The Boston Globe laid out the evidence last week
The video slots allow players to gamble incredibly rapidly, winning or losing a game every several seconds without a break, to the point that their brains are undergoing the equivalent of an intravenous drip of an intoxicating drug, said Bob Breen, director of the Rhode Island Hospital Gambling Treatment Program.
Let’s be blunt: the Democratic Party — through our state reps, our senators, our Treasurer, and our Governor — want to create addictions dramatically to raise revenues. That violates our most basic principle of defending the vulnerable.
The pro-gambling faction in the Party has argued that this is OK because 1) gambling is “already taking place,” 2) it is primarily question of individual choice, or 3) we will simply recapture lost revenues. All of these arguments are either misleading or false. I would welcome a debate on this page.
First, though gambling is taking place in other states and the lottery, this would be a massive expansion of the most addictive form which would put as many as 5% of the Massachusetts population at risk of new compulsive behaviors. That’s as many as 300,000 people – if not you, then potentially your parents, your neighbors, and your kids. In any case, the argument that “two wrongs DO make a right” — i.e. that if something bad is happening somewhere else we might as well encourage more of it here — is morally and politically confused.
Second, if the the neurological studies don’t convince you that there is a problem, maybe the terms that slot machine manufacturers and casino use will give you some insight. They both work tirelessly to increase a person’s “time on device” in order to get a person to “play to extinction” (i.e. exhaust their bank accounts). Some otherwise healthy adults wear adult diapers so they don’t have to leave a “hot” machine.
Third, we would be naive to think that any state will simply relinquish their gambling revenues to us. Instead, they will work to drive down costs (i.e. wages) and increase the allure of coming to Connecticut, Rhode Island, and perhaps New Hampshire and of course Maine. Thus we will have unleashed a self-defeating arms race to the bottom.
Finally, the most dishonest argument, designed to crush the spirit of people who are inclined to object, is that the advance of predatory gambling is inexorable and “inevitable.”
They said this because it was “inevitable” that there would be an Indian casino in Middleboro – until that inevitability was crushed last month by the Supreme Court. They said it was inevitable that three casinos would come to state – cities should get in line to compete for where they will be! — until that idea was crushed in the legislature. Now they are trying this out again. Our Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is supposedly the most responsible financial person in the state, is saying that video lottery terminals (VLTs.) and slot machines are “inevitable”in Massachusetts. Maybe he believes this because of the views of Speaker DeLeo, who thinks that he can revive and support the collapsing tracks around the state by putting in machines that — without the need of workers — will be happy to withdraw money from your account as fast as you can push a button.
“Resistance is futile,” says the Slot Borg “Just give up.” That’s really their best argument.
In fact, there is nothing inevitable about it, unless we have abandoned the concept of democracy and the principles of the party. It’s time to speak up against the Borg at the Party Platform hearing.People are raising their voices against this bad idea around the state.
At the Cambridge Somerville Platform Hearing – they took a spontaneous straw poll after three of us spoke and it was 100% opposed to slot machines and casinos as a revenue source. In North Andover the anti-slots view also won. The progressive base that elected Deval Patrick is deeply uncomfortable with his advocacy of this measure. The people who have seen lives wrecked by gambling are equally so. The people who know that many of our economic woes were caused by the same “casino capitalism” on Wall Street know that this is an unwise move.
In fact, guess where you can find page after page of financial advice about how to work hard and save your money — advice written for children, teens, and citizens who are bewildered by the complexities of finance? On the Treasurer’s own web page on Financial Education. He is advising some of us to watch our expenses and to save for the future.. But those who fall prey to the impulse of dopamine spurred by dazzling lights from 10,000 reverse ATMs? Those people he is willing to throw under the bus.
To go back to my request: I would ask people who oppose this to review this list of platform and party events and to go speak against this bad idea.
List of State Platform Hearings and Events:
Anyone who goes and makes a passionate speech about predatory gambling — about the addictive product of slot machines — is likely to win votes. As long as the issue is stripped to its essence — that we, as a matter of party policy and state policy, are deliberately going to create addicts in order to fund a budget deficit, it is unanswerable.
