Capuano: Supports. Large social costs must be figured into financial equation
“adults should be able to do pretty much what they want if they are not hurting others,” including gambling at casinos.
Capuano also acknowledged that casinos won’t be a cure-all for the state’s fiscal woes, and that any expansion of gambling inevitably comes with a downside.
“There will be some large social costs, and that has to be figured into the financial equation or the state will end up with a net loss,” Capuano said in a statement.
Coakley: Does not oppose. Cautions for caution.
Coakley said she doesn’t oppose casinos but believes the state should approach expanded gambling with caution.
Lawmakers should study other states that already have casinos — such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Nevada — to try to avoid pitfalls like increased crime, gambling addiction and identity theft, she said.
Massachusetts should adopt new regulations before signing any deals and put in place auditing mechanisms to oversee casinos’ financial records, she said. She has filed legislation aimed at aiding investigations into money laundering, enterprise crime and wire interception.
(Ed note:An enterprising person might want to take a look at Martha’s legislation to see the authorities granted to the state to “aid” investigations, and measures to decrease crime, remediate gambling addiction, and protect against identity theft. Who has a link?)
Khazei: Opposed, social costs too great
“It will fundamentally and irrevocably change our state.”
Khazei argues that the social cost of increased gambling outweighs any increase in revenues. He says the state should instead focus on bolstering jobs in sectors such as biotechnology, health care, clean energy and small businesses.
Pagliuca: Conditional support, hard to resist, must be part of bigger business proposition
Pagliuca sounded a more skeptical note, saying he would support casinos only if they were part of larger developments that included restaurants, entertainment venues and hotels.
Pagliuca, co-owner of the Boston Celtics, said the lure of jobs would be hard to resist, given the state’s rising unemployment.
“I have trepidation about casino gambling because of the issues of crime and blight and gambling addiction,” he said, adding that he could support a plan if it minimizes those drawbacks and “is proven that it will add significant jobs to the state.“
Public: 56% Yea*, 34% Ney, 9% undecided
Public opinion appears to support casinos.
A telephone survey of 522 adults found that 56 percent support allowing the state to license casinos, 34 percent are opposed and nine percent are undecided or declined to answer.
The poll of Massachusetts residents was conducted Oct. 18-22 by the Western New England College Polling Institute and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
(* “Yea” but not in my back yard.)
Public: in my back yard? 67% Ney, 12% Yea, 11% undecided
…an overwhelming majority say they don’t want a casino as their neighbor.
Western New England College News: Massachusetts Residents Split on Casino Gambling
While Massachusetts residents are divided about whether to allow casino gambling in the state, an overwhelming majority say they don’t want a casino as their neighbor. When asked “Are you in favor of a casino in your town?”, 57 percent responded they were strongly opposed. Ten percent were somewhat opposed, 11 percent neutral, 12 percent somewhat in favor, and ten percent strongly in favor. Opposition softened somewhat when people were asked “Are you in favor of a casino in your county?”, with 38 percent strongly opposed, 11 percent somewhat opposed, 15 percent neutral, 21 percent somewhat in favor, and 16 percent strongly in favor. (More about the poll results here.)
…”somewhat in favor” is the answer in the poll that comes closest to my opinion, but in reality there are a lot of variables regarding the specifics. Maybe an option of “it depends” would more accurately represent my view.
a comment to spell it out. I bet it would stir discussion.
…to proposals I’ve made several times to keep slots from becoming a free-for-all, to wit:
<
p>No ATMs on the premises.
<
p>Slots must only accept cash OR tokens purchased at a concession; if the token option is used they must be purchased from a human teller who can limit the number sold per person.
<
p>Slot machines must be regularly inspected to guard against electronic dice loading.
<
p>Odds of winning various amounts must be clearly posted on individual machines or at the concession if all machines are the same.
<
p>No alcohol should be allowed on the premises and anyone who appears intoxicated should be denied entry.
