3) Move the discussion beyond whether we “permit” gambling. It’s not about buying a square in the Super Bowl office pool or playing poker on your kitchen table with the guys from the neighborhood on Friday night. Those are examples of social forms of gambling. The debate is about predatory gambling – promoting gambling to prey on human weakness for profit. The real question is whether you and I and our democratic government have the freedom to use highly addictive and deceptively advertised gambling products to prey on and exploit the human weaknesses of other citizens in our community for profit.
4) Any debate about predatory gambling should include the State Lottery. Why is this important? Because according to the Consumer Federation of America, more than 1 out of 5 Americans think the best way to achieve long-term financial security is to play the Lottery. It’s time to rethink the Lottery as public policy and ask the question why, during these severe economic times, is government trying to convince citizens to spend large sums on virtually worthless gambling products instead of urging them to save and invest in their future?
The Lottery Class is real. Our continued willingness to expand the Lottery Class to fund public services is unreal. A substantive debate, one that includes the suggested ground rules above, will ultimately lead us to change course and help us achieve the standard for our democracy President Obama set forward in his inaugural address.
Les Bernal
Your rules may have some merit, but they definitely skew toward getting the rest of us to draw the same conclusions you have.
<
p>I didn’t quite understand the point about slot machine design. I did read the CityPaper article you linked and it sounds like the big problem is lack of disclosure. I’m all in favor of passing strict disclosure laws regarding odds and too bad for the industry if they think that information is proprietary.
<
p>The anti-gambling side continues to use words like “predatory” as if anyone is being forced to do participate in this. We should be open to this if it has the potential to either directly funnel money to the state, like the lottery, or improve the economy with jobs, etc. like casinos. A response to one of my comments on a previous thread on this topic indicated that the Lottery was rather inefficient so that should be addressed.
<
p>Yes, permission is part of this debate, especially if Indian casinos come into play. Is this something we should allow in our state? Except for an occasional scratch ticket I don’t gamble, and as I’ve said before, some of us DO know better than to splurge thank you very much.
<
p>It appears some education is in order; I don’t know how 1 in 5 believe it leads to financial security, though obviously it does for a lucky few. If it DID lead to financial security for 1 in 5 I’d play those odds more often:) Then again, more Americans than I’m comfortable with believe Genesis over Darwin so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised:( However, I’m uncomfortable basing policy on people’s stupidity and/or lack of will power. I’d rather put the effort into regulating and educating rather than shut off the option entirely.
<
p>Nobody is forced to take out a loan, but it’s still called predatory lending, and for good reason.
Predatory lending is often about home mortgages. People need shelter; they don’t need to gamble.
Designed to paint the stupid or greedy as victim.
<
p>Gee, I make $75,000 a year, but the mortgage broker says that if I sign here where it says I make $575,000, I can afford this great million dollar house, with a mortgage that only requires me to pay interest, and at a teaser rate, for three years. Whoopee! Wait, what do you mean I have to pay that loan back? No, I don’t! I’m the victim here, that loan was predatory! Where’s my bailout?
Yes, many peopple were greedy and stupid. Yes, the term predatory lending is vague and probably overused.
<
p>But there are predatory lenders, and to suggest otherwise is simply not true.
to get people addicted to them, almost in a similar way to smoking (just substitute nicotine for beeps and flashes).
<
p>Putting the odds on are a start, but honestly, the addiction becomes so nefarious that eventually the goal of people doing slots isn’t to win – it’s to lose, or at least get into the “machine zone”. Winning only means they have to play longer and get ‘stuck’ there before they finish.
<
p>Here’s a quote from the link:
<
p>
<
p>Is that not predatory?
<
p>Casinos do not bring jobs; they redistribute the money already flowing in the economy. Problem gamblers cease to contribute to the economy at large – and within 50 miles of a casino, more than 1 in 20 are problem gamblers. Given that there’s 4 people in a family, that means every street would have more than one gambling addict. How does that grow jobs? Even beyond the addicts, casinos give free booze which kills bars and cheap food, plus entertainment, which kills restaurants. Small business owners lose their businesses, cease to contribute, and this hurts the local economies in which they live and contribute, not to mention drains resources from towns who depended on those business’s taxes.
