During his Herald interview, Baker also:
• Opposed Patrick’s plan to legalize three resort casinos in Massachusetts, saying the resorts would “cannibalize each other.” Baker said he is open to some sort of expanded gaming, however.
“Some sort of expanded gaming” still needs clarification, but almost certainly, it means legalizing slot machines in Massachusetts — that’s really the only thing worth talking about. Baker’s argument against Governor Patrick’s ill-fated three-casino bill is a purely pragmatic one (it sounds like he thinks three is too many for the MA gambling market to handle at once), not a principled stand against gambling as bad for the economy or bad for society.
Which means that there’s likely to be very little daylight between the various candidates’ positions on gambling. If I had to guess, I’d say that Patrick is not going to re-up his three-casino bill. He’ll propose one resort casino as part of a deal with SenPrez Murray and Speaker DeLeo, who want slots elsewhere (especially at DeLeo’s racetracks). Ka-ching. Cahill, as we know, wants to build “quickly erected, warehouse-like structures” to house slot machines, and Mihos favors slots at the racetracks, as well as sports wagering.
So to any anti-gambling lefties who were toying with ditching the Dems in 2010 for a socially liberal Republican, in the hopes that Baker might keep slots out of Massachusetts: never mind. I think Baker had an opportunity to out-flank Patrick on the left and pick up some anti-gambling Democrats, but apparently he has chosen not to go that route. And, with no one in the race taking a big anti-gambling stand, it doesn’t look to me like it’ll be much of an issue in 2010. If I were a Patrick strategist, I’d breathe a little sigh of relief.
a sizeable portion of Republican votes in the primary had he been against expanded gaming. While it doesn’t come close to my stance of a “slot machine on every corner and a blackjack table in every bar” it’s a start. For the same reasons the government should not criminalize pot it should not criminalize gambling.
There is a world of difference between not criminalizing pot and opening state-sponsored pot stores as a revenue generator.
<
p>I tend towards a libertarian approach towards “vices”. My general view is that I should be allowed to do anything I want to do. In my view, criminalization should be reserved for behavior that has a clear and commonly-agreed on harm to the community.
<
p>Here are some behaviors I think should be decriminalized for every consenting adult:
<
p>- Having sex with whomever I please, specifically including sex in exchange for “consideration” (money, power, prestige, or a new car).
<
p>- Becoming intoxicated with whatever substance I choose (alcohol, pot, cocaine, whatever).
<
p>- Playing whatever game I choose to play, specifically including games that offer consideration as a reward for winning.
<
p>Having said that, I am strongly opposed to state-sponsored examples of any of these as revenue generators. I don’t think the state should be in the sex business, the intoxicant business, or the gambling business.
<
p>
is the difference between pot and cocaine. Pot smokers are a sometimes funny nuisance at their worst. A person with a crack problem, at their worst, is breaking into your house, murdering you, taking your valuables, and raping your daughter on the way out.
<
p>There needs to be a clear line with the drugs. They are not all the same.
Oh wait.
everyyyything
You can’t just say that crack causes problems and pot doesn’t, therefore crack should be illegal but pot should be legal. Pot causes problems. Remote controls cause problems. And there are some crack users who enjoy smoking but don’t rob, rape or murder to feed their habit.
<
p>You’ve got to find another way of drawing the distinction. That’s what I’m saying.
Most casinos are just dressed up slot parlors. A few well placed trees and restaurants disguise these upscale slot parlors.
<
p>Slot machines are not games of chance. They are the product of decades of research on how to lure people in, addict and extract every last cent, if not from you, then from your parents, children, loved ones and neighbors. Slot machines have earned their reputation as the “crack cocaine of gambling.”
<
p>There are proposals for slot parlors without casinos, but not casinos without slot parlors. Games of chance do not separate you from your money with as definite success as slots that are programmed to ensure that it is not a games of chance. If you were betting on a game where the fix was in it would be cheating, a fixed horse race – cheating, investing in a stockmarket that was fixed – cheating. Its not the same as legalizing gaming tables, card games or racing.
<
p>Should the government legalize a crooked game in exchange for a cut of the profits?
Minimum slot payouts are set by law. In Nevada it is 75% (per Wikipedia). Most machines pay more because the payout is posted on the machine and casinos compete for business based on payout. The minimum payout percentage set by law for our glorious state run lottery is 45% and the actual current payout percentage is 69% (per the lottery website). The odds against winning a million dollar Keno drawing are 478 million to 1. That’s a good bet, huh?
You post excellent facts about the Lottery. However, the payout rate is deceiving. While slot machines may offer a higher payout rate, the amount people wager is much, much higher and the games are much, much faster, so in the end you end up losing a lot more money using machines.