As Les Bernal, one of our great national leaders against predatory gambling has said: in the Great Depression, when we were also desperate for revenues for social programs, Franklin Roosevelt could have turned to slot machines – but he didn’t.
We say that as a party we stand for his values, within his tradition.
Let’s prove it.
ryepower12 says
Thank you! I’m so glad you’re writing at BMG now. We truly need to unite as a grassroots and community-driven party behind ideas that make good sense — and against this harebrained idea that would hurt hundreds of thousands of people in this state.
<
p> Senator Tucker made an eloquent point at last year’s slot hearing. It was one of the most passionate, moving speeches I’ve ever seen given at a hearing of any kind before. Senator Tucker said that there are four basic tests that we need to consider before passing any sort of tax. Slot machines fail all four:
<
p>1. They’re volatile. You never know what you’ll get in a year, which means your budget is at the constant mercy of the casino lobby.
2. They’re unfair. They prey on those who can least afford to pay it.
3. They’re expensive to collect. We’d need to build a whole new bureaucratic gambling authority to oversee this mammoth new project. Folks, if you like the Turnpike Authority, you’ll love the Gambling one. (Not to mention the huge cost and toll this will take on services within the state, from police to addiction counseling.)
4. It doesn’t create new revenue. A slot parlor or casino is largely just a redistribution of the local economy. It’s money going from local businesses to the Casino Borg. Instead of having local money have a ripple effect, it becomes money your local community will never see again. This isn’t just a tax on users, but on the very local businesses that are the foundation of our cities and towns.
<
p>We need to seek stable streams of revenue that are efficient and fair to collect, that don’t leech off of other industries that we tax within this state. There are mature and responsible ways of doing that — but slot machines aren’t one of them.
aneltama says
There is an amazing video which talks about this problem.
leo says
Thanks for the great post, Bob.
<
p>Les Bernal is doing great work nationally to fight against government-promoted predatory gambling.
<
p>Check out Les’s website: StopPredatoryGambling.org
<
p>Les spent eight years as chief of staff for State Senator Sue Tucker (D-Merrimack Valley).
<
p>Tucker and Bernal became leading opponents of allowing slot machines into Massachusetts the more they learned about the predatory nature of that industry.
<
p>Les left the State House about a year-and-a-half ago to take the fight nationally.
<
p>I agree with Les that this is a “sleeper issue,” but a natural issue nonetheless, for progressives nationally.
<
p>For an op-ed I wrote on this issue last spring see:
<
p>”The State and Casinos: Protector or Predator?” Amherst Bulletin, 3/14/08.
<
p>http://amherstbulletin.com/sto…
<
p>–Leo
frankskeffington says
Count me as one of those advocating for a strip down value statement for a platform. The current platform is mush, full of often competing interests that insert the “issue du jour” that is permanently memorialize in the platform. These du jour issues just clutter to essense of Democratic values and symbolizes special interest politics.
ryepower12 says
John Walsh was talking about this at our last town dem meeting. His suggestion for how you can have the best of both worlds was to have, at the head of the document, a one pager that quickly tells ‘this is who we are as a party’ type of value statement. Then, you could have platform issues as detailed as you want beyond that. I thought it was a great idea and fully support it. That way, we get our simple one pager so we can use the document to give to our friends or on the streets to show people what the democratic party is about… and we can keep our democratic politicians’ feet to the fire by keeping issues in the platform so if they avoid them, they know they’re going against the will of our party.
frankskeffington says
…with a laundry list of all these issues (some of whcih contradict others), we’re then going to “keep our democratic politicians’ feet to the fire”? Basically a 20 page litmus test of issues. Like I said, I’m no big fan of gambling for a variety of reasons…but I don’t think it is a core Democratic value that Democrats should be held accountable to. Nope.
ryepower12 says
and maybe it only keeps their feet to a hot plate, rather than a fire. Nevertheless, it is something to throw at people when they go against the will of the democratic party. We don’t have that much to go with, this is one of the best things we’ve got.
<
p>If you don’t want gambling in particular on there, you can voice that opinion. That’s your right. It’s my right to think this is one of the most important issues facing this state and is something worthy of taking 30-40 words out of over a thousand on our party’s platform.