<
p>So, just like casinos are a redistribution of money already flowing in the economy, casino jobs are just a redistribution too – except, instead substitute neighborhood owners who care about their communities and have kids in those schools with large corporate owners that could give a shit and attract people to those new casino locations who aren’t from the state, often draining resources from neighborhood towns, not only stressing but sometimes even fracturing schools and town services.
What are we – five years old? Sure, its attractive to the senses; all good marketing is. However, just because it gets you to look doesn’t mean you have to touch.
<
p>One other regulation I would consider is to forbid ATMs or any other source of cash on casino premises. I would also forbid machines to accept credit/debit cards as it is too easy to spend with those.
If the point is that we should put faith in the choices of individuals who partake, why the limit on their ability to partake with regards to ATMs and credit cards. This is contradictory, yes?
…I see the value in not making it TOO easy. This falls under regulation and we can control impulses somewhat this way.
… that gambling can be too easy. The only way it could be said to be too easy is if people couldn’t be trusted to act responsibly if gambling was too easy. This undercuts any argument that people should be trusted, because what you are saying agrees with what people who want to ban it are saying… people can be trusted only to a point. Given this, I’d say what you disagree on is what that point is.
I’m personally pretty careful even with my card, as I always pay attention to declining balances, etc. There also are times I make a conscious decision to only spend cash on hand (much to the detriment of places like Barnes & Noble!) It does seem easier to spend if your wallet is not visibly getting emptier. I’m trying to find a middle ground here!
that your mind works differently than others. Lets say you’re immune to becoming addicted to anything. Good for you. Many others aren’t.
<
p>If you want to go to a casino, it really isn’t at all that hard to get to one. Too inconvenient to do it every week or day – which is why our addiction rates to gambling aren’t as high as they could be – but not so hard that if you wanted to have a fun night or weekend, you couldn’t do it. Rhode Island and Connecticut are not far away. Las Vegas is pretty cheap. If both of those options are too hard, you could go to Lynn and take the Horizon’s Edge casino cruise. You have options already, just not so many options that it’s exceptionally easy to become addicted to slots. Isn’t that an appropriate middle ground? When you factor in what resort casinos do to local businesses, it’s a no brainer to keep them out of the state.
You’ll be pleased to know that I have no intention of taking up smoking, drinking, or other substances in order to test that theory:)!
consider that many will and we should institute policies that reduce that chance. It’s probably almost always innocent at first and for a solid while and could really happen to anyone. We just never know. That’s why it’s best to keep the casinos out.
Just sayin’.
…to assume that people can’t control themselves to some extent.
People are looking at data. Data show that problem gamblers exist, and that slots dramatically exacerbate the problem. You are choosing to ignore those data, instead ascribing it to … what? Weakness of character? A curiously 19th-century view of this kind of issue, for one who has occasionally described himself as “progressive.”
<
p>Come on, Christopher. You know better than this.
Just about every argument made here involving problem gamblers can substitute problem drinkers. We still sell alcohol, and easier access to it would, I’m sure, exaserbate the problem for some. Yet, we’re content with regulating the sale of alcohol (quantity, age, zoning, etc.) rather than disallowing it completely. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this, but I KNOW there is such a thing as problem gambling, it just doesn’t apply to everyone.
People who are addicts have an illness that causes them to lose control. I don’t think the state should make money off of people with an illness to pay for public services. We should stop acting like 5 years old and start acting like adults when it comes to paying for public services that we all need and we all use. Taxes are a necessary cost of having a civilized society, to paraphrase Holmes, and we should stop acting like they aren’t. The gambling interests only get traction because some people do not want to pay for the cost of living in a civilized society themselves.
I’m not urging this as an alternate source of funding; I’m mostly making the libertarian argument on this.
to be addictive. what part of that don’t you get? It’s more than the beeps and the flashes, it’s the ‘zone’ one gets into as they continually press the stupid button, waiting for the slots to go, quickly going into a zone where they don’t think of any of their problems or worries or woe. You can scoff at that all you want, but it is an addiction and, within 50 miles of a casino, more than 1 in 20 people are deeply effected by it. Maybe if we build a casino in Massachusetts, you’ll be one of those 1 in 20? No one knows how they’ll be impacted – but those odds aren’t exactly good.
