posted
So tomorrow I get to vote to allow, or not to allow, slot machines into my state. I am still a little undecided. Sure, I'm a teacher, and a HUGE portion of the profits are supposed to go to schools. But that is what they said about alcohol and tobacco taxes. I also have a strong feeling that the school will get slots money, but will have money taken away from other sources.
I also shudder to think of Ocean City, MD turning into Atlantic City, NJ if slots are allowed to come there. Citizens of OC are strongly against slots, but the rest of the state gets to over ride them.
I hate how the people for slots have millions of dollars to spend on their campaign, and those against have very little.
But, Marylanders are going to West Virginia and Delaware to play slots anyways. So why not let the little old ladies throw away their retirement funds in our state?
posted
I have to admit that I think the slots proposal on the ballot is terrible.
I don't have a problem with the idea of bringing slots in to the state to keep money here and make money off of tourists, but there's no way that the amount of money generated is going to get close to what the proposal claims. The locations for the slots are terrible - the one in downtown Baltimore is in an area that has a reputation for being a bad neighborhood (it's not that bad - I have friends who live there), but the reputation's going to scare a lot of people away. And the one in western Maryland, in addition to being in a state park, is a lot less convenient for the majority of Maryland than West Virginia or Delaware. So, that won't really keep any money in the state. Plus, I understand that the Charles Town slots have seen a something like a 20% decrease in revenue since the financial crisis started. So slots won't solve Maryland's budget issues.
Additionally, I don't think any money should go to the racing industry. I love horses and I've been a racing fan, but the industry is dying and I see no reason why the state should be spending money to prop it up, because it's not going to get any better.
And I agree with you that while the money from slots will go to education, there's no guarantee that other money won't be taken away from education.
So all that, combined with some concerns about the societal impacts of slots mean that I'm voting against the proposal.
posted
I'm not against slots, but I am voting against this MD proposal because it calls for a constitutional amendment to allow slots. This sort of thing should not be in the Maryland constitution.
quote:Originally posted by lobo: I am against all forms of gambling. Including the lottery and horse/dog racing.
"Against" in the sense that you would never gamble or "against" in the sense that nobody should be allowed to gamble?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
About 20 years ago they put up what I thought was a fair proposal here in Missouri.
We would allow gambling, as part of our historic Riverboat History.
As part of that history, each casino would be limited to being an actual river-boat, put in a river.
All proceeds would be taxed, and that tax would go straight to the Education funds of the state.
Some funds would also be set aside for dealing with problem gamblers.
Finally there was a limit placed on how much any person could lose during a two hour "cruise".
This sounded reasonable and balanced so I voted for it.
Within 3 months of passing, the state reps killed the idea of education only funding, and transferred the funds to general revenue. Their argument, if they kept the gambling money coming straight to ed, they would cut the ed portion of general revenues anyway, so just simplify it.
It didn't take long for the "Riverboats" to be casinos surrounded by man-made moats.
Two hour "cruises" weren't efficient in getting the cash, so that limitation was dropped.
Then the silliness of that was broadcast, and the whole "riverboat" thing was dropped.
On it went.
This year the last limitations are going to be voted on.
This is listed as a "Vote for Education."
That is because they are trying to re-create the, "Gambling Dollars go to Education" stuff, but the limits on it will help only some of the schools in different counties.
They will raise taxes on gambling profits by 1%.
They will get rid of the loss limits.
They will put a limit on new casinos, basically guaranteeing a monopoly on gambling to those already built or under construction.
They will require ID checks of all gamblers, for age purposes only. So checks can not be performed for registered problem gamblers, criminals, or others who shouldn't gamble.
15 million in money from Casinos in Los Vegas has been spent to get this passed.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Freedom is such an unpopular concept these days.
What do you mean these days? I think there are more states with gambling now than ever? You make is sound like we are less free today than past years? Do you have any evidence of that? It seems all the evidence points the other way...
