Gambling

[jdonn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[onoway]

"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? "

 

With the same reasoning, why not allow people to sell crack and heroin? The thing with slots is that they are designed to be addictive. Because each pull of the lever is usually a small amount of money it pulls people in who otherwise would likely stick with their lottery tickets. If all slots cost at least $20 a pop to play there would be a lot fewer people playing them. But I bet (!) the average loss for most people is well above that. To compare the movies to playing slots is silly..it would be difficult to spend $1000 at a movie but not at all difficult to do so with slots, in the same or less time.

 

If proponents of slots were not so dismissive of the downside then they might be more persuasive about the upside.

[Lobowolf]

Interesting breakdown in large part between camps that seem to view the question as, "Is there a compelling reason we should allow this?" versus "Is there a compelling reason we should prohibit this?"

 

I'm typically (and here) in the latter group.

[kenberg]

A note of thanks. I suspect we will soon be repeating ourselves if we aren't already. Before I vote I hope to learn more. Myself:

I don't play slots

I don't all that much mind paying taxes if the proceeds are used decently

I don't have any real interest in telling other people how to live but I don't much like being an accomplice in ripping off the poor dumb suckers.

 

I'll work it out and I really do appreciate the comments.

[Impact]

Let's be honest when looking at "slot machines" or one-armed bandits as they are known colloquially:-

 

1) there is NO skill involved;

 

2) aside from input of coins there is no real activity and since the demise of "pulling the lever" the only exercise is pushing a button;

 

3) longterm both the state and the owner of the machine win as the payout is always less than 100%.

 

I fail to see the charm in such a "game" but that does not mean I should prohibit someone else whose taste differs from mine participating (throwing money down a drain).

 

We should resist the urge to prohibit that which does not appeal to us.

 

Many of the same people would be disturbed to think that a similar principle could be applied to sports eg forms of football which involve attempts to maim the opposition etc and allegedly encourage people of the lowest intellectual calibre to behave like hooligans while receiving adulation for that behaviour (which is then repeated off the field)...but you don't hear (too many) calls for the banning of the game or sport.

 

let's face it, there are not too many activities which cannot have an adverse face ...now were I to propose a cardgame which has enormous mathematical skills, the need for logic and language skills akin to computer programming and foreign language mastery together with psychological aspects, as an educational tool there is a whole group of the population that will scream that it only encourages gambling and is the devil's work: presumably because they don't perceive the charm of the game!

 

Humans have an ability to find a way to turn almost anything to "bad use" but until we legislate against pleasure per se, the fact that something CAN be turned to an adverse purpose should not be sufficient reason to ban it (otherwise why would an allegedly civilized society condone the use of firearms for starters....but I digress).

 

One man's pleasure is another's sin or anathema...

 

Moral or intellectual superiority is a wonderful thing for the possessor but the recipient of the perceived wisdom may have a completely different view (see also Christian missionaries and indigenous populations for another digression!)

 

regards

[kenberg]

I pretty much agree with everything Impact says but I return to one fact about the referendum I am faced with. The question is not: Should we allow people to gamble how and if they wish? Poker will remain illegal. Online gambling will remain illegal. Slots run by private companies will remain illegal. It's very narrow. The state proposes teaming up with gambling interests to grab some bucks. There really is a different sort of situation than allowing freedom of pleasure. Saying that guys have a right to look at pictures of naked women is one thing, having the state launch a joint operation with Hustler is something else. At the very least, one should look over the deal carefully before jumping in. Really this careful review of the pluses and minuses of this joint operation is what I advocate. If there is ever a referendum to allow freedom of choice about gambling I'll consider that. Offhand, I believe I would find it considerably more attractive than the current proposal.

[barmar]

"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? "

 

With the same reasoning, why not allow people to sell crack and heroin?

That's a different issue. My point was that if you decide the service is OK, then you should allow people to make money by providing it. I was responding to someone whose complaint about the slots wasn't about gambling itself, but that lots of the revenue from it would go to rich people out of his state. That's an anti-capitalist argument.

 

In other words, I disagree with the idea that slots should be legal only if all the revenue goes back to the public.

[barmar]

Ken, I'm confused about your position now. Earlier, you seemed to be against the idea that 1/3 of the revenue would flow out of state to rich corporations. But your latest post seems to be against the state being in bed with the operators.

 

Like Impact, I've never understood the attraction of slot machines. But I guess some people live really boring lives, and they find them more enjoyable than whatever else they would be doing. Or, like lottery players, they see the big upside potential and don't understand the more likely downside (this is a pretty well understood tendency in behavioral economics and folk innumeracy). I don't know what percentage of slot players are addicts -- if most of them are not causing any harm to themselves, their families, or society then I can't justify prohibiting it; I assume that most anti-gambling laws are a remnant of puritanism, and I disagree with this approach (I lean towards libertarianism).

[mike777]

"I don't know what percentage of slot players are addicts -- if most of them are not causing any harm to themselves, their families, or society then I can't justify prohibiting it; I assume that most anti-gambling laws are a remnant of puritanism, and I disagree with this approach (I lean towards libertarianism). "

 

 

Again then why ban any form of gambling? What is the rational for only having a lottery or slot machines and not other? Why does Ken's state just have unlimited, state regulated gaming?

 

If you are going to have slots to help the children then really help the children with more revenue for education, welfare, housing, health care, parks and recreation, etc, etc.

 

If it only hurts some people/families but not most...what's the problem?

[kenberg]

It could be that I do not have a 100% well thought out position. Maybe more thought out than McCain's position on the bailout, but still not completely clear.

