The Dark Side
by Tony Lawrence

10/21/07 -- I've mentioned before that I was originally ambivalent about a casino in Middleboro. What I haven't talked about is how easily I could have gone the other way - how I could have been one of the Mighty Thirteen Hundred, a contributor to Gladys Kravitz's blog, perhaps even serving on the CFO Board of Directors. Put very simply, I don't like gambling. I do not believe that gambling is something that society should encourage. I easily could have joined the anti-casino crowd.

Does that surprise you? The "Turkey Guy", the guy who writes all these pro-casino columns, THAT guy says he doesn't like gambling and could have gone the other way? Yes. I don't gamble. I work too hard for my money to put it at risk in gambling. I think anyone who does gamble is a fool or has an addiction problem that needs professional attention.

I can see some of you shaking your heads. You know I play poker weekly. You know I've gone to Foxwoods and have put money in slot machines, bought Keno tickets - have I lost my mind? No, I have not: that's not gambling.

Most of us don't actually gamble. We might go to Foxwoods or Vegas and spend some money, but there's no "gamble" in it. The hundred dollars we put in the slot machine or spend at Blackjack is simply the price we pay for entertainment. There's no risk in it, it's disposable income, it's not gambling. In that sense, I never have gambled, and never would: I'm not a gambler. You probably aren't a gambler either. It's just entertainment.

But there is a dark side. While "gambling" is harmless entertainment for most, it can be an all consuming demon for some. Lives are ruined, families are destroyed. The bright lights are just fun for you and I, but there are people who go with money that isn't disposable, money they need for their rent, for their family food shopping, They really are gambling, and the results can be tragic,

Therefor, I can certainly appreciate the objections that the anti crowd have. I can also agree with the insistence that many on their side will make that their objections are sincere and honest: they truly believe that gambling is harmful to society. I agree: gambling (real gambling) is harmful.

OK - so why aren't I standing shoulder to shoulder with the Mighty Thirteen Hundred?

Because prohibition is the wrong approach. Automobiles are dangerous - that's why we have speed limits, seat belts, and pollution controls. Alcohol can have truly awful social consequences - that's why we have our ABC laws in MA and that's why bartenders and other hosts have been held responsible for allowing others to drink too much.

Gambling has social consequences. If the Mighty Thirteen Hundred were working to reduce those consequences rather than to ban it outright, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Wouldn't you?

We put warning labels on cigarettes - why not warning labels on Casino games? We have solvency requirements for certain types of investments because they are particularly risky - why couldn't we have solvency requirements for gamblers? Police patrol our roads to help prevent speeding, why not have "Casino police" trained to watch for signs of addiction and intervene? We could do all those things and more. We could pass laws that put the responsibility for addiction on the casinos, requiring them to create an insurance pool that would provide restitution and rehabilitation to people who become gambling addicts.

We could do these things, or at least discuss which might make sense. I think we should, and I think it's never too late. Certainly if this State allows commercial casinos we definitely should be pushing for more safeguards against gambling addiction. With Indian Casinos, we have the matter of sovereignity, but that can (and should) be adjusted at the Federal level: we can require more attention to the social problems that affect real gamblers.

I wish that the "anti's" would direct their energy in this direction rather than trying to stop casinos outright. We know they can't win that fight, and I suspect even many of them realize it also. So why not give it up and actually try to accomplish some good? Stop wasting time and money in a battle that cannot be won and start concentrating on things we can do.

If the anti's did that, a lot of us on the "pro" side would join them. We're just as concerned for our fellow man as you are, and while I'm sure we'd all argue left and right about what kind of controls would work and which would interfere too much with our harmless entertainment, there'd be far less rancor in it, and far more that we could agree upon.

We could do this. What's stopping us?

* Tony is a regular contributor to OakPointCommunity.org .