I can easily see people getting into that zone too, but not necessarily. You still haven’t described anything that’s not true about any marketing as far as I can tell. I wouldn’t be the one in twenty, because first I can control myself and second, I’m not chomping at the bit to personally partake at all.
people lose magnitudes more money? that an okay start?
<
p>
<
p>I’m calling BS on that. You have no idea if you’d be that 1 in 20. None. You remind me of my friend who insisted he had ‘control’ of his smoking habit for years, that he could stop in a day if he wanted – that he ‘only smoked when he drank.’ It started out like that, sure. A few months later he was a pack-a-day smoker. Quit for 6 months after using nicotine gum. He had ‘control’ again. Went to a concert. He had so much ‘control’ that when a friend offered a smoke, he was only going to smoke that one. Hey, he was at a concert, right? Pack a day beginning the next day.
<
p>I have a family friend who’s had problems with alcohol. She’s a very nice woman who had an abusive fiancee. They had a kid. None of us really knew she had the problem with alcohol. We knew she went to rehab – but we bought her lie that it was her boyfriend that made her as a way to make sure he’d get to keep the kid. He moved her stuff out while she was in rehab and she was homeless when she got out. My aunt took her in when she had literally nothing, spent years helping her to get her kid back. She was sober for years. Slipped up one Christmas – almost lost the kid all over again. Court was patient, gave her another chance. My aunt had to actually move in with her in order to let her have visitation rights while she cleaned herself up again. Got clean. Slipped up a year later, had to go home all the way back to Ireland. She has a kid at stake – one who she loves – and yet she still finds it nearly impossible to keep control. She is finally back in the US and trying to just secure some parental rights, but even I don’t think she should have custody at this point – even if her ex isn’t at all a nice person.
<
p>My point in these stories? People who claim control when diseases come into play are in denial or just don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t consider the fact that our minds work differently. You don’t know how a substance or an activity are going to effect you until you do it repeatedly. To say that you could be in control of yourself is a complete roll of the dice. You could very well go to the casino a few times, doing the slots, getting the free booze, spending $30-50 bucks and making it last the night. Could be fun, relatively cheap entertainment.
<
p>Then you could do it a few more times. Then you could be addicted within a year, burning through all your discretionary spending, no longer doing it for the fun, but for the release. You could be the really unlucky one who burns through more than just discretionary spending – you could spend the money you’d spend on your mortgage or maybe it would be your daughter’s college fund? Maybe it would just be your heating bill (because – hey – you don’t have to pay it anyway!). Or you could be like the town employee from Ledyard, Connecticut – home of Foxwoods – who stole tens of thousands from her town to pay for her gambling problem.
<
p>The “control” you talk of is honestly thrown right out the window when it comes to a disease. You don’t understand addictions if you think you can ‘control’ them. If you could, they wouldn’t be addictions. The only thing you can possibly do to control it is to never, ever do it to begin with. Let me tell ya this: that becomes a lot harder when there’s a casino nearby. That’s why gambling addiction rates, according to the Congressional Budget Office, literally double when there’s a casino within 50 miles.
Point taken on the magnitude of money. (Interesting historical tidbit: Early arcade games gave cash awards, but this was discontinued when people objected that it was too close to gambling, despite the fact that there was skill, and thus some control of the outcome, involved.)
<
p>Sorry, but I utterly reject your BS accusation. The addictions you describe are physiological, whereas an activity like gambling can certainly last longer as a bad habit before it becomes literally an addiction. I don’t buy the I-can-quit-when-I-want line on substances any more than you do, but this is a different category. I still say this is most analogous to alcohol as plenty of people drink when appropriate without problem. People need to set limits on themselves and stick to them. Haven’t we all said at one point, “I’m not full yet, but I don’t NEED that extra food right now.” or “I have enough to pay for this item I really want, but I’d rather save my cash at the moment.”? I know I can exercise self-control because I have done so. Sorry if you don’t believe me.
We can stop calling it “predatory” as soon as the lobbyists stop calling it “gaming”, as if it were a friendly game of Monopoly around the family dinner table.
I personally use “gambling” and “gaming” interchangeably when refering to this activity; I don’t see the difference.
Really? To “gamble” is to take a big chance on something. To play a “game” is a fun recreational activity.