<
p>”Massachusetts Democrats do not support the expansion of gambling to slot machines. It is predatory gambling that would turn over 5% of this state’s population into problem gamblers. It’s also a severe drain on the local economy.” That’s a platform message I can get behind.
theloquaciousliberal says
To me, this issue goes to the core of Democratic party philosophy in Massachusetts and throughout the country.
<
p>If anything, my Party should continue to be centered around the idea that progressive taxes should be use to redistribute wealth to pay for the social safety net and other government needed to benefit the entire society.
<
p>Proposing, encouraging and supporting gambling as a revenue source violates this core principle. It authorizes what is essentially a large regressive tax without any of the side benefits of most other regressive taxes.
<
p>”Sin” taxes (including the gas tax) usually rightly aim to reduce “bad” behavior that harms the society at large (I say that as a smoker and a drinker). The sales tax at least reduces usually unnecessary consumption while exempting necessities like wood, water, utilities, clothing, medicine, educational and religious publications, anything needed to farm, green energy purchases and, of all things, purchase of the American Flag. (I say that as a new car buyer burdened with excessive fees/taxes). The property tax is not nearly as regressive as the senior lobby would have one believe, includes many reasonable exceptions, is a stable source of income for municipalities, and falls disproportionately on corporations and wealthier individuals.
<
p>I’d still prefer a higher income tax instead but can live with these other taxes. A tax on gambling (primarily since it is passed on the gambler in such a creative, obscure and nearly undetectable way) will not serve to deter much gambling at all and will be strongly regressive.
<
p>The state Democratic Party must oppose casinos/slots as both a foolish regressive tax and as an activity that ought not to be encouraged. Instead, government’s role should be to discourage gambling as a great harm to the individual gambler and to society at-large. (Yes, this means I oppose the state-run lottery too.)
frankskeffington says
Aside from the long list of “do’s and don’ts” the platform ahs become…many want to use the platform to JUDGE whether someone is a Dem or not.
<
p>While I agree with your reasons to be opposed to gambling, I also think there is a compelling arguement not to criminalize certain levels of gambling. If a person likes to dream about winning the lottery (legal or illegal) or get enjoyment from slots, we are we–the people–to limit that? Again, I agree with your points, but the other side as compelling arguements and I could agree to disagree with a fellow democrat who feels that way. I just think it’s wrong to suggest they are not true Democrats becuase of their position on this issue. As you point out, there are lots of regressive taxes, if you support a gas tax increase, some may argue that your voilating the Democratic values and you’re not a true Dem.
christopher says
I was really trying to resist the temptation to post on this because it would just rehash the same arguments. My opinion on this has not changed, but I can’t get over the hysteria some people seem to have about gambling. The history of my comments might suggest that I am very pro-gambling, but I’m not really. If we end up not having them that’s fine, but for me this is basically a leave-our-options-open argument. Just to review my arguments can be summarized thus:
<
p>Gambling should not be relied on to close budget gaps, though anything we do get out of it can’t hurt.
<
p>If the alternative is people crossing state lines for the purpose of gambling, let’s try to keep that here.
<
p>Nobody is forced to gamble; it only preys on you if you let it.
<
p>Any arguments made regarding addiction can also be made about alcohol. There are problem drinkers and problem gamblers; there are also plenty who engage responsibly in those activities.
<
p>If we end up having casinos we need to heavily regulate the industry and educate the public about the risks; this to me is much preferable to eliminating the option entirely.
<
p>It seems to me that if casinos were as bad as some make them out to be nobody would have them. I don’t think the sky has fallen in CT, NJ, or NV over this any more than it has in MA due to marriage equality.
ryepower12 says
please refer to my argument:
<
p>
<
p>Why do we want to leave bad options on the table? They make the table too cluttered so there’s a lot less room for the good ideas, making them hard to find, and tempting too many people to keep focused on the bad bad ones. There’s a general rule about house cleaning — and I think it should apply to slot machines on the state house discussion table. If you don’t use them in 6 months, throw it away. We don’t need slot machines and they fail all the measures of good policy in taxation.
