Massachusetts casinos a bad bet

It no real surprise that Deval Patrick is planning and advocating for the authorization of three casinos in Massachusetts. His dreams to make community college free for all students and to make Massachusetts a center for research in the life sciences will require sufficient funding that the state cannot yet support. So why not invite casinos to Massachusetts, hold a public bid for them, and reap the supposed millions of dollars that taxation of the casino industry might provide?

From a probable increase in crime to an expected increase in problem and addicted gamblers, there are enough drawbacks to scare off proponents of gambling. To understand the potential dangers of compulsive gambling, one has to look no further than a study from the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling on the gambling behaviors of Massachusetts high-school students. Of those surveyed, one in 20 had already been arrested for gambling related activity, one in 10 mentioned family problems due to gambling and, most shockingly, 13 percent revealed that even when they wanted to stop gambling, they were unable to walk away.

With the recent boom in the popularity of the World Series of Poker, it is not surprising to hear that high school kids like to play poker with friends, but this study was performed 13 years ago, long before the World Series was a nationally televised, $12.5 million affair. One can only wonder how high those percentages might climb if there are casinos a quick train ride or a short drive away for everyone in Massachusetts.

In addition to the dangers local casinos pose to compulsive gamblers and their families, the state must consider the logistics of regulating the gambling industry. Both New Jersey and Nevada have extensive agencies whose sole purpose is to monitor the business practices of the casinos. New Jersey has separate boards to govern over the Lottery and the casinos while also boasting two more agencies to regulate and investigate the gambling industry.

In other words, the state of Massachusetts will have to create at least one agency to regulate casinos and another to prosecute them for breaking laws. This will only expand an already large government which is in the midst of implementing a variation on universal health care. Casinos will bring money to the state, but how much of this new revenue will just go to watching over the gambling industry? It seems to me the best way to save money is to cut costs, not invite a whole new industry to the state.

Patrick's plans are much to the contrary. The plan to make community college free is just one of many initiatives that will undoubtedly increase spending in a state where Democrats have trouble constraining themselves. The casinos will not serve to provide a surplus source of money, but will become a crucial part of the state's income. It is one thing to be beholden to the citizens who fund the state through taxes, but it is entirely different and much more dangerous for the state to be dependent upon the revenue of the gambling industry. When faced with the inevitable conflict between citizens and the casino lobbyists, in whose interest will the state act?

One needs to investigate no farther than New Jersey to see the power the gambling industry can hold over a state. In trying to assure the good health of its citizens and tourists, the New Jersey legislature passed a mandate against indoor smoking, but made casinos exempt. To them, satisfying casino owners was more important than providing a safe working and gaming environment for the thousands of people who visit casinos. Atlantic City tried to enforce its own restriction, but the gambling industry vehemently objected, professing concerns over a potential loss of profits. Having already won over the state, the gambling industry won a compromise when the city edited the mandate to only cover 75 percent of a casino's floor. Colorado and Nevada also passed anti-smoking laws which put casinos out of the mandate's reach. This is only one way the gambling industry can hold its host state and city hostage. Imagine the implications in a state where the governor wants casinos to fund several major new initiatives.

Some proponents for casinos figure Massachusetts should at least gain from the money that is leaving the state as New England residents descend upon Connecticut and Rhode Island to gamble. Yes, the state could make millions of dollars in additional revenue, but what sort of power will this give the gambling industry? Yes, the state will see an increase of jobs, but how many families will be torn apart by a gambler who cannot resist the allures of the casino's bright lights just a few miles down the street? Yes, in theory, taxes, especially the climbing property tax, will go down, but in a state notorious for wild spending habits, is this not just a theory? Will the state leadership recognize the chance to lessen the state's tax burden, or like that compulsive gambler, will they be unable to control spending as history has shown? There are too many questions. There are too few answers. Why risk opening Pandora's Box?