<
p>You don’t see the difference? I sure do. Getting people to talk about “gaming” rather than “gambling” is a huge marketing blitz by the
gaminggamblingwhatever they are industry. If you don’t see the difference, then their campaign can chalk up one more success.…I never use “gaming” as a verb to describe a board game or a sport. I’ve always known gaming to mean gambling.
One of my favorites.
<
p>
a second word in which you attach a peculiar and not popularly used definition. Interesting..
I’ve never heard anyone else use the word “gaming” in those contexts either – sorry.
But if you were to say “gaming industry” in conversation, I’m pretty sure I would conjure mental images of Atlantic City well before Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, or Major League Baseball.
You don’t like the activity, and don’t understand why someone else might.
<
p>Seems to me that “recreation” is, by definition, defined by the recreatOR, and not BMG.
We should help the industry blur these distinctions. Pesky extra letters in gambling! Plus you never hear about gamimg addiction or gaming problems or “I gamed away the heating oil check at the track.”
MIT Professor Natasha Schull has written extensively about electronic gambling machines. Here’s a piece from The Washington Post where she calls modern slots “a high-tech version of loaded dice” (for you non-gamblers out there, that means the machines are cheating.) Here’s a video clip of her presentation from the last casino hearing (unfortunately, the sound quality is less than ideal but I hope you’ll bear with it.) After reading and watching these two clips, how can you call it anything else but predatory gambling?
<
p>Les
This is the dictionary definition of addiction:
<
p>
<
p>I understand the trauma that an alcoholic suffers when deprived of alcohol (shakes, chills, among others) and the trauma that a heroin addict suffers (cramps, nausea, pain among others). Have controlled studies demonstrated that gambling “addicts” suffer comparable physical symptoms when they go cold turkey? I couldn’t find any.
<
p>The American Psychological Association says gambling is not an addiction. There is a useful discussion here on Wikipedia.
<
p>Unless you can establish that gambling is an addiction as the word is commonly used, I think you do your argument a disservice by using the term.
<
p>But on a personal note, Bob, I know lives that have been destroyed because of addictions to gambling. For you to deny its existence is right up there with those who deny the holocaust. You can use semantics all you want, but there’s been massive studies done – including by the government – that show that millions upon millions of Americans are “problem gamblers.” Unless you can establish that there aren’t problem gamblers that ruin their lives and the lives of others, I suggest you don’t play in the game of semantics.
<
p>Also, your reply was beyond predictable. Only a few hours earlier tonight, did I not chide you for being opposed to a small meals tax, purportedly to save restaurants, while also supporting casinos – which absolutely destroy the entire locally owned industry within a wide range of any resort casino? Talk about missing the big picture! My apologies for the harshness of my tone, but your logic not only eludes me, but frustrates me. I don’t understand you and I’ve read you for years.
Oh dear.
godwin’s law doesn’t state that the metaphor has merit or not, just that it’s inevitable.
<
p>In this case, someone who ignores the fact that tragedy exists all around him… I think it applies.
<
p>You Nazi sympathizer bastard.
<
p>/die thread, die
no one said ‘sympathizer’
<
p>just someone who’s ignoring a particular tragedy that exists.
Nazi apologist bastard.
that there are problem gamblers, but there are problem drinkers too and we still sell alcohol. Your Holocaust analogy was rather extreme I must say.
Off to brush up on WWII history.
I’d rather you brush up on a few people who’s lives have been destroyed by problem gambling.
From your wikipedia link:
<
p>
<
p>Certainly, it seems to be a subject that is under active investigation. I wouldn’t just discount it, nor would I consider the American Psychological Association to be the arbiter of this question, as such associations do not have a great track record on similar issues that entangle issues of science and society.
If you want to reserve the term “addiction,” as some do in a medical context, for physical dependence, then go ahead, but it will make it hard for you to communicate with most people about the issue.
<
p>The way most of us use the word, it includes psychological dependence. This is both a real and potentially fatal mental health crisis, and it is also one that has material effects, including physical deterioration and violence.
My old copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, lists pathological gambling as a disorder. Your link did not work for me for some reason, but maybe it is just a difference in terminolgy. Seems pretty serious to me.
I spent 20 minutes in my gmail account trying to find that link. If only I just read the rest of the posts. LOL.
