8. Can the legislators point to a single state where the introduction of expanded gambling has closed the budget gap? If not, what proof is there that the rosy predictions of the casino billionaires and their paid researchers and lobbyists will come true?
7. What will happen to the market when neighboring states all rush to add more casinos and slot machines to respond to the “threat” from Massachusetts? Will states be fighting over the same limited pool of dollars — or will the result be to create hundreds of thousands more gamblers who throw their money away?
6. What will the legislature say to parents, especially those from outside Massachusetts, who are worried that slot machines and casinos which target young people will be easily accessible to students throughout the state?
5. Can Senators who favor this legislation point to any city or state where sucking disposable income out of a local economy has improved the quality of life? Since it has been shown that every slot machine destroys one permanent job, are we prepared to cope with the loss of 9,000-12,000 jobs that casinos will destroy? Similarly, does gambling help the creation of small businesses? Does gambling reduce corruption? Do major national companies want to locate their operations and their employees near gambling centers?
4. Why do so many use the term “gaming” to sugarcoat an industry that is predatory in nature? We reject predatory marketing, and predatory lending, and predatory pricing because of their hidden harm to citizens. Predatory gambling does the same and should also be rejected. Casinos rely on addicted customers for most of their earnings; “gaming” is a trick phrase designed by pro-casino marketers to hide the destructive principle at the heart of their business model.
3. How carefully has the Senate studied the scientific and industry data — for example the work of Dr. Hans Breiter at Mass General Hospital — that proves that electronic slot machines are designed to be addictive?
2. If the medical industry could show that by infecting tens of thousands of our neighbors with a new virus they could increase hospital construction, local employment, and sales of technology would the House, Senate, and governor support this idea as a jobs bill? If not, how is the medical scenario different from authorizing casinos?
1. Finally, the number one question: under what political or moral theory do our elected representatives believe that governments have the right to increase addiction among one group of citizens in order to help another? The Senate acknolwedges that some lives and families will be destroyed by this action. What is the “acceptable” number of destroyed lives? Even if compulsive gambling only affects 2% of a population, that’s 120,000 people in Massachusetts. Exactly how many of our neighbors and colleagues, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters is it acceptable for this industry to entice, ensnare, and obliterate?
The only number that is consistent with the purpose of democracy, the principles of both parties, and the moral duties of a public servant working for the common good is zero. That it is why predatory casino and slot machine gambling are currently illegal in Massachusetts — and why they must forever remain so.
Bob Massie
Vice President
United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts (USS-Mass)
But I want to take a stab at responding to these as if I was a proponent, a cynical proponent.
<
p>10. Because we want to ram the bill through with a minimum of fuss. Your input is irrelevant since we already made up our minds.
<
p>9. See No. 10, also, we think the numbers make sense, at least to our satisfaction.
<
p>8. We think Connecticut has done ok. Gambling isn’t supposed to be a cure all, just a help.
<
p>7. Other states may respond, that is why we need destination casinos that are attractive, to keep Mass gambling addict and casual gambling money at home and attract out of state addict and casual gambling money.
<
p>6. We will say that gambling is prevalent throughout the USA and this is a risk their children will have to deal with, not unlike drinking.
<
p>5. Gambling is becoming increasingly normalized in the country. Cincinnati is quite close to Indiana gaming facilities, as short drive, and has several world headquarters of major companies. Other factors seem to be decisive in those decisions. Certainly casinos compete for entertainment and other disposable dollars. It is a trade off, but on balance casinos promise the richer mix of benefits, especially state tax revenue benefits which is what we mostly worry about since we are the state government.
<
p>4. the word “predatory” is becoming little more than a generalized slur. Liquor stores also rely on skid row degenerates in many cases. Why not call them “predatory” also? This is really becoming a tomato/tomato situation. Calling something predatory mostly just signals your opinion of the activity. Calling it “gaming” also signals an opinion, a positive opinion, which positive opinion is becoming more prevalent as gambling (non-partisan word) becomes more customary and demystified.
<
p>3. Not at all closely, but we feel we can guess the findings. Almost every poor choice in life has been attributed to “addiction” at this point. And there is a fine line between making something fun and attractive and making it addictive. We admit watching some sad sack play the slots is depressing. We advise people to avoid that part of the new casinos if possible for that very reason.
