[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]

onoway, on Oct 1 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

"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]

kenberg, on Oct 2 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

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.

[han]

I think the effect of allowing gambling in a state is negative, but I would be hesitant to prohibit it. I enjoyed the Las Vegas nationals a lot but I think the casinos are very sad places that I plan to never visit again.

Phil's puritan argument is interesting but does he apply it to heroine as well? If not, where does he draw the line? In gambling some people are trying to make as much money as they can at the expense of others whose lives are ruined. Now, not every person who makes a gamble has his or her life ruined but the same can be said about drugs.

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

[ASkolnick]

Slightly off the topic but related to Mike777 question about why are some forms of gambling legal and some are not?

This was brought up by Barbados and Antigua about the GATS agreement where the US had signed an agreement not to be part of "off-site" gambling. After the US signed this, they decided to rescind their statement. I believe the WTO () found the US in violation of this agreement since you either were "all" or none and as punishment, copyright laws are not protected in those two countries.

I believe this is being appealed.

As for gambling,
I have no problem not "banning" slot machines. Not my cup of tea, but that doesn't matter since I don't think it has an affect on most people.

As for the "extra" money towards education, the problem is I'm always suspicious. It seems every time a "gambling" proposal wants to go through, they say its for education. I would like to see in the states where gambling started what the jump was between the "non-gambling" year to the "gambling" year adjusted for Cost of Living, Inflation etc. My guess is you really are not going to see a big increase.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

What this means is that gambling is a way of getting in more taxes, which can help pay for education. Also, the gambling industry creates a lot of jobs, many of which are relatively secure.

It's in interesting question to what extent the government should regulate things that may be addictive, as addictions can be harmful. On the other hand, if you forbid gambling, people who are addicted will be forced into crime because you just defined their behaviour as a crime. This will cause people to hide, rather than getting help.

In the Netherlands we have very good examples of how legalization of certain type of addictive substances has helped the addicted to get away from them. So, I'm for less regulations in this area.

I agree with Han that the slot machine areas of large casinos are very sad places, and probably people shouldn't be allowed to sit there for hours like they do. Those who do, really have a serious problem. But that can't be the reason to forbid gambling.

[jdonn]

han, on Oct 2 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

I think the effect of allowing gambling in a state is negative, but I would be hesitant to prohibit it. I enjoyed the Las Vegas nationals a lot but I think the casinos are very sad places that I plan to never visit again.

The Las Vegas Hilton casino (and other casinos in that area, ie Riviera, Sahara) is a relatively dreary place. In a shocking move, the ACBL has discovered that the sadder casinos are less expensive places to hold large tournament than the happier ones. I recommend you come by the MGM Grand sometime, it's much more joyous and everyone's a winner!

Quote

Phil's puritan argument is interesting but does he apply it to heroine as well? If not, where does he draw the line? In gambling some people are trying to make as much money as they can at the expense of others whose lives are ruined. Now, not every person who makes a gamble has his or her life ruined but the same can be said about drugs.

You can also make the same argument against McDonalds. The casino industry here has been very proactive in trying to prevent problem gambling and get help for addicted gamblers.

Who says heroine should be illegal anyway? (uh oh)

Quote

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

I don't think the argument is "we need it", but just "it can help". I don't see why that is scary. Maybe we should be donating money to the highway fund and the local fire department instead of taxing cigarettes, but I bet you would raise a lot less money that way.

Here it's not so much an education issue anyway (I think our state ranks 49th in education) as it is a tax thing. Gambling taxes pay for schools instead of income taxes, so the schools break even but the income-earning non-gamblers are the winners. I think it would be different in Massachusetts though.

Quote

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

I don't think anyone has written that? But such a thing certainly can be good, which of course doesn't mean it has to be.

[mike777]

Perhaps another way to look at legalized gambling, drugs, prostitution etc is too what lengths, costs, restrictions of total freedom should society go to protect the most vulnerable members of its society.

What if any values does a society/the state want to encourage, what if any behavior does society/the state want to encourage/discourage?

OTOH if the goal is too maximize revenue to help the CHILDREN, ok.
If the test is it only hurts somepeople/families but not most....then......

For example more and more states are banning dog racing gambling. Even though this means less revenue for the CHILDREN! BTW the reason for this ban seems to have nothing to do with stopping the addiction that hurts families/humans.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Oct 2 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

han, on Oct 2 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

I don't think anyone has written that? But such a thing certainly can be good, which of course doesn't mean it has to be.

I guess I kind of said that, but it's not how I intended it to be interpreted. I phrased it in the negative: if something doesn't harm too many people, a ban may not be justified. This certainly isn't an absolute, as you also have to consider the amount of harm it does to the people that are impacted, as well as the value that comes from allowing it (which, discussions like this, includes the general benefits of freedom).