The link on the professor’s name was broken and I can’t play videos, but once again this sounds like a fixable and regulatable problem rather than an excuse to prohibit it entirely.
I assume your first priority would be to repeal the Lottery. Am I right? How would you propose that the Commonwealth make up the lost revenue? Has your group asked anyone in the legislature to file a bill to repeal the Lottery?
I think the intent is to reduce its toxic nature and make sure they aren’t designed to addict people.
<
p>The lottery, to me, is a done deal and can only see minor fixes to make it better – but we can at the very least stop slots in this state, which are far more nefarious and worse.
Please explain what fixes are possible. The lottery is pure “retail” gambling aimed at low income people. How would you fix it?
In the following order, here’s what I’d do. Once I’ve gone too far, just stop reading and consider that a plan.
<
p>
<
p>I would freeze the number of distributors in each city or town to it’s current number. New convenience store? Nope, you don’t get to sell until someone else gives theirs up. Make the permits like taxi medallions — it’s a giveaway to current stores, but MA lottery gets 50% of the sales price for each medallion transaction, which helps offset the need to sell as many lotto tickets in the first place. If some church group or other anti-lottery group wants to buy the medallion and retire it, so be it. Let the goodie two shoes pay to get rid of the lottery.
<
p>I would not introduce a single new scratch off design or any other form of gambling.
<
p>I’d tweak the payouts so that lotto pays out less often. There’s a legal minim.um that lotto has to pay out in winnings as a percentage of revenue, and we’re paying out way more. Cut that down.
<
p>I’d eliminate all television, radio, billboard, and print advertising.
<
p>I’d eliminate Keno from bars and restaurants.
<
p>I’d eliminate Keno from anywhere else.
<
p>I’d eliminate “branded” Lotto tickets like Patriots/NFL, etc.
<
p>I’d eliminate $20 scratch offs.
<
p>I’d eliminate $10 scratch offs.
<
p>I’d eliminate $5 scratch offs.
<
p>I’d eliminate $2 scratch offs.
<
p>I’d eliminate $1 scratch offs.
<
p>I’d eliminate Numbers.
<
p>
<
p>The idea is to tweak the payouts to not have to lower the aid to cities and towns. Then, cut advertising. Then, kill Keno — Keno is king for addicts IMO. Just keep whittling it away with one cynical eye on the revenue side. If the “profit” (revenue – payouts) drops, either reduce the payouts if there’s still room to do so or hold pat. If we can maintain the payouts to cities and towns but make lotto less of an entity, we’re better off because it’s a wash for aid but the lotto complex is reduced… hell, there’ll be less litter on the sidewalks near convenience stores in poor neighborhoods if nothing else.
but stop maybe at $2 tickets.
<
p>Basically, get rid of Keno, get rid of $20 and $10 tickets and maybe even $5, then limit the number of vendors, as well as perhaps total someone can spend on tickets at any one time. If I see another person spend $300 on tickets in one visit to the store, I may puke. Don’t worry, though, they often promise to be back in a few hours (seriously).
<
p>People could get around a lot of these measures, for sure, but it would be harder and take longer and I’d be willing to place my bet on less people losing such huge portions of their salary to compulsive gambling.
The first priority is to encourage all of us to take a sober look at the Lottery as it stands today as well as other predatory gambling products under consideration and ask this one question: Why is government, especially during these severe economic times, trying to convince citizens to spend large sums on virtually worthless gambling products instead of urging them to save and invest in their future? Franklin Roosevelt challenged the country to buy savings bonds in the shadow of the Great Depression to make up for “lost revenue” and to pay for the war effort. Just 30 years ago, the perfect stocking stuffer at Christmas time was savings bonds…now its lottery tickets and our government markets them as such. After more than thirty-five years, it’s time to reopen the debate on the Lottery. As President Obama said:
What do you mean? That repealing the Lottery is not important? That it is important?
but even predators gotta eat.
<
p>The Commonwealth is addicted to eating and could not function without the lottery revenue. We are all addicted. I’d welcome a reasoned discussion of how a state could provide adequate resources for the functions we have determined; but I doubt we’re going to have one; and at this point there’s very few arguing for abandoning the lottery utterly, never mind discussing how to replace that revenue.
we’d just have to adapt. ie raise money from responsible areas, like income taxes.