<
p>2. It would depend on the virus. Is it a really nasty virus, like HIV? Or is it more akin to ghonorea? I mean, does penicillin cure the virus? Also, casinos are not just their downside. There is a lot of positive about casinos. Just look at those “wonder of it all” ads on TV. Or do you not trust ads on TV?
<
p>1. See our treatment of alcohol, tobacco, scratch tickets, etc. Also, we greatly prefer that our addicts spend their money locally, rather than going to Connecticut to spend money and coming home to demand services. Predatory gaming (nice compromise, I think) is a vice whose time has come. We will manage the fallout in the same manner as we have for all other legal vices in our society, poorly and with mixed results.
<
p>The problem is that placing casinos into areas where there were previously none is that they double the rate of problem gamblers. So, those slot addicts that some may be worried are spending their money in Connecticut largely don’t exist. (Of course, there’s a view, but the true gambling addicts in Massachusetts are addicted to forms of gambling we already have… that’s a problem that there isn’t really the will to address already — see the decimated funds to the state’s one and only (and now almost nonexistent) agency that’s there to deal with the problem). Do we really want to double that?
<
p>
<
p>That actually sounds like a very huge — and almost certainly wrong — assumption. Just in my town alone, which would be very close to two of the proposed slot sites — millions and millions are spent at restaurants every year. It wouldn’t take a very large dent into those tax dollars, especially combined with the estimated 10% hit to the state lottery, before those marginal tax dollars pale in comparison to the lost tax revenue from competing interests. Similarly, there’s usually a net loss of jobs in regions where casinos go in once you account for layoffs and closures of local, small businesses — which also factors into state tax revenue in a way that’s hard to calculate.
<
p>This is certainly a situation where the large corporate interests are squeezing out the little guys, even if those little ones — collectively — are much more economically significant to the Commonwealth when viewed collectively. (Not to mention: they’re our neighbors, relatives and friends… compared to corporate money barons who want to rob us blind and ship our money elsewhere, never to be seen in the local economy again).
<
p>Sadly, it’s very politically sexy for a politician to say, “I voted to bring in $300 million in new state tax revenues and create 1,000 permanent jobs,” than avoid saying that because 250 local businesses in your district would collectively lose $50 million and 500 jobs… in the 15-20 districts surrounding those casinos. The thing is, we don’t need politically sexy, we need decisions that will actually help incubate the strong base of businesses we have here, while providing new opportunities for start-ups and local people who want take a chance and open up a new shop.
<
p>
<
p>The thing is, this is a very black-and-white view of the world. The truth is this issue is much more nuanced. While we generally allow many “predatory” businesses and products in society, we tend to ban the worst of them. For example, we don’t allow heroine to be sold, but we allow cigarettes and we just decriminalized pot as a state. There are even some forms of liquor that aren’t allowed, and we certainly place restrictions on all different kinds.
<
p>Similarly, we do the same with gambling. There’s a whole host of different kinds of gambling that’s already legal in this state. It just so happens that we’ve historically banned the worst, most addictive kind. As I’ve said already — slots doubles the rate of problem gamblers within 50 miles of the casino (from 2.5% to 5%) — that’s federal statistics, too. Three casinos would literally make every corner of the state have casinos. That’s 150,000 new addicts, addicts who have this sort of an impact on society, costing us untold hundreds of millions.
<
p>At some point, we need to get real about solutions in society, and not get stuck up on gimmicks and Big Money issues. I know you recognize this is an issue that isn’t a quick fix — and I appreciate your honesty and the degree to which you’ve thought about this issue — but not only will this not be a quick fix, but I’m absolutely, positively sure this will cost our state tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars a year beyond whatever we ‘earn’ in tax revenue. The fact of the matter is we don’t even have a state government willing to try to come up with the real number on that. Why? I think, deep down inside, most of the legislature knows this won’t earn us a single dime after all the costs and doesn’t even want to contemplate the full costs.
which is —
<
p>
Reality indicates that it actually exacerbates budget problems by destroying small business and increasing costs.
<
p>Spectrum Gaming, a Gambling Industry mouthpiece, prepared a report for the CT DOSR that would indicate otherwise.