Why are you against allowing communities to establish or uphold laws that they commonly think will protect their families from what they consider evils? If people don't like it, they can go to another community...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why are you against allowing communities to establish or uphold laws that they commonly think will protect their families from what they consider evils? If people don't like it, they can go to another community...
That's not a good principle since it can be used to justify any law.
EDIT: Tried to phrase a question in a way that wasn't loaded. Failed.
In general, I find your use of "protect" to be disturbingly broad. Why would the mere existence of something like a local casino pose a threat to your family (a threat large enough that you feel justified restricting the rights of others)?
posted
I am from Maryland also, I have been thinking all day about this question. There are a lot of ads on TV tring to scare me to vote for slots. (If I dont vote for slots my taxes will go up) I think they will go up no matter what!!! So I am going to vote no to question 2. We will have to think of a better way to pay for new schools.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. If this country was about communities being able to force people to behave as a large enough number felt best in order to protect their families, we definitely wouldn't have a legal system set up like we do now.
Our legal system is set up to help work out a balance between the rights of individuals and the desires of communities, not to prioritize the latter.
Especially when the 'community' in question is extremely large and diverse, the issue in question is a very severe restriction that touches on the heart of individuals' most personal and important relationships, and the support for such restriction is hardly overwhelming.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of any community which has voted to legalize gambling in my lifetime that hasn't regretted it within a decade.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether you agree with gambling or not. You should understand that, as a public revenue source, it is a very regressive tax. Even here in The Great American Desert, we know that. We just believe (at least officially) that it is impacting your poor more than our poor.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can't think of any community which has voted to legalize gambling in my lifetime that hasn't regretted it within a decade.
Every community regrets it? Even all the Native American tribes that have made fortunes from gambling?
Also Tom, are you counting state lotteries as gambling? Because people in Georgia seem very content with our lottery that pays for very generous HOPE scholarships for college and other educational funds. But we stuck with our original law for profits to be dedicated to education. We didn't slide down the slippery slope like Missouri---sorry, Darth, that's a sad political tale.
And yes, Artemisia, if you view it as a "voluntary tax", Georgia's law is very regressive. *shrug* Some people enjoy playing the lottery. I spend maybe $10-20 a year. Some get addicted, I know.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can't think of any community which has voted to legalize gambling in my lifetime that hasn't regretted it within a decade.
Part of the problem could be that the supply for some types of gambling is so low. Demand that would be better handled at a state level could easily end up overwhelming a small community.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Are slot machines evil, or are people weak-willed?
AS a serious attempt at that question, slot machines, as well as most of the attractions of a casino, are designed specifically to titillate and appeal to the player as much as possible, while retrieving from them as much money as possible. Everything in a Casino- everything, is designed with that purpose in mind. It can be fun, but it can be dangerous.
Now, myself, I've always done well at Casinos- I stick to a strict loss limit, and I quit while I'm ahead, but I know the feeling of wanting, very badly, to keep playing. I don't think it has to do with strength- addiction is not about the will, but about motivation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every community regrets it? Even all the Native American tribes that have made fortunes from gambling?
Note that the Native Americans do not generally play in their own casinos; they make themselves into destinations, and thus avoid cannibalizing their own community. But note also that as states legalize their own casinos, the appeal of reservation casinos quickly fades. I think you'll see the casino thing go sour for them in another three to five years.
quote:Also Tom, are you counting state lotteries as gambling?
No, mainly because the mechanisms are a little different. That said, I've never seen a state lottery that's more efficient than just taxing the Social Security benefits of stupid people in the first place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted absentee this weekend. One of the issues was to allow a casino to be built near Wilmington, Ohio. What they didn't tell you in the advertisements was that it wasn't an amendment to build one casino. It was an amendment to build any number of them, starting with the one in Wilmington.
I see gambling as a potentially addictive and very destructive habit, so I voted no. It wasn't a priority, so it's not something I'm going to argue, but hey, I made my voice heard, right?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
