Opinions feed
Opinion mobile
Home
>
Opinion
>
Editorials
EDITORIAL
Even if gambling is good, Issue 3 isn’t
Hot Topics
Updated 4:30 PM Friday, October 23, 2009
Editor’s note: As a follow-up to our Oct. 22 editorial on state Issue 3, today’s editorial examines the pros and cons of legalizing casino gambling in Ohio.
Whenever there’s a gambling issue on the ballot, discussion turns, as it should, of course, to the specifics of the plan at hand.
In the case of Issue 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot, the plan collapses in appeal upon inspection. It is designed to give specific companies what they want: the casinos they want; the sites they want; the tax rates they want; you name it.
This is an utterly preposterous way for a state to do business, a preposterous way for Ohio to enter the realm of casino gambling, even if one supports casino gambling.
But what about casino gambling itself? What about the big picture? Is a state better off to have four casinos than none?
The case for casinos these days starts with the fact that other nearby states have casinos. This results in Ohioans spending their money elsewhere, while no one is bringing this kind of money to Ohio.
One seldom hears this downside of putting casinos in Ohio: If casinos are even more prevalent — more convenient — more people will gamble. And people who already gamble will gamble more. Nobody can seriously dispute either assertion. The honest advocates of casinos don’t even try.
Not only would more people gamble, but more people who shouldn’t gamble would gamble. That is, more people who have a gambling problem. Resisting a temptation to drive to Indiana is one thing. Resisting a drive downtown is another.
To expand gambling opportunities is to make a conscious decision to add to society’s social problems, to weaken families, to undermine more lives — whatever alleged good a casino might also do.
The most common rebuttal to that point is that a free society has to put adults in charge of their own lives. Nobody, after all, will force anybody to gamble. People ought to have the option. Adults who can control their impulses should not have their freedom infringed upon because some other people — a minority — can’t.
This is an argument that must be taken seriously. Virtually all Americans have embraced the call to individual freedom about one controversy or another: guns, speech, alcohol, pornography, tobacco. Sometimes it prevails. Sometimes it doesn’t. (Drugs, prostitution.)
In some areas, the possibility of banning enticement to self-destructive behavior by adults is never taken seriously. (Sugar, fast food.)
With regard to gambling, society has taken what might be called a middle ground. Some forms of gambling are legal and/or prevalent, and others aren’t. State lotteries are everywhere (wherein governments not only allow gambling, but encourage it). Racetracks are all over Ohio. Internet gambling proliferates. Private poker games are common. Nonprofits use gambling to raise money. And, of course, most states have casinos.
The result is a virtual absence of restraint on the right of highly motivated gamblers to gamble.
So the strength of what might be called the libertarian case for casinos in Ohio — that adults ought to be free to waste their own money — is minimal. People have that freedom.
If, as society seems to have decided, a balance is to be struck between the good and bad effects of gambling, then all logic points to the need for considering the specifics of any proposal.
That is, the decision is made that, for some reason, nearby casinos should be added to the mix — a dubious notion itself — then sharp attention must fall on the specifics, on how to allow for casinos.
At that point, surely all reasonable people can agree that the way to do it is to allow for a casino (or a certain number) under certain regulations (including state-set tax rates), and then allowing for bids, for competition among developers. The best way is obviously not to allow certain developers to put their own proposals into the state’s constitution.
Cox News Service
Share this article
Breaking news by e-mail
Start your day with top headlines in your inbox and get breaking news e-mail alerts at any time by subscribing to our Headlines e-mail newsletter.
See Sample | Privacy Policy
Latest News Blog Posts
About our ads
About our adsCopyright © 2009 Middletown Journal, Middletown, Ohio, USA.All rights reserved.
By using this site, you accept the terms of our Visitors Agreement and Privacy Policy. About our ads. You may wish to note our other business policies.
8:43 AM, 11/4/2009
9:07 PM, 11/2/2009
It is the Conservative Republican Right that opposes issue 3. Since when do you think the conservative Church establishment and the "left" are holding hands? I don't seem to remember a lot of rich right-wingers going to the casino as often as the poor left.
Either you need to check your Party affiliation or admit your political agenda made you look a little more dumb than usual on this one. lol
7:47 PM, 11/1/2009
Let us close down department stores to protect those addicted to shopping. Let us close down bars and liquor stores to protect the alcoholics.
Give me a break, seriously. Since you are losing this battle, you resort to petty laughable fear mongering.
7:43 PM, 11/1/2009
Atlantic City, the gambling mecca, is in "a death spiral," according to a casino executive. There have been major layoffs and a number of casinos have filed for bankruptcy. The promise that casinos will bring prosperity is pure illusion. Issue 3 is a bad deal for Ohio.
8:50 PM, 10/30/2009