<
p>It may be found here: http://uss-mass.org/
<
p>There are numerous issues raised within that report that are worrisome, including that 40% of the ‘new’ jobs created represent ‘cannibalization’ – private sector jobs that were eliminated.
<
p>More worrisome to me is that both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun were unable to fill those low wage dead end jobs and were forced to recruit overseas, impacting local schools that provide ESL programs. In addition, because those low wage dead end jobs fail to provide adequate wages, the practice of “hot bedding” is becoming problematic.
<
p>The impact of DUIs is staggering! (Pardon the pun.)
<
p>You’ll find a few excerpts of that report here:
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>Casinos haven’t helped New Jersey avoid a $10.9 billion deficit and the loss of 121,000 private sector jobs. [www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/26/the_reform_agenda_changing_course_in_new_jersey_105729.html] Casinos haven’t helped California ($19.1 billion – 22.6% deficit) or Connecticut ($5.1 billion – 29.2% deficit) or Delaware ($377 million – 11.7% deficit) or Illinois ($13.5 billion – 36.1% deficit) or Nevada ($1.8 billion – 56.6% deficit) or Pennsylvania ($4.1 billion – 16.3% deficit) or Rhode Island ($395 million – 13.2% deficit) avoid historic deficits.[www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711] California (105%), Connecticut (11.1%), New Jersey (11.8%), Rhode Island (10.2%) and Pennsylvania (10.2%) all have higher taxes than Massachusetts (9.5%). [p. 32 State-Local Tax Burdens 2008 in http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html%5D
<
p>——————————————————————————–
<
p>by: you @ soon
that would distinguish “predatory gambling” from “gambling” that is not “predatory gambling.”
To this crowd any lottery or casino activity is by definition predatory, though they promise to leave your office pool for Super Bowl or NCAA final four alone.
any large-scale business which seeks to use psychology and human nature against a human to make a quick and almost guaranteed buck is “predatory.” Of course, it’s human nature to give into some of that, too, and it’s not always bad for all people when done in reason. The morally grey area is trying to figure out how much of it to allow because it’s human nature to do these kinds of stuff, and what not to allow because its too predatory… just like we do in other “predatory” industries, like drugs (heroine and cocaine’s illegal, cigarettes aren’t and pot’s decriminalized).
<
p>Personally, I’ve drawn the line at slot machines, because that doubles the rate of problem gamblers and sucks away money from local businesses that need it much more than the (usually corrupt) billionaires who already control this industry. We need to support small businesses in this state, not attract industries that will wreak havoc in regional small business communities.
All of those Keno booths at your local Richdale? Walls of scratch tickets behind the counter? Scratch ticket machines in every supermarket? Sports betting and internet poker on your home computer (which allows you to empty your bank account and max your credit cards without ever leaving your driveway)?
<
p>Are you in favor of shutting down the state lottery (which has multiple outposts in every town) and banning on-line gambling to protect people from themselves?
<
p>Government saving people from themselves: The possibilities are endless…What about alcohol addiction? Could we save a lot of (rehab) money, family torment and heart ache by re-establishing prohibition? What about obesity? Could we cut health care costs and have a happier society if we outlawed desserts? pizza? ice cream, all junk food and non-diet soda?
<
p>The state is considering 2 casinos and slots at already existing gambling venues. No one will be forced to go to any of them. It’s a choice. Sometimes people make bad choices (like drinking too much or smoking or eating too much) but we do not ban alcohol, cigarettes or junk food even though they are potentially destructive to those who imbibe.
<
p>Saving adults from themselves is the weakest argument against casinos in Massachusetts.
<
p>
<
p>BTW:
<
p>
<
p>Note how that isn’t anything close the sole basis of my argument. Of course, though, if you were intellectually honest, you wouldn’t ignore the rest of it.
Not ignoring the rest of your argument even though I may not buy it…just commenting on the one part that I think is the weakest and that opponents of casinos keep repeating as part of their pitch. And Ryan, just because someone does not agree with you does not make them intellectually dishonest…you have a habit of thinking so…
<
p>I do not care one way or the other whether we have casinos and slots…but we cannot pick and choose which vices we will outlaw and which we will tolerate…they are all harmful…that is the dishonest part of this.
