[Al_U_Card]

Even better, you will make 600 million? Earmark 300 million for treating the gamblers and use the rest as an incentive to the "healthy" gamblers. That way it is revenue neutral (nobody is leaching off anyone else) and everyone gets to have their fun and be taken care of at the same time. It also employs a whack of people in the gaming, healthcare and government businesses.

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 30 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

The gambling industry wants to put in slots. That's in their interest. It's far from clear to me that slots are in the interest of the rest of us, even those of us who will certainly leave them alone.

They are in the interests of people who want to play them!

All of this is easily solved. If you are worried that 1/3 of the money is leaving the state, why not show some ingenuity and start your own in-state slot machine company? If you don't believe enough of the revenue is coming from out of state, why not put slot machines in the busiest airports and tourist centers?

Quote

I was taught to be suspicious of offers of free money. If you believe the advertisements for the slots places in the nearby states, everyone goes home a winner. If you believe the arguments from the slots industry, all we have to do is let them put in their slots and we will be awash in dollars.

Come on. Do you really think this is a reason to ban them? This would be a reason to ban about 98% of all advertised products!

The argument that is being made for slots is almost in its entirety that it will be of financial benefit to the state.

If the argument becomes one of freedom of pleasure then surely the referendum will be rewritten to include the right to play high stakes poker in one's own home. This would of course not provide cash to the state and it would not provide cash to to the slots industry, so the referendum does not include this freedom. This referendum is in no way designed to provide people with the freedom to spend money as they wish. It is designed strictly as a profit making venture. So profit for whom? The issue then is whether the state is getting its fair share or whether it is getting conned. I am inclined toward the latter view.

I'll base my vote pretty much on the economic arguments. Promises of easy money should be and will be looked at with care.

[mike777]

I must be the only old foggy who feels queasy about the state advertising gambling let alone selling/advertising booze/drugs/prostitutes at your local state owned store.

Needless to say even once we legalize all of this we still got all the illegal politicians/employees trying to make an extra buck let alone the blackmarket selling the drugs/sex/gambling bets that the state will not and trying to sell cheaper/avoid taxes on what the state does sell.

So on the one hand we will have the state advertising this stuff for sale and OTOH the cops trying to arrest the blackmarket/crooks that are still out there.

I understand the argument against the nanny state but in these forums it seems the nanny state is bad if against prostitutes, drugs or gambling but ok/super great for just about anything else.

Some argue these are victimless crimes when clearly families and loved ones are hurt by this stuff. While some who advocate for all this being legal have families I wonder if most do not have a spouse and children and if this accounts for somesort of bias for or against this stuff being advertised and sold down at the corner store.

[NickRW]

kenberg, on Sep 30 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

... That means around 300 million flows out of Maryland into the hands of someone else (the gambling interests are for the most part out of state I understand), with absolutely nothing of value being produced....

It is not as bad as all that - the out of state interests have to provide premises and at least some on going employment locally. Also you capture some out of state dollars from people passing through/on vacation or whatever.

It is the addictive nature of gambling and other "vices" that is more worrying - but folks seem to find ways feeding their desires somehow anyway.

Nick

[blackshoe]

I do not think the answer to addictions is to make them illegal. We've tried that, again and again, and it doesn't work.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

I do not think the answer to addictions is to make them illegal. We've tried that, again and again, and it doesn't work.

Thank you.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

I do not think the answer to addictions is to make them illegal. We've tried that, again and again, and it doesn't work.

Well, slot machines are slightly bigger and more difficult to hide than a pack of hash, so I am not sure the comparison is all that adequate...

[mike777]

IMO this all gets back to the neverending discussion of how much freedom/LIberty does a society have compared to rules/social pressure to discourage/reward certain behavior.

Should freedom/liberty in behavior trump all compared to what rules should society try and impose on the behavior of others?

One might argue if my behavior harms or imposing no cost on anyone it should be legal but then what does harm/no cost no one mean?

For example should I be allowed to sell or my family sell(If I am dead) for profit my body parts or should society force me and my family to only be allowed to give those body parts away for free? In any case I am losing the body parts the only issue is do I or my family get to make a profit.

Do some forms of gambling harm or impose a cost to others? Do some forms of gambling not impose harm or a cost to others? How much cost should the taxpayer absorb to allow the freedom of gambling to others? If the taxpayer, voter should limit freedom in some form what are the limits and why are some limits ok and others not ok?

Should a state encourage/advertise some behavior(gambling/booze/drug use/sex for money) over other behavior if there is a profit in it?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

I do not think the answer to addictions is to make them illegal. We've tried that, again and again, and it doesn't work.