<
p>Strict enforcement of age restrictions.
<
p>A very limited number of licenses issued statewide with an absolute veto power allowed to the community of the proposed site.
<
p>Others have been very pessimistic about the state’s ability to resist the temptation to repeal these restrictions, but I do not share that attitude.
All of these are great restrictions. Limiting the licenses to TWO should do the trick. If they can do such a thing.
<
p>Although I do think alchohol should be allowed, but not given for free, and perhaps even slightly expensive to curb overdrinking.
…in other parts of the complex if it includes restaurants, hotel, or stages. I’m just not sure about actually being served or consumed in the slot hall itself.
my comment about the fact that Canada initially banned alcohol consumption at slots, then when revenues fell below projections, they removed the ban?
…but again just because Canada caved to temptation doesn’t mean we have to.
Very helpful!
We allow other things that are addictive and have social costs: alcohol, smoking. I would generally agree with Capuano’s statement that adults should be allowed liberty to do things that don’t hurt others.
<
p>But personal stories of how devastating gambling addiction is to individuals and families have been moving me to the view that the casino industry is too dependent for its survival on gambling addicts and that this type of addiction is more like heroin addiction (something we attempt to prevent by making sale of heroin illegal) than smoking (something we acknowledge to be harmful, but not so immediately and drastically that we outlaw it). If something is so addictive that a significant percentage of those who do it neglect their families, spending every available moment pursuing it; bankrupt themselves and everyone dependent on them; steal from others to continue to fund the addiction; and require the rest of society to fund programs to help treat their addiction and law enforcement to help contain their addiction-driven illegal behaviors – then the thing causing the addiction seems harder and harder for me to classify as something that can be done without hurting others.
<
p>The poll numbers are instructive: an awful lot of people who favor of casino gambling in the abstract emphatically don’t want it taking place in their neighborhoods.
<
p>Not an easy issue for me, though. Protecting those who would become addicted and society from the consequences of addiction means also denying the many people who would enjoy going to the casino occasionally but would not become addicted.
<
p>You’ve got to be 21 like drinking, and outside twenty-five feet away from any doorway, like smoking.
<
p>I’d gladly support slot machines under those conditions.
What other business would we support and promote that exploits and injures 10% of its patrons?
<
p>This is a business model that depends on addiction.
<
p>Slots have been labeled the crack cocaine of gambling.
<
p>Slots are designed and tested to work in that way.
<
p>Would we sit silent if 10% of the population were permanently injured by the Swine Flu Vaccine? Could someone offer the Libertarian argument for that?
<
p>If 10% of children were seriously injured by a toy, we’d storm the State House. What would the Libertarian argument be in that case?
<
p>Why is this different?
<
p>70% or 80% of people go to slot parlors, racinos, casinos once or twice a year.
<
p>70% or 80% drink and don’t become alcoholics or drive drunk or force others to pay for their addiction.
<
p>Alcohol commercials are banned from tv, but we still promote “The Wonder of it All!”
<
p>How should we explain the contradiction of banning Big Tobacco and alcohol from advertising, but continue to allow gambling that is more insidious?
The polls across Massachusetts have gone back and forth. When we were getting really close to the casino vote last time around, there were polls showing a plurality of people opposed it. Polls are just a snapshot in time. One thing I’ve found about casinos is that the more people know about the effects and impacts of slot gambling, the less likely people are to support them. If there’s a fair, open and transparent debate on the merits with this issue, the casinos almost always lose — which is why they rarely ever try to engage in one.
<
p>I’m not at all surprised that the readers of BMG overwhelmingly oppose slot gambling in Massachusetts, because there has been far more “fair, open and transparent debate” on this issue, on this site, than perhaps anywhere else in Massachusetts.
