is easy to tell that plenty of people, sometimes by the busload, venture to Connecticut to spend their money on gambling and I would like to see the money stay here.
<
p>It should be a highly regulated industry, with clearly posted odds and local officials should give input if a casino is proposed in a given municipality. Basically I’m libertarian on this. As far as I’m concerned people can gamble away their own money by informed consent (like posted odds) as long as they don’t come crying to me when they lose.
<
p>I also think we throw around the word “addiction” too much as if we assume everyone who gambles is a potential addict. Just as plenty of social drinkers are not alcoholics, most gamblers will not be compulsive. Besides, we should use another term anyway. My understanding is that addiction is a physiological state whereby the body gets so use to a substance (nicotine, alcohol, pills, any number of illegal narcotics) that it starts to think it needs the substance and manifests withdrawal symptoms if it doesn’t get the substance. Since gambling does not involve putting something into the body I am not convinced that it becomes more than a strong habit.
But like the Pentagon’s use of the quaint notion of “collateral damage,” one can find oneself justifing via euphemism one’s position and not see the actual human consequences of decisions made in the cool of the airconditioned office. The governor is willing to look the other way. I am not.
<
p>Let’s take a look at the National Library of Medicine’s summary on gambling addiction:
<
p>
<
p>
I’ll take the point on what constitutes an addiction, but will continue to insist that people be given a little more credit. The vast majority of gamblers will not become addicts and should not be prevented from doing this because a few cannot control themselves. It sounds from what you are saying that true addicts will find a way to feed their addiction regardless of proximity. I am of course all for education about this matter just as we educate people about the dangers of addictions to substances. Finally, I object to any suggestion (which may not be as strong coming from you, but I have heard it from others) that the Governor was somehow malicious or negligent in considering both sides of this issue, especially if he was predisposed to oppose casinos, as it sounds like he was.
not all crack users are addicts. It is a weak argument, Christopher.
<
p>As a society we have a choice. The citizens via their elected officials can opt to build enormous palaces devoted to hooking people on slots and other gambles or not. Do we need enormous half billion dollar empires dotting the Commonwealth, that will completely dominate the local economies where they are located. Vastly increase traffic; bring in people with profound problems related to substance abuse.. as well as creating whole new classes of people with serious problems that ripple across society? Or can our citizens and our government find ways to encourage a more productive economy? I am certain that we can.
<
p>I was an early supporter of Deval Patrick. I liked the Patrick that opposed casinos a lot more than the one who has traded off collateral damage for a crap shoot budget quick fix. I am certain that he listened to all sides. I just think he has made a profound error of judgment.
<
p>He said from the beginning that he we would not always agree and that he would also need our help in governming. I have always taken him at his word about that, as I am sure that all serious, non-knee jerk Patrick supporters would as well. If we are going to more broadly engage the citizenry in governance, it means actually having this and other public conversations.
<
p>As we get more deeply into it, the governor may soon discover that he is playing a weak hand, fold, and try his luck with something else.
not all drinkers are alchoholics either
not all crack users are addicts. It is a weak argument, Christopher.
<
p>This is exactly what I am trying to say. Because not all drinkers are alcoholics (I’m not as sure about crack users.) why should we assume that gamblers are going to become addicts? You seem to fear that alot of gamblers will become addicts and I do not.
<
p>I’m all for conversations, otherwise I wouldn’t participate, and yes I remember the comments about not agreeing with everything. I for one don’t remember him opposing casinos during the campaign, but I’ll take your word for it.
Let’s say Massachusetts creates casinos and keeps every dime of money our citizens were spending in Connecticut casinos. However, we know statistically that a majority of a casino’s patrons come from a 50 mile radius, so there’s going to be a lot more than just the Connecticut travellers going to Bay State casinos.
<
p>Some people may think that’s good, but according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, up to 75% of a casino’s revenue is just redistributed from other sectors of the economy. So that means the money you would spend buying pizza at the local pizza shop, or renting a movie from the local movie store, or at the local pub would instead go to the big casino – which isn’t exactly the staple of any community.
<
p>Furthermore, while I’m assuming you’d be a responsible casino gambler, a lot of people who become addicted (and it is an addiction, see below) would be spending the money at a casino that they’d normally be spending on their mortgage, or their daughter’s college fund. Casinos affect communities and can level local economies, it’s as simple as that. The money Mass residents spend in Connecticut is a small price to pay to avoid all the pitfalls that come with casinos, which will ultimately cost this state far more than any revenue it creates (new or redistributed).
<
p>FYI: Gambling can become an Addiction
<
p>
<
p>Gambling, as with many other activities (such as theft), helps spawn a brain’s natural chemicals that a body CAN get addicted to. It is an addiction, just like addictive substances. Worse yet, slot machines are designed to maximize that trigger – they’re designed to addict people.
<
p>What We Should Really Be Talking About
<
p>The fact of the matter is, if you’re concerned about our state’s revenue and making sure we have a sound fiscal bugdet, we need to have a real conversation here. We need to have an adult conversation here. Casinos aren’t the answer – they could very well make things worse. Instead of spending all these months on a gimmicky fix, designed to make lobbyists happy and certain politicians well oiled, we could be addressing stuff like the high costs of health care. If we could get costs controlled in that area, our state would be far more fiscally sound than with 3 casinos, soon to be four or five after Tribes enter the picture using the federal process (and pay no taxes to Massachusetts). So let’s stop thinking in casino-developer terms and start asking broad questions about what’s best for Massachusetts, about how we can improve our state and make sure we’re the best we can possibly be.
My understanding is that addiction is a physiological state whereby the body gets so use to a substance (nicotine, alcohol, pills, any number of illegal narcotics) that it starts to think it needs the substance and manifests withdrawal symptoms if it doesn’t get the substance.