True. But there's a big difference between legalizing something and encouraging it.

If you assume that all of the gamblers are finding other ways to play (e.g. going out of state or playing in illegal casinos) then it makes sense to legalize it so that it can be regulated and the tax revenue can stay local (and the gamblers who were going out of state will also save money on travel). But advertisements may also create new participants, who otherwise would have been saved from the addiction. Should the state become a pusher?

[barmar]

kenberg, on Sep 30 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

While the state takes about two-thirds of the cash, that means someone else takes about one-third. Unlike farming or steel work or ship building, slots produce nothing of value. The estimated take for the state is around 600 million (I'm skeptical, but so say the advocates). That means around 300 million flows out of Maryland into the hands of someone else

I would expect that most of that third will go to the owners of the establishments hosting the slot machines. Similar to the way lotteries work -- the state gets most of the cash, but the stores that sell the lottery tickets get a share (and in the case of Megabucks-type tickets, the stores that sell the winning tickets get a bonus).

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Oct 1 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

I do not think the answer to addictions is to make them illegal. We've tried that, again and again, and it doesn't work.

True. But there's a big difference between legalizing something and encouraging it.

If you assume that all of the gamblers are finding other ways to play (e.g. going out of state or playing in illegal casinos) then it makes sense to legalize it so that it can be regulated and the tax revenue can stay local (and the gamblers who were going out of state will also save money on travel). But advertisements may also create new participants, who otherwise would have been saved from the addiction. Should the state become a pusher?

Also, a lot of negative externalities of "illicit" activities is related more to their being illegal than the activities themselves. With respect to gambling, for instance, the illegal Texas home games were legendary -- and frequently robbed at gunpoint. No law, no security. Prohibition led in large part to the first crime wave of the last century. Now, people don't gun each other (and innocent bystanders) down over alcohol sales...but they do over drug sales. As long as (and in places that) prostitution is illegal, violence against prostitutes, risk of disease, etc. will be higher due to lack of regulation, and marginalization of prostitutes as criminals.
None of that even touches the personal liberty or tax revenue arguments.

There's a difference between "Activity X is bad" and "Criminalizing activity X is good."

[kenberg]

barmar, on Oct 1 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 30 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

While the state takes about two-thirds of the cash, that means someone else takes about one-third. Unlike farming or steel work or ship building, slots produce nothing of value. The estimated take for the state is around 600 million (I'm skeptical, but so say the advocates). That means around 300 million flows out of Maryland into the hands of someone else

I would expect that most of that third will go to the owners of the establishments hosting the slot machines. Similar to the way lotteries work -- the state gets most of the cash, but the stores that sell the lottery tickets get a share (and in the case of Megabucks-type tickets, the stores that sell the winning tickets get a bonus).

Yes, I imagine some substantial part of it will. This is not all that comforting. At least some of the slots will be at race tracks. The owners of these tracks are again far removed from the community. We are speaking of a small number of already rich guys making a lot of money. Money into the hands of wine merchants and convenience store owners would be far more beneficial to the community.

I have never heard any sort of discussion as to how introducing slots compares to expanding the lottery and related games. Perhaps the lottery market is saturated but if so, it is far from clear that the slots revenue will not come at the expense of lottery revenue, and I think the lottery revenue puts a far greater fraction of the swag back into the state and the community.

Maybe these issues that I have can be answered, maybe not. As near as I can tell so far, the slots proponents are mostly taking the view that we should stop asking questions and just vote yes. This approach might work although it won't work with me. I wrote to the governor sometime back suggesting that I would like some questions answered. Well, can't blame a guy for trying.

Line from an old Pogo comic strip: If I could only write I would write a letter to the mayor if he could only read.

[jdonn]

So your view is only allow slot machines if all the profits stay in the state and go to people who aren't rich? Where do you think most of the profits from movies go? I think you are just determined to come up with reasons to support your predetermined conclusions, simply because you (admittedly?) are annoyed by the view put forth by proponents of the opposite side.

I think your questions don't get answered because they are so often based on unfounded assumptions, such as that slot revenue will come out of lottery revenue. You also spin your worries to focus on the negatives, such as saying "at least some" slot machines will be at race tracks, which seems like admitting that most will not be.

[barmar]

Ken, it sounds like you're saying that the slot machines should be state-run, like the lottery, so that the state gets all the profit. Or to put it another way, when it comes to gambling you prefer socialism rather than capitalism.

What's wrong with rich guys making a lot of money? If they're providing a service that people want, shouldn't they be allowed to profit from it? Although with the state taking a huge cut, I doubt they're going to make all that much.

