Foe calls casinos the crack cocaine of gambling

[TheGeneral+]

Calling casinos the "crack cocaine" of gambling, the head of a national anti-gambling organization implored a packed meeting room of casino opponents to work as hard as they can the next 43 days to keep a full-blown gambling hall out of Madison.

"Women say it's electric morphine," said the Rev. Tom Grey, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, referring to what he called the "trance" players can get in when sitting in front of a slot machine. "All they do is see the screen, and everything else turns to black around it."

Grey was the featured speaker at a meeting Monday night of No Dane Casino, a grass-roots group that is gathering momentum leading up to the referendum Feb. 17 on whether the Ho-Chunk Nation's DeJope bingo hall on the city's southeast side should be converted into a casino.

More than 100 people came to the Madison Civic Center on a frigid night to hear Grey and some local civic leaders come together against putting a casino in the city.

Some casino advocates also showed up to make their case.

Ken Whitehorse, a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation and a fifth grade teacher at Schenk Elementary School, said he was disturbed by an "us versus them" attitude in the casino debate.

"We are you; you are us," Whitehorse said. "The Ho-Chunk people have been conducting trade for 10,000 years in North America; that's what we are doing now.

"This is my area. I belong here. The main purpose is prosperity for our people. The Ho-Chunk Nation is not interested in harming anyone."

Grey said it's not a question of having an Indian casino in Madison, but a question of having any casino in Madison.

"Citizens have a right to say they don't want this in their community," he said. "It's the product we're talking about. If it was Donald Trump wanting a casino, I'd be here. Even if the governor himself wanted a casino, I'd be here."

"It will bring untold social costs to our families and children," said Madison 8th District Ald. Austin King. "I can't stand for this project to go forward."

King also said a casino would have an adverse economic impact on Madison's downtown.

"This downtown has gone through a great revolution in the past few decades," King said. "We have a thriving downtown and that's being threatened by the casino."

Dane County Supervisor John Hendrick said even though the county and the city would get millions of dollars from the Ho-Chunk Nation if the DeJope bingo hall becomes a casino, it's not for the public good.

"This is not the way government should raise money," Hendrick said.

Madison and Dane County stand to share $91 million in the next 13 years, according to the agreements reached between the two municipalities and the Ho-Chunk, if the referendum passes and a casino replaces the bingo hall.

Madison Attorney Timothy Peyton said he specialized in bankruptcies, but doesn't relish the idea of an increase in business because a casino opened in town.

"People go to a casino, use their credit cards to get a cash advance, then lose the money," Peyton said. "Casinos make money by taking your money. I've seen the damage it has caused to families."

Grey said it was hard to believe the government would be pushing an addictive product.

"The city and county cut a deal," he said. "They became addicted to the revenue, addicted to revenue that destroys businesses and cannibalizes families."

The Rev. Bill White, pastor of Bethel Lutheran Church in Madison, said a casino would have a dramatic effect to the community, based on what he saw after living in Mount Pleasant, Mich., for 15 years. Mount Pleasant is home to the Soaring Eagle casino.

"I haven't met anyone who felt better today than before that casino," White said. "It's really a powerful change to a community. I don't want to see the same thing happen to Madison."

David Relles, a Madison attorney who started No Dane Casino, said the group would hold at least two more public forums before the referendum.

"We know the pro-casino forces will get their story out through TV commercials, paid representatives and public relations, and we can't compete with that," he said. "But our responsibility is to tell the rest of the story, so voters can make a reasonable decision."

Relles said he would welcome setting up a debate with the pro-casino advocates.

Lisa Pugh, spokeswoman for the pro-casino Coalition for the Fair Indian Gaming and Revenue Sharing Agreements, told The Capital Times the coalition had not planned any public informational meetings but wouldn't rule out a debate.

The coalition will rely on advertising and a public relations campaign to get its message to the voters before Feb. 17, she said. A $140,000 TV ad campaign on Madison's three largest stations will begin Jan. 26, with about 500 commercials to air during the three weeks before the vote.



www.madison.com

 

[Fishhead]

When are these people going to realize that CASINOS are good for the country???