<
p>…is way too narrow a definition. The substances that Ryan was mentioning above are endorphines, which the brain produces itself under stimulation. That is a major problem for people who are addicted to gym workouts (I know; I was addicted to workouts for a number of years), but it also is a problem for people who are addicted to casinos.
<
p>Another substance of interest is adrenaline, an enzyme secreted by the adrenal glands (which sit just above the kidneys. These substances are secreted in response to excitement.
<
p>There is a reason why casinos have so much noise. The noise generates an excitement reflex, which spurs the generation of endorphines and adrenaline. Therein lies the problem with casino gambling addiction. The body of the addict is accommodating itself to the elevated levels of the chemicals that it, itself is producing.
…which is probably more important. As the body accommodates itself to an increased level of endorphines and addrenaline, it needs to have ever-increasing levels to satisfy the “thrill.” That is the real danger of addiction.
<
p>Can you back this up? I don’t remember that, but my memory could be faulty.
<
p>Patrick never opposed casino gambling as a candidate, and he always said (and still occasionally says) that relying on casinos as an economic source is not realistic. He always has said that the issue of casinos should be whether or not casinos are a good idea to have in Massachusetts, and that economic side effects are important too. He made the decision that he thought it was a good idea to have casinos, and he’s made the argument that on balance the economic and social benefits out weigh the costs. I’m not convinced with that argument, but his point had always been that we should say “we need money: let’s allow casinos!” it should be do we think casinos are a good idea in Massachusetts, and then, what are the costs and benefits and is it worth it. So you do misrepresent the governor’s argument when you say that.
<
p>next, the statement from the MRA is completely true and completely unrelated to the issue of casinos: I am fairly sure the governor has always opposed slots at racetracks, and is for increasing protections for racing animals. I think we should ban dog-racing all together.
<
p>And of course I am also skeptical of Rep. Flynn’s hearing, especially in the way it’s part of an economic committee, as it still has the question backwards.
<
p>On the first question, I never heard a good reason to allow casinos here considering the big ones in Connecticut until I heard the ones in Massachusetts would be smoke-free, protecting the workers and patrons from second-hand smoke. So there seems to be some benefit to creating one in a state with better worker’s rights than Connecticut. So I don’t think that casinos are a bad idea in general, but do think the costs aren’t worth the benefits. Exaggerating your argument this much does not help the anti-casino cause.
At the first Dem primary candidate debate, at Agawam Jr. High school. The three candidates were asked their views on the matter. Reilly was for ’em; Gabrielli would consider ’em; Patrick was opposed and gave as his reasons the negative social impact.
<
p>I was there.
<
p>I invite skeptics to offer any evidence to the contrary.
An August 2006 Globe article says Patrick released a statement opposing casinos outright. But other reports have him expressing “skepticism” and worrying aloud about the social effects. Especially after Gabrieli came out for casinos, DP clearly sent the signal to his progressive support that he was with them in opposition to the idea. He could use this hedging language because his supporters were giving him all the benefit of the doubt at that point.
A trusted minister recently described a meeting between Deval Patrick and another minister, from New Bedford. The cleric told Patrick his congregation was opposed to casinos and worried about the impact on families in New Bedford. Patrick said that if he were their lawyer, he would advise them that when a freight train is bearing down on you, the wisest course of action is to get out of the way. The pastor responded, with some feeling, that his congregation’s faith and tradition required of them that when such a train’s cargo is injustice and suffering, they lie down on the tracks in front of it.
<
p>I suspect that when Patrick heard the pro-casino economic argument, including the aspect of competition from Indian tribes and other states, he became convinced that it is an inevitability — the proverbial freight train. I think Patrick’s career has shaped his instincts in this regard, for good and bad. You don’t stand up to economic behemoths; you sit down with them, whether as public official or insider executive, and see if you can nudge the situation in a better direction. Much of the time that may be the most effective course. But here, I think, there was another option, only it was one Patrick is not temperamentally nor professionally suited to consider.
<
p>(Personally I’m not opposed in principle to casino gambling here. But the impact of three massive resorts is frightening. Such a large-scale plan was bound to be polarizing. Legislators could easily find that opposition is the safest course.)
“…the impact of three massive resorts is frightening” then I find it difficult for anyone to say that they are not opposed to casino gambling in principle.
<
p>We do not have to accept a great evil as inevitable — especially when the legislature has opposed it every other time it has come up. I might add, that the sales pitch so far has been found to be one of those ‘if it sounds too good to be true, it is’ situations.
<
p>As usual, the benefits are being exaggerated and the costs and consequences are being dishonestly downplayed.
<
p>We expect better from a governor who promised to set a higher standard.
Well, I meant that I’m not opposed, on a moral level, to legal wagers in Massachusetts migrating from dogs, ponies, and lottery tickets to slots and table games. But I concede that this abstract position is largely irrelevant to the debate at hand.
<
p>What has only been made clear lately is the idea that once you allow casino games of any kind, the scale is out of your control. Maybe that just shows I hadn’t thought the issue through. Patrick’s plan is premised on this assumption — and I think this kind of assumption is not surprising given his career. If the tribal casino in Middleboro, or somewhere, was inevitable, and the legal framework was that once that happens, its size and its repeatability are out of the state’s control, then maybe his plan to seize that control, from the outset, at the likely scale that would emerge, is the best you can do. I suspect that his quickness to jump to this conclusion was also driven by his need to fund ambitious plans in economic growth and tax reform.
<
p>The question is, can you stop, or significantly limit, tribal casinos? If so, then Patrick’s plan is an unnecessary and possibly very dangerous adventure.