<
p>Disagreeing with someone is fine. Disagreeing with someone by putting their arguments out of context and ignoring major aspects of them is intellectually dishonest.
<
p>
<
p>of course we can, we do so all the time.
<
p>
<
p>but you ignore the key point… they’re all harmful to different degrees. Heroine can ruin a life very, very quickly. Cigarettes, on the other hand, usually take decades. Both of them are, of course, harmful, but only heroine is illegal — as it should be. While we don’t ban cigarettes, we do recognize the fact that they are harmful and have taken measure to mitigate the harmful effects and expenses — for example, certain kinds of cigarettes are banned, we’ve banned many kinds of advertisement for cigarettes, we’ve raised taxes on cigarettes to both reduce the number of smokers and use that money to offset their health-related costs. And, of course, we ban cigarettes from people under the age of 18.
<
p>Gambling is very much the same in how we’ve historically treated it. We’ve legalized some forms, but not all of them. Slot machines is one of them we’ve banned, because it’s twice as addictive. However, we haven’t banned other, less addictive kinds, instead taking a similar approach to them as cigarettes: you have to be 18, you have to publicly post odds, etc.
<
p>It’s not an intellectually dishonest argument to say when we allow one kind of harmful thing, we have to allow all of them. There are a whole lot of harmful things in the world that we don’t allow, because they just so happen to be much more harmful and detrimental than other harmful things. We allow people to buy and sell dogs, but good luck buying a Meerkat. We allow people to buy guns and other weapons, but good luck buying a nuclear weapon. Why, when it comes to gambling, should we suddenly have to allow every, single, little kind? There are detrimental aspects to slot machines that don’t exist for other kinds of gambling, both when we’re talking about ‘users’ and when we’re talking about the communities that are surrounded by them. Stop pretending that isn’t the case.
Did you ever hear of the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”? The idea that “we already have bad things going on all over the state, so let’s encourage more of them” is absurd, yet that is the argument many people seem to want to make.
The fashion industry?
The media?
The advertising industry?
Recreation and entertainment businesses?
The marriage counseling business?
psychiatry?
divorce lawyers?
I drew a line. Slots double the rate of addiction in an industry that’s already pretty darn addictive. Slot machines addict people much quicker and easier than, say, horse racing — and certainly faster than a pair of Levi’s.
<
p>Lots of industries are at some level “predatory,” after all, that’s what all marketing is. But not all those industries sell a product that’s addictive, or have a business model that wipes out local businesses on a wide-scale basis. Find me a fashion industry product or a marriage counselor that has the same impact on the brain as cocaine according to CAT scans, and I’ll agree that product should stay outside of Massachusetts.
politics?
<
p>I would be delighted to see our elected officials having a philosophical discussion of the role of government. Is it to protect citizens? Partner with industries that exploits vulnerable citizens?
<
p>Cape Wind doesn’t need the AG to develop new criminal statues…new state police departments….expanded addiction programs (which will be underfunded as is the current practice), bankruptcy, money laundering, gang, wire taping protections, etc.
<
p>Unions are behaving as willing pawns to the gambling industry which is not their friend…..sad really.
<
p>If our legislators vote to harm far more children and families than those that might be helped with short-term construction jobs by legalizing casinos and slot parlors, those who thought they were going to have work will find out there are less jobs for shorter periods of time than their slick suited gambling lobbyist “friends” told them.
<
p>
Try these:
<
p>http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>”Energy Retrofitting” cannot be outsourced, has the added bonus of reducing household expenses so enhances income.
<
p>IMO, Cape Wind should just be a beginning to foster, promote and create a model for others to emulate.
<
p>We can do better than casino gambling!
<
p>Let’s insist on it.
That’s a pretty balanced response, but the problem with the “predatory” argument is that it is true only of a very small subset of the overall population. It’s certainly true that casinos are taking advantage of human psychology to make money — which causes a few people to go overboard — but for many others they are also providing an entertainment opportunity not unlike going to the Red Sox, watching a movie, etc. In comparison to tobacco, alcohol, fast food, and pot — all substances that give the user a benefit by ultimately harming health — casinos would seem to fall on the “better” side of the grey area. After all, many millions of people go to casinos with no negative health effects.