<
p>
<
p>Tell that to the families who have had their lives ruined by problem gamblers, or from losing their family business after casinos move in. Atlantic City’s lost at least 150 restaurants, bars and clubs since casinos have moved in — going from over 200 to under 60. Detroit’s lost 20% of their entire business community since they allowed casinos. The same thing’s happened in Connecticut and anywhere else casinos have moved in. Moreover, 1 in 20 people will become addicted to slot machines if we legalize them in Massachusetts. You can chalk that up to that being their fault, even though psychiatrists and addiction specialists would probably disagree with you, but the fact remains that these are the statistics and these are the lives that you’ll destroy — that’s not just 1 in 20 people, but 1 in 20 families (so more like 1 in 5 people).
<
p>You may want that in this state, but that’s exactly like wanting a bad, incurable virus because it’ll allow us to hire more nurses and doctors and generate all sorts of new revenue. Let’s all pass around those dirty needles!
dhammer says
I’d be sympathetic at all if the folks crying over this were putting as much effort to get the state out of the lottery business.
<
p>We have KENO and we have the lottery, which is the worst type of gambling because it localizes it in poor neighborhoods. I agree with almost all the posts about the hazards of gambling, but if we’re talking about not expanding gambling because of it’s negative health effects, we should be talking about eliminating these negative health effects altogether.
<
p>The original post completely brushes aside any concerns about the lottery, the only thing even mentioned is:
<
p>
<
p>The lottery and KENO have the lowest barriers to entry because they’re available in EVERY neighborhood. Far more than 5% of the population is exposed and it’s likely that those who use the lottery and KENO lose a greater portion of their income than folks who can afford to drive to a slots parlor.
<
p>I’m also turned off by this term “predatory gambling” which implies that there are two types of gambling, those that are predatory (the evil kind that increase traffic on my street) and the non-predatory kind (which just effects poor people who mostly stay in their own neighborhoods, so I don’t see it) It may be that there’s real concern about the ill health effects of gambling here, but this post screams NIMBY.
dan-bosley says
I agree and have said since 1997 that we need to draw a box around the lottery, take it for what it is today and not expect more, and not try to expand it.
<
p>Unfortunately, the lottery is a cautionary tale about what happens when you look to gambling to achieve more revenue.
<
p>We started out with that one little green ticket in the mud-seventies and that was going to fund our education system going forward. It didn’t and the response to the lotteries failure to achieve its funding goals was to expand it. Imagine that!
<
p>So we expanded the lottery to include ( not in this order) a Sunday daily drawing, a megabucks weekly drawing, a second weekly drawing called mass millions, a third weekly drawing called mass cash, then expanded the weekly drawing to twice a week on all tickets, and added The Big Game, a multi-state drawing. We also instituted Keno with limited hours and limited licenses. We then expanded hours and licenses and then shortened the interim between games from five to four minutes. and of course we have up to 35 different scratch tickets out at any one time.
<
p>Unfortunately the cities and towns have become so hooked on the revenues that it is impossible to take this away. In fact, when lottery revenues are down (because on rare occasions the house doesn’t win as much as projected) cities and towns have demanded that the state make up this one form of discretionary revenue they have. That’s what makes it so impossible to take away lottery, but it should give us pause in expanding gambling.
<
p>All the things that happened in our lottery history have also happened and then some in states where expanded gambling has happened. The games expand, revenues are not what they were told they would be, and states get hooked on one monolithic revenue source rather than diversifying their economies as any reputable economist will tell you is good practice.
<
p>One final difference between lottery and slots. We make a lot more money that goes back to cities and towns from the lottery than from slots. if we were to institute slots in Massachusetts, we would have to gamble up to 6 times more money gross, just to make up for whatever losses the lottery suffers. that is billions more that has to be lost from Massachusetts residents just to run in place with existing revenues from the lottery. If for no other reason (and there are many) we should reject slots as bad public policy.
leo says
Well said, Dan. The lottery is a cautionary tale.
<
p>–Leo
ryepower12 says
the rate of problem gamblers doubles within 50 miles of a slot parlor or casino, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It’s easy to see why people like Leo emphasize the fact that these machines are especially predatory in nature. Jumping onto the state lottery wagon would only serve to confuse the issue and divide the opposition. Right now, the issue is slot machines. If they’re defeated once and for all, I’d entertain another issue, but not until then. Given the effects of casinos on local populations and businesses, far and beyond worse in so many ways than scratch tickets and keno, there is nothing NIMBY about this topic. I don’t want casinos near my neck of the woods — and I don’t want them near your’s, either.
