Some good arguments, Scott. I hope the Governor will veto this bad bill. Indiana hardly needs more gambling when we’re number three in the country behind New Jersey and Nevada.

I would tend to agree here that we shouldn’t be imposing morals. I believe if people want to gamble their lives away, let them. But I think what Scott is aiming for here is where the money that is produced by increased gambling goes. Where it’s been promised little or none of it has been spent there. Sort of like an unfunded mandate so to speak.

What I think we need to be careful of, as a state, is how dependent we are on revenue produced by the increase in gambling. While I have no problem with people gambling their lives away, I have a problem with the legislature gambling my hard earned money away.

That’s what this post is about. Not morals Anon 7:43. By the way, since you’ve made a nice home here today, why don’t you be polite and identify yourself rather than hiding behind an anonymous comment.

It’s bad public policy.

It doesn’t make the state any money.

In fact, no one except IGC Director Ernie Yelton wants to talk about the fact that it could potentially lose the state money, and at the very least will harm the charitable and fraternal organizations that paper games were legalized last year to help. It’s a far thing from leveling the playing field as is claimed.

It will also unfairly benefit a single company that just happens to be in the district of the bill’s primary author.

Past posts on this here (which also lists the members of the Senate that voted for it):

http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/02/28/senate-approves-yet-more-gambling/

And here (more generally, and my first post about it):

http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/02/14/you-want-some-pull-tabs-with-that/

And here is the most recent House roll call (PDF warning), where they agreed to the Senate version of the bill:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2008/PDF/Hrollcal/0298.PDF.pdf

Fair disclosure: I work at a casino (in fact, I suspect that every casino in Indiana will, thanks to this bill, soon be selling “paper games” at their on-property bars and on their river boats). I’m not opposed to this bill out of some desire for the imposition of morality, but out of a sense that it is grotesquely bad public policy.

The problem with Gambling, and the “if people want to gamble, let them” motto, is that gambling is addictive and the financial devastation reaches from the individual to the entire family, often without the knowledge of the family.

Here’s an example: I went to an extended family funeral a year or two ago. Near the new grave was a fresh grave of a distant family member whose name I did not recognize, but who appeared to have died young. I inquired.

“Well, that’s was Tom’s wife”, was the response with a shake of the head. “Gambling.” Turns out that when “Tom” thought she was going shopping, she was actually visiting the riverboats. She went through her savings, then through their credit cards, then took out credit cards in the name of the children, then re-financed the house, then went through the proceeds, all forging signatures without knowledge of anyone involved. She managed the family checkbook and paid the bills.

The first “Tom” knew of it was coming home one day to find a foreclosure notice on his house. He confronted her, they had an argument, he went to bed, she slept on the couch. When he came out in the morning, she had killed herself.

In one day, “Tom” went from happily married to the loss of a wife, a loss of the house, and deep in debt.

I am privileged to know personally no murder victims in the circles of family and friends and their acquaintances. I now know of 3 suicides…. one a female doctor… one a high school acquaintance with large and loving family… and now this one…. that resulted from a person running up huge debts through gambling and financially devastating their family’s lives.

I suspect there is much more financial devastation and deprivation going on than this indicates, given that my knowledge comes merely from listening to stories around me.

The Governor, to my knowledge, has no personal sympathy with gambling interests, and has infuriated at least one local business man who enjoyed a windfall when the legislature expanded casino gambling by conscripting for the State half of his proceeds.

I don’t know what the Governor will do, but the question of gambling is not a moral question, it is a question of impact far beyond the individuals affected… every dollar spent at a casino by people with limited means is a dollar that is not being saved for worthy purposes including retirement.

If gambling is to be continued, then it ought to be with full and brutal disclosure: A great big sign should indicate that the average person loses money, and that the more money that is gambled, the more money on average will be lost.

Chris, you and I have finally agreed on something. Gambling has serious consequencs for non-gambling citizens and gamblers alike.

Ahhh, you got me Joel. I guess I am taking a more libertarian perspective in it all. For me, the role of government is to serve and protect. Though it could be a moral issues, as I understand it, murder would fall under the purview of protection.

I guess in some ways, lessening our reliance on gambling as a source of income and also keeping people from ruining their lives through addiction could also fall under protection, but whereas most victims of murder are seeking not to be murdered, those who gamble are making a conscience decisions to gamble thereby taking all of its consequences with it.

Wow - for once I somewhat agree with Chris Douglas. I have family members who do gamble - in moderation. Some more “moderate” than others. I don’t - one I’m not any good at it (the card games aspect of it) and two I’m a cheapskate. Well sorta - I’ll blow $100 on a set of microphones to make a podcast but spend $2 on a lottery ticket - forget it. I’m becoming of the opinion that we’re (we being a collective term) getting too addicted to the promises of gambling taxes and revenue. We know New Jersey has lots of gambling and exorbitant taxes. What about Nevada? The last time I read about the topic they have no income tax there but what about property and other taxes?

As they say the easiest tax to raise is the sin tax. Cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling.

Good point Joel about legislating morality. The question is never “should we legislate morality?” but “who’s morality are we legislating?” There are some moral issues that impact more than one person and must be regulated, as in the case of murder, and other moral issues, such as smoking, that when done in private hurt only the doer and no one else.