 

[oldmantime]

When some research group from an Ivy League School puts forth information on which is the more powerfull addiction; Alcohol or Gambling.

Which causes more death and accidents? On and On.

I for one, would really like to see a study to once and for all make the case.

 

[Railbird]

Screw these whining little Indians, they have ENOUGH casinos ALREADY. There is ENOUGH single mothers addicted to viedo poker as it is, enough is enough.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> When are these people going to realize that CASINOS are good for the country??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree with your statement Fishead.
Casinos are good for the casino owners, not for the country.

If there is only one casino in town, it should be owned by the goverment. In that case cost of problem gambling treatment could covered with casino profits and rest of the money would go for healtcare, education etc. If its not goverment owned, tax payers are forced to pay other people gambling treatment, because most of the money goes to casino owners.

If there are several casinos in town, they could be private owned, but not like in Las Vegas. Couple big corporations owns whole crap. One company should own maximum 10% of towns casinos, not anymore. In that case casinos might be good for the country.

 

[Fishhead]

Casinos give people jobs!!!

They are great for the local economy!!!

As I have mentioned before, I am very familar with IOWA having grown up there, and having casinos is one of the best things the state as ever did!!!

Lets take a look at the people that I know in Iowa that the casinos have turned into habitual compulsive gamblers..........I know none!!

On the other hand, I know of no less than 200 individuals personally that are making a decent living because of them that never had the oppurtunity to do so before.

Therefore, consider the grand scale of things in the state!!

If a state can support casinos, they are completely ignorant not to allow them.

 

Jobs are not the only thing. With same money people have lost in casino, jobs could be created much more to some other business.

Yes, if there are several casinos, local business gets boost. I agree. But if there is only one PRIVATE OWNED casino in town it doesn't help local business.

People wants to gamble and casinos should be legal everywhere, but nowdays casino business in USA doesn't help the country. In other words, a lot of wrong decisions by politicians

 

[gambler1]

I agree with Fish just need to look at Vegas it used to be a empty desert, now thousands have a better life working with benefits like health and retirement. If you can't control yourself don't go.

 

[TheGeneral+]

As a professor and gambling researcher here in the Oz of odds, I've done many studies on the gaming industry and its economic impact around the world; as you read this, in fact, I'm on my way to Japan and Macau for some summer research into the casinos there. And so, last year, when Pennsylvania lawmakers began considering whether to allow slot machines at racetracks and other locations around the state, two interested parties sought my advice. Gov. Ed Rendell's office asked me to estimate the volume of state revenues that could be generated by the machines, and a citizens group asked me to analyze the potential wider economic impact.

Like many of their counterparts in Maryland, the District of Columbia and elsewhere around the country, leading Pennsylvania politicians see slot machine gambling as an easy way to pick up dollars for financing programs and balancing budgets. And they're right: The machines do make a lot of money, and they can be taxed. For the Rendell report, I based my calculations -- which I'll explain below -- on a total of 30,000 machines in Pennsylvania. They could reliably be expected to produce $3 billion a year in profits for the machine owners. The legislation provides for these profits to be taxed at a rate of something like 34 percent, easily allowing the state to realize $1 billion in new annual revenues. This impressive number must have been useful to the pro-slots governor, for when the legislation passed, it authorized not 30,000 machines, but more than 60,000. That should mean at least $2 billion in annual revenues. And that represents a lot of reduced property taxes.

For the citizens group's report on wider economic impact, however, I looked at much more important questions: Do the dollars and cents add up to economic sense? Would the introduction of slot machines actually be good or bad for the towns that get them?

Those questions had a very different answer -- and it's an answer that politicians looking to bulk up their budgets ought to take note of.

To understand why, let's follow the money.

Begin with this estimate: Each slot machine -- and I'm using the term to mean all kinds of slots, video lottery terminals and similar machines -- can be expected to win approximately $100,000 from players every year. That's how much the machine keeps after it pays out all those winnings and jackpots that successful players never stop talking about. (This is the average for machines in Atlantic City; slots in Illinois and Connecticut actually average net revenues of more than $150,000 each per year.)