<
p>3 slot parlors or casinos spread across the Commonwealth would like like this:
<
p>
<
p>The circles represent the 50 miles in which the gambling addiction rate doubles. There’s nothing NIMBY about that.
dhammer says
To say that the anti casino folks aren’t playing on people’s fears of a casino opening in ‘your’ backyard is ridiculous. The first point on the Casino Free Mass Facts page:
<
p>
<
p>I’m opposed to casinos, so if this works, fine, but let’s not pretend that it’s not there.
<
p>Dan Bosley’s post is dead on, Lotteries are bad, let’s not repeat the same mistake, because it’s really hard to undo gambling once it’s out of the box. Where I get fed up is brushing aside any problems with lotteries in your post.
<
p>
How do you back this up? A 1999 Duke University report on state lotteries found that
<
p>Spending for African American lottery players was $998 in 1999, that’s a $1,000 tax bill. For High School drop outs, per player spending was $700, for those making less than $10,000 a year it was $597, that’s a 6% tax bill. To me, that sounds pretty bad. Could easy access to slot parlors (which can mirror KENO in distribution) be worse, maybe. Would resort casinos with $1 and up slots and $10 minimum table games be worse? No, because poor people don’t have access to cars, or the money to engage with a resort casino – they target the middle class and up, which is why the issue of slot parlors and casinos are very different. The map you link to by the way is about casinos, not slot parlors…
<
p>Go into a grocery store in a poor neighborhood and look how close the bottle redemption machines are to the lottery machines and tell me that slots are “far and beyond worse than scratch tickets,” go into a bar today at 3pm and watch an old drunk throw money at the KENO machine every four minutes – at least a slots parlor someone else pays for his drink. I’ll take that we can’t win if we take on the lottery, but it’s a moral compromise, and I’m not willing to pretend it isn’t.
<
p>
christopher says
…and I have a lot of reasons to like her, but I strongly disagree with her position on this issue. As to your points:
<
p>Volatility – like I said, I’m not interested in relying on it for revenue; that’s what taxes are for. If it’s not for revenue and just there for private business than the point is moot.
<
p>Prey – the worst argument from the anti-gambling side; NOBODY IS FORCED TO GAMBLE! If your concern is exploiting dreams of getting rich quick, then see my comments about educating the public and regulating the industry.
<
p>Collection – this argument is worth considering; if it doesn’t at least pay for itself it’s not worth it. If we allow privately owned facilities that are not for state revenue the point is moot.
<
p>New revenue – depends on the purpose of spending; if the alternative is spending in local businesses your correct, but if the alternative is driving to CT because the person is looking for opportunities to gamble, then I’m correct. Both scenarios seem plausible to me.
<
p>”Falling Sky” – again you can make the same arguments about the effects of drinking on families and the effects of bars on neighborhoods.
<
p>Finally, I would suggest we’re actually having two debates here. If the goal of the discussion is to determine how to raise revenue for the state then I do prefer taxation. My premise has always been more of let the people vote with their dollars (and not come crying to me when they lose).
frederick-clarkson says
but there is plenty of reputable research, as well as the common sense that comes from wide experience, that slots are addictive, and like other addiction inducing businesses, what seems innocuous at first, ain’t. And this is by design.
<
p>No one is “forced” to become a nicotine or a heroine addict either, but as a society we do not deny that there are issues beyond mere individual choice and that as a society we have a responsibility to address them.