<
p>According to a MIT professor in this Washington Post story, electronic gambling machines are the high tech equivalent of loaded dice. As you likely know, using loaded dice in a gambling game is considered cheating.
<
p>Les Bernal
While most people will make more bets per hour at a slot machine than at their local convenience store, I think this is more than offset by the fact that you can’t buy a gallon of milk or a slice of pizza without exposure to the lottery. Adding a couple of resort style casinos to the amount of gambling that is already available to mass residents through lottery, race tracks, online, and illegal bookmakers is like pouring a couple of gallons of water in Boston Harbor, in my opinion.
<
p>And my comment was in response to a question about whether the government should legalize “crooked” games of chance. That is a pretty absurd question to ask when government is currently offering to pay its citizens $1,000,000 if they play a game where they have one chance in 478,000,000 to win.
The Lottery’s business practices are predatory but the marketing behind casinos and slots makes them even more predatory: Phone and email solicitations; Free alcohol; Direct mail offering free slot play; “Hosts” who are in constant contact with heavy gamblers away from the casino; Free meals; ‘Luck Ambassadors’- casino employees who hand out small cash vouchers to gamblers who have been identified by the player tracking system as losing big money in an attempt to uplift their spirits and keep them in front of the gambling machine (This all happens in real time on the casino floor); and Free or reduced lodging.
<
p>As you aptly described, the Lottery has become out-of-control. But I think we can agree their marketing is not as intense as a casino’s.
<
p>Les Bernal
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I look forward to Charlie’s “a legal pot stand on every corner” announcement. đŸ˜€
Candidates need money to run campaigns. They also need volunteers. I expect that either donating, creating fundraisers, or volunteering gains access to candidates.
<
p>The state needs money to run government. With a “no new taxes” pledge Baker needs to ensure that the old taxes raise more money, right?
<
p>Or shall we expect the folks from RAM see my post to provide all of the indigent folks we are creating in droves with medical care???
on the part of Baker. Expanded gaming is significantly less popular among Massachusetts Republicans as it is among Democrats (and independents), but because so few Bay Staters are GOPers, that’s not the vote he has to worry about. Nor would he really gain much from anti-gaming liberals, because it was always a long shot to get many of them to vote for Baker.
<
p>Plus, by leaving open the door for some sort of expanded gambling (like slots), he might still have the possibility of peeling off a union endorsement or two (though Cahill’s presence in the race complicates that possibility).
<
p>In my experience that is not true. Most Republicans I know fully support expanded gaming. Thanks
Then they are not conservatives. Fiscal conservatives such as the Pioneer Institute cite the costs to the taxpayers for expanded gambling.
<
p>My favorite part is seeing Pioneer Institute articulate what the elected Democrats should be saying about expanded gambling.
<
p>Let’s see that key statement again,
<
p>
<
p>If the Legislature performs due diligence (and not just behave as patsy’s to lobbyists and special interests) and did a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis we just might see more people less inclined to support welfare for casino investors.
State sponsored casinos. I wonder how they would feel about open competition without state sponsorship. Given their love of Milton Friedman one would think they would support the decriminalization of gambling. This would allow your local bar to put in legal slot machines and video poker. Hint they already have them just not legally.
Sure thing — one example is in the latest Boston Globe poll that got a lot of attention around here for the Baker/Mihos vs. Patrick matchups, but also had a question about expanded gambling. The results are on page 45 of the full poll results, available here.
<
p>In short, 59% of Democrats (and 55% of independents) “strongly favored” or “somewhat favored” expanded gambling, while only 36% of Democrats (and 24% of independents) either strongly or somewhat opposed it. In comparison, only 49% of Republicans favored (strongly or somewhat) expanded gambling, while 43% opposed. So a plurality of Republicans still favor expanded gambling, but (just barely) not an outright majority.
<
p>The differences between Dems and Repubs are not huge in this poll, but they are statistically significant. This is only one poll, but every single poll that I have seen has had a similar difference between MA Democrats and Republicans (and it is usually a bigger gap).
I come from the libertarian wing of the party mostly. While I’m pro-life, that stems from a libertarian view of murder being unacceptable and my belief of when the life of the child begins. I do understand that social cons especially the Mass Family INstitute are anti-gambling. That’s what was so amusing to me. People like Ryan would have joined a coalition with MFI to oppose expanded gambling. I guess it’s true, politics makes strange bedfellows.
The initial post described opponents of casinos and slots as “anti-gambling.”
<
p>The focus of the debate is not about social gambling like the kitchen table poker game with the guys from the neighborhood or the office Super Bowl pool. The resolution that passed the Democratic State Convention in June was a statement opposing “predatory gambling.”