[mike777]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_durin...ter_prohibition


I cannot find any study online but I wonder if during prohibition alcohol related crime, illness, and deaths decreased compared to after prohibition.

I often read if drug use was legal, drug related crime, illness and deaths would significantly decrease.


I guess one needs to come up with a decent definition of alcohol/drug related crime, illness and deaths for starters.

[mike777]

kenberg, on Oct 1 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 1 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 30 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

While the state takes about two-thirds of the cash, that means someone else takes about one-third. Unlike farming or steel work or ship building, slots produce nothing of value. The estimated take for the state is around 600 million (I'm skeptical, but so say the advocates). That means around 300 million flows out of Maryland into the hands of someone else

I would expect that most of that third will go to the owners of the establishments hosting the slot machines. Similar to the way lotteries work -- the state gets most of the cash, but the stores that sell the lottery tickets get a share (and in the case of Megabucks-type tickets, the stores that sell the winning tickets get a bonus).

Yes, I imagine some substantial part of it will. This is not all that comforting. At least some of the slots will be at race tracks. The owners of these tracks are again far removed from the community. We are speaking of a small number of already rich guys making a lot of money. Money into the hands of wine merchants and convenience store owners would be far more beneficial to the community.

I have never heard any sort of discussion as to how introducing slots compares to expanding the lottery and related games. Perhaps the lottery market is saturated but if so, it is far from clear that the slots revenue will not come at the expense of lottery revenue, and I think the lottery revenue puts a far greater fraction of the swag back into the state and the community.

Maybe these issues that I have can be answered, maybe not. As near as I can tell so far, the slots proponents are mostly taking the view that we should stop asking questions and just vote yes. This approach might work although it won't work with me. I wrote to the governor sometime back suggesting that I would like some questions answered. Well, can't blame a guy for trying.

Line from an old Pogo comic strip: If I could only write I would write a letter to the mayor if he could only read.

Ken why is your state only making some forms of gambling legal and not others?
Dont they care about children in your state and all the money it could bring to help the children?

[kenberg]

barmar, on Oct 1 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Ken, it sounds like you're saying that the slot machines should be state-run, like the lottery, so that the state gets all the profit.  Or to put it another way, when it comes to gambling you prefer socialism rather than capitalism.

What's wrong with rich guys making a lot of money?  If they're providing a service that people want, shouldn't they be allowed to profit from it?  Although with the state taking a huge cut, I doubt they're going to make all that much.

Nothing is wrong with rich guys making money. If the slots proponents said "We would like you to vote yes on this referendum so that rich guys can make a lot of money" then we could have an honest discussion of whether to vote yes or no.

My objection is not to rich guys making a lot of money. They makes claims, however, that the state will benefit and hope to win my vote through this claim. So I ask a few questions. If they can provide satisfactory answers, they may get my vote. I truly have not decided, I am just very skeptical. I always am when being offered free money. In the past, I have voted no on some referenda that were heavily hyped and time has generally been on my side in evaluating my choice.


I am not actually required to provide total indisputable justification for voting no. They want my vote. They stand to make a lot of money if they get my vote. It is my understanding that, when put to a state referendum, citizens have often rejected similar proposals in other states. Perhaps this assumption that I should vote yes unless I can prove conclusively that I should vote no is part of the reason. I, and others, have reservations about the referendum. We are not so sure that it will help the state. If those who hope to profit greatly from this want our vote, they may wish to address these reservations if they can. Or not.

[barmar]

Since 2/3 of the money is going to the state, I think it can be reasonably claimed that the proposal is primarily oriented towards benefiting the state.

Whenever the state does something, rich people make money, since the state has to contract the work out to them. Would you argue that a highway construction bill was misleading because it says that the purpose is to improve the state's infrastructure, rather than saying "We want to build these roads so that the construction companies can make lots of money"? Of ourse the construction companies WILL make lots of money, but that's not the ostensible purpose (ignoring graft and corruption, of course).

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I do not think the answer to addictions is to make them illegal. We've tried that, again and again, and it doesn't work.

A bit late replying - but I think that is what I was effectively saying - perhaps I put it poorly.

Nick

[NickRW]

mike777, on Oct 1 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Do some forms of gambling harm or impose a cost to others?

Can do - a family can lose their home because of the habits of one person in it. The more pertinent, but unanswerable question is, would that person have done something similar anyway - probably in a lot of cases.

Its like saying a man accused of rape or some other sexual crime was found to have some porn stashed under his bed and the porn made him do it - but the causative link has never been established.