<
p>
christopher says
Nicotine, heroin, etc. start acting on your body immediately. An activity such as gambling must become a habit before it takes on the properties of an addiction.
ryepower12 says
Honestly, Christopher, there are real-life experts that will say otherwise. You remind me of someone who doesn’t think alcoholism is a disease. It is. And so is addiction to gambling, an addiction which destroys not only the lives of the users, but the lives of those around them.
christopher says
You have this way of putting words in my mouth. I am not denying that there is potential for addiction and the alcoholism-as-disease analogy is particularly ironic given that I’ve been the one making the comparison to responsibly engaging in either activity. Doing something once or occasionally (with the possible exception of the hardest of drugs) does not an addiction make. Honestly, are there really examples of anyone becoming an addict after just one trip to the casino? We’re talking past each other again (as we seem to on marriage equality and our recent discussion of DC statehood). I am not saying gambling addiction does not exist at all, but I am saying there are plenty who are not addicts, just as there are plenty of drinkers who are not alcoholics. If you are really that risk averse you should be advocating a return to Prohibition as well.
ryepower12 says
<
p>You’re qualified to make that assumption, because?
<
p>I promise you there are well-qualified addiction specialists who will say these addictions can happen very, very quickly.
<
p>I am not putting words into your mouth. I am asking you to stop making assumptions that you are not qualified to make. There are absolutely people who are addicted very quickly, allured with little reason to know just how addictive something truly can be. Everyone’s brains and bodies work differently. Please stop assuming that just because you wouldn’t be addicted doing something just a few times and in moderation, that other people won’t be.
<
p>
<
p>Can you stop with the straw men? No? Okay, well, the fact of the matter is that booze and slots are not a valid comparison. Just like there are many kinds of booze, there are many kinds of gambling. Slots are the most addictive, dangerous kind. We ban the most dangerous of pretty much anything, including certain types of drinks, because they can lead to all sorts of bad things. Just because one of something is legal, doesn’t mean its vastly more dangerous distant cousin should be legalized too. No one here would suggest we legalize cock fight betting… or would you?
christopher says
I knew I’d be sorry re-engaging. The words in my mouth reference was about your reacting as if I’ve denied addiction exists when I have said every way I know how that I do NOT deny it. You make vague reference to specialists who say SOME people can get addicted quickly so let’s see it. Who are they? What do they say? What are their stats? I’m sorry, but I simply cannot fathom plugging a machine with quarters being addictive in one sitting, especially when you lose most of the time. Do you know someone with this problem, because it’s the only justification I can think of for being so adamant about this? People I know who do this take maybe a couple of trips to CT a year for entertainment and that’s it. I guess it comes down to which side of caution we err on. You say as along as there are people who can’t handle this we should ban it; I say as along as there are people who can we should allow it. Obviously, there are both kinds of people.
christopher says
Those that do get addicted get addicted on the stuff that IS legal.
leo says
I’ve smoked a couple of cigars and cigs over the years. My smoking was extremely occasional and did not become a habit. And I didn’t become a nicotine addict. So what?
<
p>This fact does not make nicotine addiction any less real for people who are nicotine addicts.
<
p>–Leo
christopher says
I’m actually more concerned about nicotene overall, but you showed you could do it occasionally without it becoming a habit, let alone an addiction. I have been saying that gambling does not automatically become an addiction.
ryepower12 says
I point to my mother as an example. She quit smoking for over 5 years in her early twenties after doing it since her mid teens. One day, after having a particularly bad day, a friend offered her a smoke. It was just one cigarette. She was addicted for five more years after that before she was able to quit for the second and hopefully final time. She’s been free from smoking for about 3 decades now, but rest assured, if she even had one cigarette, she’d probably be smoking a pack a day all over again.
<
p>This is why assumptions are a bad thing — and why you shouldn’t be saying people won’t become addicted to something with early use. An addiction always starts somewhere.
<
p>You are casting these people off, blaming them for their addictions and deciding they no longer matter. You are saying its okay to feed their addictions as state policy. Stop casting these people off. They have little control over themselves — that’s why they call it an addiction.
<
p>This won’t raise us much revenue when all is said and done — even you seem to admit that. We’ll just lose local businesses, state lottery funds and be forced to increase services. Why race to the bottom and worsen the problems this state already has? I support policy that improves our state and the people who live in it. I wish you would too.
christopher says
The comment above indicated he never became addicted, whereas your mother was. Kicking a habit is laudable, but they need to be extra careful. She didn’t so much become addicted again as a pre-existing addiction kicked in. That is why we refer to recovering alcoholics or recovering addicts, but never former alcoholics or former addicts. I would indeed apply the same idea to gambling. A recovering gambling addict shouldn’t go anywhere near a casino, just as a recovering alcoholic best not step foot in a bar.
ryepower12 says
<
p>You do realize that if 3 casinos or parlors are legalized in Massachusetts, that puts every addict in this state, currently reformed or otherwise, within a 50 mile radius of slots? Right? Not exactly a good policy decision, if that’s your recommendation for recovering gambling addicts.
