Anonymous Casino poll

50% against legalization in any capacity.
50% OK with legalization in varying degrees.

it’s still at 50/50.

<

p>  

with 39 votes,

<

p>56% against legalization,

<

p>44% in favor of legalization in varying degrees

against legalizing in any capacity 55%
in favor of legalizing in some capacity 43%

Great response though, and thanks to all who voted.  It’s hard to have a clear understanding of the sentiment here regarding the casinos, because only a few people will actually comment about it when it’s being discussed.

<

p>The tally so far with 47 votes,

<

p>Against legalizing casinos in any capacity  53%

<

p>In favor of legalizing casinos in varying capacities 45%

<

p>Interesting results.  

Reason enough for me. We have no more disposable income. Food and clothing and living expenses before gambling. We’re just not stupid enough to think we can double our money by gambling.

with 55 votes the results are:

<

p>56 % against in any capacity

<

p>42% in favor in varying capacities.

is a trite argument that has been used by every gambling interest in every state that promotes expanded gambling.

<

p>Have you ever sat on the bridges leading to Cape Cod and counted out of state license plates?

<

p>That might be a good survey for Claude Barrow to undertake.

<

p>Have you wandered around Boston and asked the tourists walking the Freedom Trail where they’re from?

<

p>I’ve taken the commuter rail to Boston and encountered ‘tourists’ who are staying at our KOA, traveling to Boston to sightsee and spending their money.

<

p>An awful lot of them are coming from CT and RI and NY, spending their money on motels, meals, shopping, sightseeing, Duck Tours, Beantown Trolley and some good family vacations. They visit Plimouth Plantation, the Aquarium, Faneuil Hall, take Harbor Cruises

<

p>Massachusetts gets far more than its share of tourist dollars in sustainable jobs that contribute to the local economy and small businesses.

<

p>What’s to visit in CT?

<

p>Check out some of the casino campaigns that have been conducted. Maine promoted money from Canada and VT and the referendum went down to defeat.

<

p>Some states simply don’t want the crime or the change in their “character” that predatory gambling brings.

<

p>And just maybe, some states have figured out the expenses that are involved that Beacon Hill disregards because they’re blinded by the promise of casino gold.

<

p>http://64.38.12.138/IndianGaming/

<

p>Louisiana has a slot machine on every corner and has a rate of 7% problem gamblers.

<

p>Iowa had a 1.7% problem gambling rate and 3 1/2 years after predatory gambling, had a 5.4% rate, that’s surely higher now.

<

p>Proximity to casinos increases problem gambling — impartial studies indicate.

<

p>Two of the speakers at Senator Spilka’s Casino Love Fest stressed that the state would move from being casino regulators to being casino promoters. The state WILL become a stakeholder because of the nature of the credit markets, just as Rhode Island has become a stakeholder in Twin River and addicted to gambling revenues.

<

p>Before we make a simplistic argument about revenues leaving the state or the phony “inevitability” argument, serious consideration needs to be given to the expenses that proponents are ignoring.

<

p>I posted AG Martha Coakley’s comments that are worth reading —
http://middlebororeview.blogsp…