<
p>Your second argument is the most convincing, at least to me. I don’t think there’s much doubt that small businesses in the immediate area of the casino are harmed by a resort-style casino. The question I think might be relevant to ask most casino opponents is: hypothetically, would you approve of legalizing small-scale gaming parlors, like card rooms, a slot room, etc. (but still placing restrictions on resort-style casinos)? Such a proposal would run into many legal problems, I realize, but how one answers that question would seem to indicate to me whether the real reason for banning gambling is the better small business argument or the less convincing social costs argument.
NOT a small part of the industry’s profits. Simply put, casinos – even of the resort variety – would not be profitable without problem gamblers. Slots account for roughly 70% of a resort casino’s revenue, and much more than that in terms of their pure profits. Infamously, Harrah’s makes 90% of its profits off 10% of its players… the problem gamblers who go play the slots multiple times a week, often occupying two or three slots at a time. And, while they are a small part of the population over all, they’re not actually a small part of the casino’s patrons — Natasha Schull, from MIT, estimates they’re about 20% of a casino’s customers.
What do you consider a ‘small subset’?
<
p>Harrah’s discovered 10% of their patrons provided 90% of their profits, then targeted, marketing, offered promotions and comps to keep those ‘patrons’ LOYAL.
<
p>Those little magical casino cards allow the Industry to track your playing in real time.
<
p>Harrah’s sends a cheer-up person to your side with a free drink or comp meal if you’re on a losing streak and getting depressed.
<
p>http://middlebororemembers.blo…
Yes, I would consider 10% to be a small subset, particularly if that means banning an activity for the other 90%.
I would say slot machines are the difference. Everything about a slot machine is highly engineered to get the user to “play to extinction.”
I think your strongest arguments are the economic arguments (related to your #5 and #7-#9). There is still a real question about whether casinos will provide a net value for the Commonwealth. I’d like to get truly neutral numbers, but those are hard to come by. There’s no question that prospective casino operators have the upper-hand in producing the economic studies that are available, and clearly those run a serious risk of bias on the over-optimistic side.
<
p>Most of your other arguments are unconvincing. Gambling is going to happen, whether it’s people going to Twin River or the Connecticut/NY/NJ casinos, or going to illegal gambling operations. Right now, to the extent that there are social costs to Commonwealth residents, they are costs dealt with by Massachusetts but generated by out-of-state gaming interests — and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. So we’re already facing many of the social harms but reaping none of the potential benefits.
<
p>Further, there’s the oft-heard (but legitimate) objection questioning why casino gambling should be banned in the Commonwealth when other harmful activities are legal and restrictions even loosened in recent years (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc.). If compulsive gambling affects (say) 2% of the population, then why should the other 98% be restricted from gambling? This gets to the heart of most of your other arguments. Finally, your #6 — “what will the legislature say to the parents” — is irrelevant because, after all, college students are adults.
<
p>Short response — stick with the economic arguments. They’re much more convincing.
In November 2009, this was posted: New Reports from CT and WV
<
p>http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>
<
p>Those Gambling Addicts are the ones who cause the increased crime, increased personal bankruptcies, increased public safety costs, increased spousal abuse and so on.
<
p>Why would we support a state sponsored business that causes family destruction?
I’m not dismissing the argument as much as I simply noting that it’s not convincing to me, and no doubt many others worried about the state dictating what people can and can’t do in their private lives. I would think you’d find that point of view helpful, since I’d suspect that you’d encounter significant resistance from that point of view.
<
p>
<
p>So because the government legalizes the industry, it is therefore “state sponsored”? That’s a little odd. Additionally, I’d hope that you’d agree that alcohol is a much larger problem, since it causes far more social ills than gambling and the state “sponsors” it more than it would private resort-style casinos. If you have a good argument about why prohibition of one activity does not implicate the prohibition of other, “worse” activities, that’s what I’d like to hear.
<
p>So that’s part of the reason why I consider the economic arguments to be much more convincing. By the logic of your comments here, there are plenty of activities that should be frowned upon/banned by the government, which I find disconcerting.
that the Gambling Industry doesn’t want to talk about.
<
p>This is an Industry based on 10% of its patrons providing 90% of its profits.
<
p>It’s about Predation and Addiction and how we define sensible fiscal policy and sustainable job creation.