That hundred grand is money that comes out of someone's pockets. Whose? Well, in Las Vegas, 90 percent of gambling revenue comes from tourists and visitors. They stay here for an average of four days, spending more money on non-gambling activities -- hotel rooms, restaurant meals, shows, shopping -- than at the tables and machines.

This reliable influx of cash has fueled an amazing economic boom in Vegas, growing every year since the 1950s (with the exception of 2001 and 2002, when fear of terrorism kept more Americans close to home). But it's only possible because the money comes from outside the region; without those out-of-towners, Las Vegas's own population of 1.7 million would support about four or five casinos, and maybe 7,000 or 8,000 slot machines. But we have almost 200 casinos and more than 150,000 machines. We need those visitors.

The situation is very different in Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District, which have more than enough residents -- some 13 million adults -- to occupy all the slot machines that have been proposed for all the venues. No slot owner is going to have much incentive to market outside the area. The mid-Atlantic region could certainly produce another $7 billion to $10 billion in gambling revenues without taking a penny away from what is now being spent in Atlantic City. Furthermore, as more regional venues authorize some form of gambling -- Delaware and West Virginia already have -- there will be less incentive for anyone to travel very far to play the slots.

But every new venue will definitely lure more local folks to gambling. As the research proves, the average American adult spends (that is, loses) $350 each year in games of chance. Those living in casino jurisdictions lose twice that much. Among Nevadans, the average is more than $1,000 a year.

In short, it's likely that the local populations of the three venues will produce virtually every penny of the revenues collected by these machines. And they will divert more of their disposable income, which might otherwise go to other local businesses, to the slots.

That's where the money comes from. Where does that $100,000 a year go? Let's take a hypothetical slot machine in downtown Philadelphia. If all the money taken from the gamblers in Philly stayed there, it would be a wash, and we could leave the debate up to the moralists and the politicians. But it just doesn't work that way.

First, the machine owner had to buy the machine. Typical cost: $15,000. Average market life for each machine: three years. Thus, Philadelphia spends (loses) $5,000 of that $100,000 a year. (Who gains it? Nevada, mostly. Two companies -- IGT of Reno and Bally's of Las Vegas make 80 percent of all the slot and video lottery machines in the United States.)

Machines don't require much maintenance (usually one worker for each 20 machines), but at least those wages will remain in the area. Then there are administrative costs (marketing, accounting, random expenses) and supplies, building costs and utilities. From what I've studied, these costs are likely to total $25,000 a year per machine, and 80 percent of that will be spent locally. That means 20 percent -- or $5,000 -- leaves the area.

The state is taxing the profit, you recall, at a rate of 34 percent. That means $34,000 will go to Harrisburg to fund statewide programs. (This being government, the revenue flow is more complicated than that, but this is close enough for a fair estimate.) The Philadelphia area has less than half the state's population, so maybe $15,000 returns, but $19,000 is lost to the Philadelphia economy. Perhaps local taxes of $4,000 will be levied on the facility, and this money will remain in the area.

Add everything up, and it leaves about $32,000 in net profit for the owner of the machine. Does this money stay in Philadelphia? Sorry, most gambling facilities tend to be owned by far-off concerns. A lot of the slots will be at racetracks, for example, and the owners of one Pennsylvania track aren't just out of town, they're out of the country. Let's generously suppose that one-half the ownership will be local. Swoosh, there goes another $16,000 out of the economy.

We haven't yet counted federal taxes, and they will be hefty. Taxes on that $32,000 will send another $5,000 out of the Philadelphia area.

In the end, of the $100,000 that the single slot machine will take from residents of the Philadelphia area each year, $50,000 will leave the regional economy. Given that a basic $18-an-hour job requires about $50,000 a year in wages and fringe benefits, that's like losing one job from the local economy per machine. Now, multiply that by the thousands of slot machines planned for the Philadelphia area alone.

Still, the Pennsylvania legislators chose slots and some in Maryland and the District are still pushing to make the same choice. Why? For the same reason I've seen politicians pass laws like this in venues around the country: Because all they care about is checking off a potential tax-reducing revenue item on their budgets. They'll get it, all right, and they're cynically willing to hurt the regional economy in the process.