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Oct 2 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

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.

Very good point. Many pundits like to use arguments like this to label their opponents as hypocritical. For instance, Bill Maher used to frequently have discussions on his program regarding anti-smoking crusaders. He'd ask why they focus on this one vice, and not other problems like obesity (that always seemed to be the example he used). There's a simple answer: you pick your battles, because you can't solve all the problems of the world at once.

In the hypothetical Lobo gives, there's often a good reason why an initiative would be written that way: baby steps. It can be very difficult to get people to accept a major reversal in policy, like going from most gambling prohibited to all gambling allowed. But people will often allow small changes, like making one more game legal. Some will point out the slippery slope, but that may not be enough to prevent passage of the bill, whereas actually going to the bottom of the slope would never make it through the vote.

Why slots? Probably because it has few negative connotations. Poker and dice games are associated with wild west saloons and back alleys. Slot machines are pretty, with lots of twinkling lights and bells. Horse racing is legal in many states because it's the "sport of kings", linking it psychologically with noble pursuits rather than vices.

[pclayton]

han, on Oct 2 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

I think the effect of allowing gambling in a state is negative, but I would be hesitant to prohibit it. I enjoyed the Las Vegas nationals a lot but I think the casinos are very sad places that I plan to never visit again.

Phil's puritan argument is interesting but does he apply it to heroine as well? If not, where does he draw the line? In gambling some people are trying to make as much money as they can at the expense of others whose lives are ruined. Now, not every person who makes a gamble has his or her life ruined but the same can be said about drugs.

I think it is scary when the argument "We need gambling to pay for our children's education" is used. Maybe we should be paying for our children's education instead of gambling with the money.

I think it is even scarier when someone writes that if something is good for the majority of families and hurts only a small minority then it has to be good. That is really a scary way of thinking.

I've just never seen a need to ban things like gambling.

Heroin(e) is trickier. I think there are certain drugs that can cause chemical changes to the brain that remove reason and create addictions that are really tough to break. I could say the same thing about smoking I suppose.

I hate using justifying vices by saying that if the state benefits its OK. This does have a curious logic to it however. You can create social problems, and then tax your way out of them while providing a form of entertainment.

[Lobowolf]

pclayton, on Oct 2 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

I think there are certain drugs that can cause chemical changes to the brain that remove reason and create addictions that are really tough to break. I could say the same thing about smoking I suppose.

This is correct (both the chemical changes part and the smoking part). Neurotransmitters and the brain's physical reactions to various drugs is a field my father is around the top of; it's been his life's work for decades. More problematic than heroin is cocaine. I remember a study he told me about in which addicted lab rats given unlimited access to heroin would press levers to get heroin fixes when needed, then go about their lab rat lives; addicted lab rats given unlimited access to cocaine would take it and take it and take it and take it and die.

[kenberg]

barmar, on Oct 2 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 2 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

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.

Very good point. Many pundits like to use arguments like this to label their opponents as hypocritical. For instance, Bill Maher used to frequently have discussions on his program regarding anti-smoking crusaders. He'd ask why they focus on this one vice, and not other problems like obesity (that always seemed to be the example he used). There's a simple answer: you pick your battles, because you can't solve all the problems of the world at once.

In the hypothetical Lobo gives, there's often a good reason why an initiative would be written that way: baby steps. It can be very difficult to get people to accept a major reversal in policy, like going from most gambling prohibited to all gambling allowed. But people will often allow small changes, like making one more game legal. Some will point out the slippery slope, but that may not be enough to prevent passage of the bill, whereas actually going to the bottom of the slope would never make it through the vote.

Why slots? Probably because it has few negative connotations. Poker and dice games are associated with wild west saloons and back alleys. Slot machines are pretty, with lots of twinkling lights and bells. Horse racing is legal in many states because it's the "sport of kings", linking it psychologically with noble pursuits rather than vices.

A very good point for rebutting an argument I haven't made. If I liked x,y,z, all being illegal, and someone suggested legalizing x I would vote yes. Of course. A point that shows that I should do something that obviously I and everyone else would do is not that strong an argument. The problem here, as I have repeatedly said, is that in this case the legalization consists of a business deal in which supposedly I will benefit if I vote yes. For reasons I find sufficient, I am not willing to sign on the dotted line until there is a great deal more clarity about just how it is that I will benefit. It's a business offer. The slots industry and the legislature want my signature. If they want it badly enough they may decide to be more clear about the details and the promises. Otoh, maybe being more clear will not help their case. I suspect that this may be so.