<
p>Do you hear voices on Beacon Hill promoting alcoholism as a means to raise revenue?
<
p>If Casino Gambling is so wondrous, how come —
?
<
p>Of Atlantic City, how come —
?
<
p>That doesn’t include the 80% increase in crime in Atlantic City.
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>I’m not seeing a parallel with alcohol sales.
<
p>”Blindfolded public officials practice job creation guided by wolves posing as seeing eye dogs.” [The Great American Jobs Scam, by Greg LeRoy, Page 4]
<
p>It seems to have been answered and drown out by the proponents. The studies are available and you might find some here: http://uss-mass.org/
<
p>Beyond your question, here’s the testimony I offered —
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>In a study prepared by the Federal Reserve of Philadelphia, I found this striking —
<
p>Of Atlantic City —
<
p>
<
p>If casinos were an ‘economic engine’ proponents claim, wouldn’t you think that poverty and unemployment would decline?
I think that the addiction argument, compelling and accurate as it may be, has been made quite a bit. I’m not entirely sure it’s a winning argument, and I think there’s a few that have been overlooked in a lot of ways. Here are the main reasons that I am against the casinos pretty much as much as I am the slots:
<
p>(1) Cities and towns like Worcester, Springfield, Lowell and Saugus cannot afford more competition for convention centers and entertainment venues that are barely scraping by as it is now. Between the DCU Center, the Hanover Theatre and the Palladium, Worcester has three (albeit very different) large draw entertainment centers to support, and especially with the Hanover Theatre, there is a huge probability that a casino would be drawing similar b-list and revival acts.
<
p>(2) Our unions deserve better, sustained and consistent commitment from our Democratic and progressive lawmakers, and we need to demand that working people stop being played against one another. I know that many unions are pro-casino, and in this economic environment I can see why. But with the cuts to local aid, shrinking local services, and increased demand on taxpayers, those elected officials who fail to see the long-term picture have become very successful at convincing working families that we need to be fighting amongst ourselves for what we need instead of holding them accountable to better. We can and must create good union jobs that aren’t built on the backs of other working people being preyed on.
<
p>(3) It’s a knee-jerk quick fix and the jury is still out. Our public discourse and policy makers do this all of the time when presented with an issue. Instead of looking at a systems-based long term solution that can provide immediate and long-term results, we look for the easiest way out. In this case, Casinos sounds like an automatic win. But just like MCAS in education and the MBTA debt in transportation, we’re not looking at the big picture, just the foot in front of us. I need more convincing before I believe this is a road we can and should travel.
<
p>Taken another way —
<
p>Toyota recalled 8 MILLION vehicles because 89 people died.
<
p>Gambling Addiction has the lowest rate of self-referral and the highest rate of suicide.
<
p>If 89 people committed suicide because of slot machines, should we ban slot machines?
<
p>This doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it deserves
<
p>This is a huge burden that has an extremely negative impact on the lives of all of us with regard to our health and our finances. Who picks up the tab for hospital acquired illnesses. We do, not the hospitals. Yet you don’t hear much about it.
<
p>Instead, we try to ban casino gambling, tax cigarettes, alcohol, and soda/candy to try to curb healthcare costs. The hospitals run wild with huge returns for illnesses that they are spreading and should take responsibility for.
<
p>P.S. Make sure you wash your hands before you leave a hospital. You will carry out the door with you the Staphylococcus aureus( potentially MRSA) as well as host of other organisms that could make you and/or your loved ones sick. Wash your hands and save the world.
The article to which you linked is unrelated to this thread, except to illogically disprove a point, but allow me to point out that the article and information is almost 4 years old – 2006. Those stats are now outdated.
<
p>Hospitals, in my experience, have been extremely pro-active in reducing the transmission of infections. Notice the hand sanitizers on the walls? P.S. You should wash your hands on arrival.
<
p>Having recently been involved with hospitalizations, the issue is not that hospitals are ‘spreading’ infections, but rather that patients are entering the hospitals with the infections.
<
p>Gambling Addicts are not necessarily entering a slot parlor with the addiction, but rather acquiring the addiction from sitting at a slot machine that is designed to addict. Machines are programmed for “The almost-winning addiction”
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>In addition, slot parlors employ marketing techniques to maintain and encourage the addict to return. (There is no better source about the pursuit of those addicts than “Winner Takes All,” by Christina Binkley.)