Maryland's proposal has been defeated twice; the District is just beginning the debate. So should you want to put a slot-machine complex or two or three in our nation's capital? Add up the numbers. It might make sense if more than 50 percent of the gamblers would be from out of the area, and I don't mean Bethesda. But get real. Certainly the District attracts tourists, but those school buses lined up along the Mall aren't loaded with gamblers, and those young parents pushing baby strollers and leading little tykes into the Air and Space Museum are not your typical Vegas visitor. Out here, our gamblers average 50 years of age, and only 8 percent of them come with children under 21. Washington's tourists are not prospects for machine gambling. Don't even think about it. They want to see your national museums, your hallowed monuments to democracy, your icons of freedom. The slot machine doesn't make that lineup.

On the other hand . . . maybe the Smithsonian could come up with a special exhibition for the District's most infamous gambling establishment -- Edward Pendleton's Palace of Fortune, which operated a couple of blocks from the White House (at 14th and Pennsylvania) from the mid-1830s to 1858. Pendleton used his position to become the leading lobbyist in the antebellum capital. Hundreds of bills -- most of them providing favors for selected citizens -- were passed on his recommendations. He was especially persuasive with congressmen who had rather large debts as a result of their gambling. Also other congressmen could expect a run of good luck at the tables if Pendleton needed their vote on a special bill.

Considering that history, it occurs to me that one side benefit of renewed gambling in the District might accrue to my current home town, Las Vegas. If a casino opened right there in Washington where the politicians make their decisions, the Democratic and Republican parties could quit sending their bagmen -- sorry, fundraisers -- to Las Vegas, wasting airplane fuel and other nonrenewable resources as they entertain potential campaign contributors in the back rooms of our casinos. We can manage quite well without them, and our legitimate, revenue-producing visitors could use the hotel rooms, thank you.


web page

 

[JayC]

Back in 1998 or 2000, Congress authorized the sppointment of the NGIC, the National Gaming Impact Commission. They were supposed to study gambling in this country. It was such a stacked commission it was a joke. Half of them were right wing religious retards, and the other half represented Las Vegas interests.

The commission included Tom Grey from Focus on the Family, Terri Lanni, the chairman of MGM, and the head of the hotel workers union in Vegas, just to name a few.

They held multiple hearings around the country. They spent $1 million on a University of Chicago study to look at the societal costs of gambling on America.

There was nothing scientific in the hearings that showed internet gambling was bad for the country. However, that wsa the only thing the commission of Las Vegas/Religious Retards could agree on was that internet gamling needed to be stopped.

The $1 million study found the societal costs of problem gamling on the country to be negligible compared to alcohol, smoking, auto accidents, and several other woes. The Religious Retards on the commission yelled that they neede to spend more money on the issue, that $1 million of tax payer dollars couldn't wasn't enough. Of course, the Las Vegas interests on the commission thought the study was just fine.

From the study:

This section demonstrates that problem and pathological gamblers experience a variety of tangible consequences at rates that are significantly higher than would otherwise be expected based upon their sociodemographic (and substance abuse) characteristics. Such consequences include burdens to personal health, family, workplace, and the criminal justice system. In other words, such gamblers impose costs on themselves, their families, and on those around them, including employers, creditors, and taxpayers. It is possible to estimate economic impacts experienced by, or at the level of, the individual problem or pathological gambler. These estimates use standard and commonsense methods to attach valuations on the consequences that could be measured. Average annual costs per pathological gambler are about $1,200 per year, and $715 per year per problem gambler. “Lifetime” costs are estimated at $10,550 and $5,130. (Annual and lifetime costs should not be added together, since they are measured over different time periods.) It is instructive to compare economic cost estimates from this study with measurable costs of other sources of morbidity, mortality, and productivity loss (see Table 20). The annual cost estimate for pathological and problem gambling in 1998 of $5 billion (somewhat more if we annualize the lifetime costs) compares with 1995 estimates for drug abuse of $110 billion and alcohol abuse of $166.5 billion (Harwood et al. 1998). Motor vehicle crashes in 1992 cost $71 billion (Blincoe and Faigin 1992). The most recent estimates for other major health problems such as diabetes, stroke, and heart disease have been compiled and compared by the National Institutes of Health (1997). The current economic impact of problem and pathological gambling, in terms of population or cost per prevalent case, appears smaller than the impacts of such lethal competitors as alcohol abuse and heart disease. However, the costs measurable by health-based estimation methods do not capture all of the consequences important to the person, family, or society. The burden of family breakdown, for example, is outside of these measures. And the value of further attention at the policy level may depend more on the quality of efforts to respond as on the extent of costs we can presently measure.

