It was interesting to hear that Leo had only recently begun studying the issue of expanding gambling in the commonwealth with the advent of the Governor's decision to endorse casinos. Senator Tucker has a long history with the issue and Mr. Bernal stated that ten years ago he would not have imagined seeing himself as a casino opponent.
Leo described himself as being struck by the Governor's words in his speech at the pro-casino hearing at the statehouse, December 18, 2007 in which the Governor minimized the impacts on a few unfortunate individuals
It sometimes takes a woman to cut to the heart of the matter and Senator Tucker brought tears to my eyes as she spoke about the impact on our children to expand gambling in the Commonwealth. I must admit that I have felt quite alone in the realization and concern of the impacts that gambling have upon young people. In the late 90's I was working with some adolescents in a neighboring community (affluent, jocks, popular) who were in serious trouble with bookies. As a mental health counselor I have worked for over two decades in the Palmer/Springfield region dealing with families, including young people addicted to substances and gambling. It is not good. This is not a new issue for me either, Senator. The barrage of casino advertising which is already at an annoying pitch, the institutionalization of gambling (which the Administration's bill prefers to call "gaming"...OH-KAY! we are really fooled by that little change in semantics) along with the insidious toxic nature of addiction combined with young people who may be highly susceptible to the lure of excitment and easy money, is a dangerous, downward trend.
Senator Tucker articulated the impact on the Massachusetts, "brand" and how it simply does not fit into Massachusetts to be a little Las Vegas.
Exploitive Gambling and the extremely addictive products that have been placed into the marketplace were the focus of Mr. Bernal's discussion. He described how machine gambling is not benign (it ain't your church bingo game -edit mine) with "access and accessibilty" being major contributors to slot machine addiction. He referenced a Canadian study that revealed that gamblers with access to slots (machine gambling) exhibited a 50% rate of addiction. That's a problem for more than a "few unfortunates". It's a problem for their families, employers, community, taxpayers and non-gamblers alike.
William Thompson, a Las Vegas-based expert on the socioeconomic impact of gambling, agreed that casinos change the entertainment landscape. He said people tend to gamble with the discretionary dollars they had used for dining out. And people who live within five miles of a casino are the most common casino visitors. “We found in Illinois that people who lived within five miles gambled twice as much as people who lived from 5 to 15 miles,” Thompson said.
Les posed a compelling question, "why would our government even consider placing this burden on us?" One of the cornerstones of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been a sense of conscience and sense of common good. He emphasized how greater understanding leads to greater opposition to casino gambling. This is the direction he has followed as he is now working with a national coalition to oppose expanded gambling.
3 comments:
When we travelled through Nevada, we carefully avoided the casinos and bright lights. It's not our idea of vacation. But others have told me of signs promising DOUBLE YOUR PAYCHECK and similar promotions. We have read both sides of the argument and fail to see ANYTHING casino gambling will add to the Commonwealth besides corruption. Please keep speaking out. You're right and you're winning the debate.
The Administration calls it gaming...the Govenor calls it a "resort". You are right...the little change in semantics is fooling no one. Gaming is gambling..and these proposed "resorts" are casinos. What makes it even worse is that these "resorts" are geared to lure in families....why in the world would anyone want to bring their child to this type of "resort" is beyond me.
Bravo carverchick. You are completely right. Call it what you want, the "house" always wins...those that will go to this "resort" will be the ones that can least afford it, in the hopes of that "big win".
Families will leave in greater financial straits then when they went in. Enticed to come back and spend more... and the vicious cycle will just continue to occur.
"Hey Daddy, can you stop playing the slots and come swim with me today at the great water park?" ...."Not now, Joey...later, I'm going to win big at Black Jack first and then we'll go."
Kids will suffer and families will break. But hey, this is a "resort"...doesn't it sound relaxing and a lot of family fun?
Post a Comment