<
p>Predatory gambling is using gambling to prey on human weakness for profit. According to a recent book by a Wall Street Journal reporter, 90% of casino gambling profits come from 10% of the people who use the product. That means nine out of every ten casino visitors are irrelevant to the business model – a business model that cannot survive without addicted or heavily-indebted citizens. Slot machines are the purest form of predatory gambling (and the State Lottery’s $20 scratch tickets and Keno games are a close second.)
<
p>Because a vote for slot machines and casinos is a vote for predatory gambling, it’s accurate to describe anyone who takes a position opposing this policy as an “opponent of predatory gambling.”
<
p>Les Bernal
Everything, every choice we have about what to do with our life, is gambling. Buying a house, investing, marrying, choosing what to eat for dinner, changing careers, not changing careers, moving to someplace else, staying put, you can’t escape gambling. And so games of chance, like poker games and office pools, are just ways to appreciate our reliance on chance. Monopoly and Bridge do too, but they insulate it, they sort of work against the reality by implying that when the game is over, we are still even. When there is a little real money to lose, it makes it more meaningful, it brings it a little closer to home, more like real life. So we all need to gamble, in order to live. But predatory gambling turns that reality into a milk machine, it attaches to people to milk them, without regard to how gambling can ruin people’s lives, it has no respect for chance, it is callous and capricious.
That is a bit of a lost opportunity. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Deval to retreat into a fuzzy stance along the lines of “now that casinos are tanking, and more data is coming in, we may need to be smarter on this issue.” This hand-waving may quiet some fence-sitters.
Hang libertarian casinos and pot stores around Baker’s neck, while Governor Patrick appeals to responsibility and adulthood.
that comes from government control of your life is neither responsibility nor adulthood. It is a crutch.
When he was asked for his position on the California Lottery in 1984, Ronald Reagan stood up against predatory gambling. He declared: “I prefer to govern Californians based on their strengths, not their weaknesses.”
<
p>The owners and promoters of predatory gambling use the language of “freedom” as a crutch to rationalize it yet they don’t exercise their freedom to use the product or to live near it. At least two of the state’s leading predatory gambling advocates confessed they don’t gamble. The CEO of the nation’s biggest predatory gambling company revealed that he isn’t a gambler and has never been a gambler. The head of the casino trade’s national lobbying association let slip that he would fight against a casino where he lived.
<
p>Predatory gambling is a “something for nothing” scheme. Bernie Madoff must be sitting in his North Carolina jail cell saying to himself that he went into the wrong business.
<
p>Les Bernal
Here we go again. A bunch of unrealistic, moral superiors trying to force their rigid views on the entire state population. Oh yeah, right. Instead of casinos, let’s get “real” economic development. Problem is, folks, we hear a lot of blather from the frauds like DiMasi and Bosley about creating a more competitive economy, but all that DiMasi and Bosley did when they were in control of the House’s economic policy was to pass these ridiculous tax giveaways and concessions to big busines — all under the guise of creating “real” economic development. Just because frauds like DiMasi and Bosley “say” that their liberal Dems doesn’t mean that they are liberal Dems. In fact, their enablers on this website ought to recognize that they’re no different than the wacko right-wing evangelical nutcakes on the Republican Right who mouth the same vitriol while claiming to be arch-conservatives. They, too, conveniently ignore the inconsistencies and fraud emblematic of their political icons because they all wear the same political stripe. The fact is, there’s a lot of liberal Dems who believe that resort casinos — not slot parlors — are a perfectly legitimate economic development initiative. Pull your head out of the sand and stop the lockstep rigidity of the Republican Right that you’re copying. Think for yourself and not because you believe it is politically correct. I’m tired of all these armchair Dems I meet who couldn’t organize a caucus if their life depended on it, but they consider themselves politically savvy. Well, politically savvy Dems understand that compromise is how we pass significant legislation in this nation.
No, I did not. I said this:
<
p>
<
p>Some. Stop putting words in people’s mouths, and maybe they’ll listen to your views. ‘Til then, buh-bye.
Thanks, but give me smart, forward thinking and morally savvy any day of the week. Casinos impose a real hardship on the communities that host them, in terms of infrastructure, public safety and public health, and given just how the state manages to cut these types of funds every time there’s a downturn – well, thanks – but no thanks. Like these municipalities aren’t struggling enough already. They need casinos like my cat needs water wings.
<
p>The data from independent studies (not the self-funded studies by the industry) indicate that the casinos are no panacea; they simply move discretionary, entertainment dollars from one sector to another. And we would do this, why? Again – thanks, but no thanks. Subtraction by addition is not way to jumpstart the economy in Massachusetts.
<
p>