 

Roughly my thoughts are something along the lines of: If you are going into business with the devil, it's important to carefully read the contract.

 

One theoretical possibility, one that is not on the table: Let people gamble how and when they want. Period. This has some general philosophical attraction to me. As many have said, and I pretty much agree, it's not my business to tell others how to spend, or squander, their money. I don't regard this as an absolute principle, but in general I think that butting out of other people's choices is a fine idea.

 

 

However: The option on the table is quite different. It bears no resemblance to the theoretical option above. This option is that the state will go into business with the slots industry to make some money. It's a business deal. It doesn't involve freedom of pleasure, it's an attempt to make some dough. OK. I suggest we treat it as a business deal. Forget about abstract notions of freedom to gamble the way we might like. The governor and the legislature have absolutely no interest in that. They want a business deal. The gambling interests want a business deal. It hardly takes a cynic to observe that sometimes the way business deals are negotiated with the state is through campaign contributions and other more secretive arrangements. The citizens do not always benefit.

 

I want the whole deal, all of it, laid out very clearly. I want, for instance, them to explain where the money will be coming from. The population of MD is a bit over five million. They are estimating 600 million in profits for the state, which means another 300 million for the slots industry and perhaps another 100 million for the race tracks (this last may be in with the 600 mil, I'm not sure). That's in the neighborhood of a billion so around 200 bucks per man woman and child. They think this will happen with no decrease in lottery sales? I would like to hear how they come to this.

 

If the advocates put up a precise list of checkable facts I will read it and consider it. If the first three items turn out to be bs, I won't go on to number 4. I will hold the organized opposition to a similar standard.

 

Years ago there would be these annual debates about the National Endowment for the Arts. The advocates always brought out a video of a cellist teaching music in rural Iowa. The detractors always brought up homoerotic blasphemy. I always hoped for a clear presentation of what was really going on, whether money was being spent well or squandered. Actual facts are useful.

 

 

I hope for some facts that I might consider. I don't plan to do extensive research myself but I will seriously consider reliable information and focused arguments.

 

On general grounds based in experience, my default position, when a well-funded industry comes in with a blitz campaign that explains how all I have to do is sign on the dotted line (or vote yes) and I (or my state) will achieve a great increase in wealth through no effort (or no taxes) of my own, is no thanks. I'll listen if presented with facts, but the default is No. More often than not, this is the right position.

[Lobowolf]

It could be that I do not have a 100% well thought out position. Maybe more thought out than McCain's position on the bailout, but still not completely clear.

 

Roughly my thoughts are something along the lines of: If you are going into business with the devil, it's important to carefully read the contract.

 

One theoretical possibility, one that is not on the table: Let people gamble how and when they want. Period. This has some general philosophical attraction to me. As many have said, and I pretty much agree, it's not my business to tell others how to spend, or squander, their money. I don't regard this as an absolute principle, but in general I think that butting out of other people's choices is a fine idea.

 

 

However: The option on the table is quite different. It bears no resemblance to the theoretical option above. This option is that the state will go into business with the slots industry to make some money. It's a business deal. It doesn't involve freedom of pleasure, it's an attempt to make some dough. OK. I suggest we treat it as a business deal. Forget about abstract notions of freedom to gamble the way we might like. The governor and the legislature have absolutely no interest in that. They want a business deal. The gambling interests want a business deal. It hardly takes a cynic to observe that sometimes the way business deals are negotiated with the state is through campaign contributions and other more secretive arrangements. The citizens do not always benefit.

 

I want the whole deal, all of it, laid out very clearly. I want, for instance, them to explain where the money will be coming from. The population of MD is a bit over five million. They are estimating 600 million in profits for the state, which means another 300 million for the slots industry and perhaps another 100 million for the race tracks (this last may be in with the 600 mil, I'm not sure). That's in the neighborhood of a billion so around 200 bucks per man woman and child. They think this will happen with no decrease in lottery sales? I would like to hear how they come to this.

 

If the advocates put up a precise list of checkable facts I will read it and consider it. If the first three items turn out to be bs, I won't go on to number 4. I will hold the organized opposition to a similar standard.

 

Years ago there would be these annual debates about the National Endowment for the Arts. The advocates always brought out a video of a cellist teaching music in rural Iowa. The detractors always brought up homoerotic blasphemy. I always hoped for a clear presentation of what was really going on, whether money was being spent well or squandered. Actual facts are useful.

 

 

I hope for some facts that I might consider. I don't plan to do extensive research myself but I will seriously consider reliable information and focused arguments.

 

On general grounds based in experience, my default position, when a well-funded industry comes in with a blitz campaign that explains how all I have to do is sign on the dotted line (or vote yes) and I (or my state) will achieve a great increase in wealth through no effort (or no taxes) of my own, is no thanks. I'll listen if presented with facts, but the default is No. More often than not, this is the right position.

Ken --

 

I don't want to oversimplify your position(s), because it's obvious you're putting a lot of thought into this, which is commendable.

 

That being said, the point that this is different from a law that would permit free reign libertarian gambling, which has philosophical appeal to you, strikes me as a bit odd. It sort of reminds me of a hypothetical world in which chess, checkers, bridge, and backgammon were illegal, and you think they should all be legal. Then if a ballot initiative comes up to legalize checkers, you don't really like it, and you say, "Well, this isn't really what I'd support. It wouldn't make chess, bridge, or backgammon legal."

 

I understand that it's more complex than that, but it sounds like there's an element of it, which strikes me as a bit counterintuitive.