I am frankly disappointed in Capuano’s statement. While I support the libertarian position that adults should be free to make their own decisions, especially regarding gambling, the creation of resort casino’s, facilitated by the government, is a lot different than that position and its either ignorant or irresponsible to confuse the two. One is asserting a negative right, the government will not interfere in an adults right to gamble, which it shouldn’t. The other is asserting a positive right, the government will help facilitate areas where people can gamble. And that is just wrong. The government has a vested interest in maintaining law and order, social stability, and looking after the welfare of its citizens. Building casino’s has a terrible social, environmental, law and order, and economic cost. It is one thing to say that state shouldn’t bust up friendly poker games-and it shouldn’t. Its another to say we should build big resort casinos to generate revenue (on the backs of the poor and addicted). To me it is a moral question and the answer is starkly clear.
in Massachusetts for the reasons you mention and others. But if my voice in is the minority in opposing them, I want an approach that puts the burden of social costs on the ones who gain, the casino owners. that goes for social costs and additional government costs too. why should we foot the bill for their profit? I have seen what addiction can do to a person and their family. That said, it’s a difficult choice to balance the rights of adults and protecting them from themselves. I’m going to be a little cynical here and propose that Coakley and Capuano would both fight a having a casino in Medford and Sommerville.
With all due respect, this doesn’t make sense.
<
p>
<
p>No it’s not. The only reason we don’t have casinos in MA now is because of government regulation, specifically, the fact that slot machines are not legal in MA. If slot machines were legal, the market would immediately swing into action, and we’d have casinos, slots at the tracks, you name it. The libertarian position would be to remove the government restriction and allow whoever wants slot machines to install them.
<
p>It is consistent for a libertarian to favor legalizing slots and other forms of gambling, but to oppose a state-run lottery. But beyond that, I think it’s tough to make a libertarian case against expanded gambling.
I think one can believe in social libertarianism in personal life, but not as governmental policy (ie supporting the right of someone to do whatever they want in their household, but not supporting those things as private, for-profit corporate enterprise).
<
p>Individual ideologies ultimately means different things to different people; they’re constantly evolving general descriptive terms. I don’t think it’s helpful for one person to be defining what one of those descriptions should mean to other people, because that’s only your personal opinion of what they mean and/or should mean and other people will ultimately have different — and sometimes very different — opinions.
may be found here:
<
p>http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/…
is that the predatory gambling proponents, the gambling industry and those with a vested interest have monopolized the conversation.
<
p>How many balanced articles have you read in the newspapers?
<
p>What is proclaimed are sound bytes of job creation, economic development, entertainment, blah, blah, blah.
<
p>Capuano is currently serving in D.C. and this is an issue that will confront the House and his lack of understanding is clear. One might describe ‘waffling.’
<
p>Coakley is currently AG and has been carefully scripted in her long running campaign for office, any office, maybe the first one to become available. That the AG cautions caution, well, maybe that sits well with Dems.
<
p>Coakley’s 2 predecessors came out strongly opposed to gambling, as has Jo Malone, former State Treasurer.
<
p>Any consideration of slot machines mandates consideration by the state’s AG of consumer issues.
<
p>What are the payouts?
<
p>At one time, they were 95%, but no more. Recent reports are that payouts are 80%, but not publicly disclosed.
<
p>Should they be disclosed on slot machines, along with chances of winning?
<
p>It seems that we have a current AG who copies only the minimum that other states have already implemented and is unwilling to address her consumer protection role, at the risk of maybe offending. Is that what is valued in public office?
<
p>
he is a congressman who should be better versed on the issues that will confront him in the current session and as carefully crafted as AG Coakley.
<
p>Of AG Coakley?
<
p>One could make a good case that she has consumed the Casino KoolAid with its false inevitability proclamation and is so risk averse, that she dares not tell the truth.
<
p>Since Coakley is currently the State AG, she has merely copied legislation from other states and failed to address pertinent consumer issues.
<
p>She has served us poorly as Attorney General.
<
p>A convenient ploy! But disappointing.