<
p>You will hear seniors who are flattered by the birthday card or phone calls from ‘friendly’ casino folks who ‘miss’ them.
<
p>The House barely passed the Self-Exclusion Amendment!
<
p>Although those of us who oppose legalizing slots more frequently quote the NGISC report that indicates Gambling Addiction doubles within a 50 mile radius, more recent studies indicate the rate of Addiction is far higher.
<
p>WAGES —
The unions brought 2 union members from Atlantic City to testify in Gardner Auditorium about how wonderful and high paying their jobs were.
<
p>Only one Senator asked the starting wage. Senator Tucker!
<
p>After some sputtering, the panelists finally acknowledged “about $10 an hour”
<
p>Of Atlantic City —
After reading the article above, I purchased Professor Simon’s book which is an eye-opening account of what casinos didn’t bring to Atlantic City. This is merely a breath-taking snippet – 80% Increase in Crime
<
p>Casinos and slot parlors aren’t the urban redevelopment or economic engine the proponents would like to pretend.
<
p>http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>Bryant Simon’s book, “Boardwalk of Dreams” is a must read about the false promises of slot parlors. They’re not the economic engines or job creators promised.
<
p>Does anyone remember the economic saviour that casinos were to be for Atlantic City?
<
p>As Bob Massie points out —
<
p>
<
p>I new to this and have been looking for 3 years. I haven’t found that city or state.
<
p>Have you?
but here is a 2010 press release on the HHS website stating there’s been little improvement.
<
p>The good news is the government has been fighting back:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t think that private sector insurance companies or self pay can do the same thing, at least I haven’t seen anything to state so.
<
p>Another NYT article to spread awareness: NYT – Hospital Infection Problem Persists
<
p>Your right, I’m off topic. Sorry about that. I’m done here.
<
p>Hospitals are NOT deliberately infecting patients.
<
p>Casinos and slot parlors ONLY exist because they cause Addiction.
<
p>Addicts are targeted, marketed, solicited.
<
p>Their visting patterns and playing are tracked and analyzed using those convenience cards.
<
p>When 10% of patrons contribute 90% of profits, that’s Addiction.
<
p>The failure of the House to unanimously approved the Self Exclusion Amendment proclaims their failure to understand the Industry and the Business Model.
<
p>The failure of the Senate to conduct real fact finding proclaims their failure to comprehend the Industry and the Business Model.
<
p>We hear jobs?
<
p>Where are they?
<
p>If casinos are so wonderful, why is poverty high in Las Vegas and Atlantic City?
<
p>Ball State University
<
p>A study of West Virginian racinos –
horse and dog racing facilities that added casino games – during 1978-2004 found that counties with such operations realized a one-time 1.1 percent increase in employment while the average salary in that area fell by as much as 2.9 percent due to the addition of a large number of low-paying jobs.
<
p>…found the average annual salary of a racino employee is less than $14,000. This was near minimum wage at the time of the study.
<
p>Where are the high paying jobs?
<
p>How about CRIME?
<
p>In Slots = Community Degradation
<
p>From Texas Republicans Got It Right About Slots!
<
p>Skyrocketing Crime
<
p>Sept. 2004 research showed casinos hiked violent crime 13%.
<
p>Everywhere video slot machines have been legalized, crime rates have skyrocketed, including aggravated assault, rape, robbery, larceny, burglary, auto theft, embezzlement, and fraud.
<
p>1st 3 years of gambling in Atlantic City, New Jersey went from 50th in nation in per capita crime to 1st in the nation.
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
<
p>Beyond that, you might want to consider the ‘potential partners.’ Beacon Hill isn’t even discussing this.
<
p>These are simply article posted elsewhere —
Organized Crime, Las Vegas Sands and the Sheldon Adelson Connection
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson, Organized Crime
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
Ho, MGM Deny Organized Crime Connection
http://middlebororemembers.blo…
It is quite clear Malaysian Investors will be handed a no-bid casino license.
The Mashpee Wampanoag’s Malaysian Investors
http://middlebororemembers.blo…