<
p>Plus, my above anecdote aside, there are those who are addicted quickly. If your argument is essentially that we should allow casinos (and for addicts to become worse) because it’s their own damn fault, it’s not a very good one.
frederick-clarkson says
but there is plenty of reputable research, as well as the common sense that comes from wide experience, that slots are addictive, and like other addiction inducing businesses, what seems innocuous at first, ain’t. And this is by design.
<
p>No one is “forced” to become a nicotine or a heroine addict either, but as a society we do not deny that there are issues beyond mere individual choice and that as a society we have a responsibility to address them.
<
p>
leo says
Not an apocalypse, but a few things to consider:
<
p>Across the country, counties with just one gambling site have 18 percent more bankruptcies than those who did not. A survey taken not too long ago of 105 bankruptcy filers in Minneapolis found that 52 percent had gambling losses. The average gambling loss was $22,000.
<
p>Several economists have attempted to estimate the economic costs to other – family members, business, and government – of a single problem gambler. Take into account unpaid debts, lost economic efficiency, rising crime (such as embezzlement or writing bad checks to cover gambling losses), and increased court costs, and the estimates range between $10,000 and $40,000 per gambler.
<
p>But people are more than the sum of their economic activity. Every additional problem gambler creates a web of loss, anger and despair that impacts on family and friends. Consider the devastation caused by a single suicide. Then consider that Gulfport, Miss., saw a 213 percent increase in suicides (from 24 to 75) in the first two years after casinos opened in the city. Such numbers are replicated elsewhere.
<
p>As legislators decide how they will vote on slots (whether they are to be located in “parlors”–now there’s a euphemism for you–or “destination resort” casinos), they should ask a simple question: Should government be a protector? Or should government be a predator?
<
p>–Leo
bmass says
I’d like to respond to a couple of comments here –
<
p>1) “If the alternative is people crossing state lines for the purpose of gambling, let’s try to keep that here.”
<
p>Sorry, this doesn’t work. As any economist will tell you, if you make something easier to do more people will do it. In fact, this is the exact argument made by the Treasurer. He wants to make it more “convenient” for people. The studies show that compulsive gambling increases dramatically within a 50 miles radius of its source. Distance thus matters. Think of it this way: if you were a lobster, would you be more likely to get caught in a trap that is 50 miles a way or one that has been planted right in front of you? Slots are lobster traps for the human brain.
<
p>2) “Nobody is forced to gamble; it only preys on you if you let it.”
<
p>This should be a relief to all the people who work on any form of addiction or substance abuse: 40 years of medical science can be disregarded and we can return to telling people that if they are addicted to heroin it is their “choice.” No, it is clear from the science at Mass General and from around the country that “predatory gambling” is precisely that: it preys on people in order to get them hooked.
<
p>3) “Any arguments made regarding addiction can also be made about alcohol. There are problem drinkers and problem gamblers; there are also plenty who engage responsibly in those activities.”
<
p>This is true, BUT we don’t see the government ENCOURAGING more drinking in order to GENERATE more revenues. We could increase the revenue from alcohol if we allowed it to be sold in high schools. And what about that pesky restriction on TV advertising for cigarettes. It used to be legal to advertise the Marlboro man on TV, then people realized that nicotine was dangerous, and so they barred it from TV.
<
p>And by the way, why is that no one promoting this industry uses the product? The slot parlor owners, the elected officials, all think this is a problem that will hit other people, people they don’t know — in other words “losers” who don’t vote — so it is okay to rip them off.
<
p>4) “If we end up having casinos we need to heavily regulate the industry and educate the public about the risks; this to me is much preferable to eliminating the option entirely.”