 

[JayC]

So there you have it, the costs to American society:

Gambling $5 billion
Smoking $72 billion
Drugs $110 billion
Alcohol $166 billion

So, what is the real problem in thois country???

You can download the entire study here:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/gamble.htm

The figures above can be found in Table 20 which is titled "Economic Impacts of Major Health Problems" The figures are annual.

 

[sherman]

To say Casinos are good for the local economy is a JOKE! Been to AC lately? Visit SE Connecticut in a few years, what a joke it will be...

 

[Fishhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sherman:
To say Casinos are good for the local economy is a JOKE! Been to AC lately? Visit SE Connecticut in a few years, what a joke it will be...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Casinos should be the backbone of America!

 

[ChuckSims]

Was he waving a bible when he called casinos the "crack cocaine of gambling"?

 

[Fishhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck Sims:
Was he waving a bible when he called casinos the _"crack cocaine of gambling"_?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and a lotto ticket in the other.

 

[Phaedrus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... the Ho-Chunk Nation ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best tribe name ever!


Phaedrus

 

[RobFunk]

Gambling $5 billion <---often have some the most impressive buildings and structures you have ever seen.
Smoking $72 billion
Drugs $110 billion
Alcohol $166 billion <---sold at liquor stores and supermarkets

what is America's priority? to get smashed

 

[ChuckSims]

FISHHEAD LMAO

 

[Woody0]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jay C:
Gambling $5 billion
Smoking $72 billion
Drugs $110 billion
Alcohol $166 billion
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

War, somewhere between drugs and alcohol last I heard.

 

[Skyweasel]

who lives in Madison and voted yes on the casino referendum, here's what I can tell you:

1) It was soundly defeated by about a 70-30 margin, not what some expected

2) the defeat was linked in part to very aggressive advertising by the Ho-Chunks, who wanted to convert their current bingo hall just southeast of the city to a full-fledged casino

3) The Ho Chunks along with Potawatomi and other tribes have full-blown casinos in Wisconsin, one of which is 45 minutes north of Madison in Baraboo. It's easy to get there so it's not like we are "missing" out on gambling.

4) Political advocates in Madison who were working with the Ho Chunks on the campaign prior to the vote had set it up so that money from this casino would go to fund various social programs that are otherwise in danger. However I personally feel that is a silly idea. I voted for it mainly because I'd like to not have to drive 45 miles when I want to gamble.

5) Recently the republicans in the legislature voted to rescind the latest compact between the governor (a democrat) and the tribes, which allowed them to expand from blackjack and slots to craps, roulette, poker, and other table games.

The various tribes have had different reactions. Ho Chunk pulled the other games but withheld their compact payment, stating that the agreement had been violated. This was something like 30 million bucks, not chump change. Potowatami may or may not have paid, I can't recall, but refused to pull their games. They stated that the compact is just as legal as the first compact, which was signed with the former governor, a republican.

The basis for pulling the games is now up to the courts to decide. It appears that there are some interests in the legislature who feel that they can "pull" the indian gaming licenses, then invite Nevada interests to come and build casinos here which these legislators will, I imagine, then receive some form of under the table graft in exchange for having done the dirty work to set the deal up.

As for whether a casino is "good or bad" for a local economy, I'm not an expert. I have no idea. I tend to think that people would spend their discretionary income on something, bars, amusement parks, vacations, who knows, if they didn't have a casino to spend it at. Whether a casino employs more or fewer people at better or worse wages than some of these other things, might be a place to start when analyzing, because part of the value of any business to an economy is employing people, and moreover, those people being able to earn a decent wage which then allows them to spend back into that same economy.