<
p>Whoa, wait a minute. This point doesn’t fit with points 1) and 2). The really interesting question is whether you hold this view also for the market for “cocaine and hookers”, as Jon Stewart put it when Jim Cramer tried to justify his show on the grounds that “there is a market for it.”
<
p>5) “It seems to me that if casinos were as bad as some make them out to be nobody would have them. I don’t think the sky has fallen in CT, NJ, or NV over this any more than it has in MA due to marriage equality.”
<
p>Well, obviously, you haven’t looked at the collapsing casino economies in the states you mention. But more important is the underlying threat to democracy. It’s not just users who become addicted, it’s also governments. Slot machines are like termites that eat away at the foundation of a house. How much harm can one bug do? Not much, unlike the house collapses. The governor’s own report says that gambling is an IRREVOCABLE step; that’s why it should be discussed in the platform debate. And then stopped.
dan-bosley says
What two things do Ct, NY, RI, Pa, and NJ have in common. Well, all have far more gambling than does Massachusetts and they all have higher sales, income and property taxes than has Massachusetts.
<
p>I grew up spending a lot of time in Connecticut and as a young businessman (a long time ago!) I used to call on many of the businesses in ct. The diversity of their economy was very good. They had the life insurance companies in and around Hartford. they had locally grown firms like Waterbury Buckle. And they had multinational firms such as United Technologies, Bell and Sikorsky Helicopter, General Technologies (GTE), Sylvania, etc. etc. Today they are known for gambling and the state is trying to keep more gambling out. I would argue that gambling has not been the panacea that many think it is.
kpmarcimo says
The challenge is to see this issue beyond the tax revenue bait. The revenue can not be the sole measure- you have to look at the OVERALL impact; revenue verses costs- what is the bottom line?
<
p>Casinos do not bring an economic multiplier effect to an area: Cities like Atlantic City and Detroit and states such as Louisiana and Mississippi continue to languish despite their heavy concentration of casinos. Casinos lower a region’s standard of living by attracting many low-wage casino jobs and merely act as a jobs transfer, not a jobs creator. Local businesses and cultural institutions will lose demand in transference of disposable income expenditures.
<
p>In the Casino game there are only winners and losers, for a State to receive $400 million in tax revenue as a winner, $21 billion dollars would have to come from players, the losers. That $21 billion is money that will be taken out of the local economy and sent out of state to casino developers and foreign investors.
<
p>The overall impact to the Commonwealth would not be positive. Turning to a revenue stream from gambling to fund our government(our COMMONWEALTH) is about as smart as a homeowner turning to the slot machine to pay the mortgage.
leo says
Casinos are a drain on the economy as Kelly Marcimo and Dan Bosley point out.
<
p>Individuals and families have only so much money available for discretionary spending. Money lost playing slot machines has what economists call a very low multiplier. In other words, it does not re-circulate through the economy to the extent that money spent on other goods and services does.
<
p>Money spent in casinos is diverted from other areas of the economy. Area businesses suffer. Looking at data from the state of Illinois, Earl Grinols, author of the most comprehensive book-length study of the economic benefits and costs of casino gambling, found that for every $1,000 in casino revenue, businesses within 10 miles of a casino saw a decline of $367 in merchandise sales. Commercial casinos actually generated net job losses in 42 percent of counties where they were introduced. A study in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that the states “should not expect any long-term growth effects from legalizing casino gambling.”
<
p>Independently owned restaurants are especially hard hit. Drawing on amble data from regions around the country that have introduced casino gambling, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association estimated last year that casinos would force the closure of about 200 restaurants in the state.
<
p>–Leo
lasthorseman says
The push for society destroying stuff is assigned a very high priority by the Bilderburg Group.
leo says
Yeah, rrrrrright.
<
p>From wikipedia:
<
p>The [Bilderburg Group] is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots by groups such as the John Birch Society. This thinking has progressively found acceptance within both elements of the populist movement and fringe politics. . . .
<
p>According to investigative journalist Chip Berlet, the origins of Bilderberger conspiracy theories can be traced to activist Phylis Shafly.
<
p>In his 1994 report Right Woos Left, published by Political Research Associates, he writes:
<
p>”The views on intractable godless communism expressed by Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly’s A Choice, Not an Echo which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.”
<
p>–Leo