Reason #36 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
Because slots are the 21st Century version of saying, "Want some candy little girl?" to entice a youth into otherwise inadvisable behavior. I'm not even talking about the irony of how Issue 3 claims to want to help the very population most at risk for developing gambling addictions if slots were to become widely and easily available to the same group.
Greater Cleveland is composed of 33.5%, or 952,000 individuals, are under age 25.
Youth and adolescent gambling produces addicted gamblers at a 2 to 4 times greater rate than adults. Adolescents engage in gambling more than any other addictive behavior. And slots are the most addictive form of gambling.
But while we're blaming another arena for preying on our kids - banks and credit card companies - and putting them into debt, parents remain the biggest problem because an overwhelming majority give their kids permission to gamble.
If you think it's difficult to get kids to enter college now, let alone finish a degree, how much harder will it become if gambling is allowed within less than a mile of the Cleveland State and Tri-C dorms?
Oh - I get it - the very money that would be used to pay for their tuition will simply go right back into the slots. Duh.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
It's bad enough that we can't trust the FBI to keep an eye on adults who prey on kids. If you vote yes on Issue 3, consider yourself a predator of the young too.
Vote no on Issue 3.
Greater Cleveland is composed of 33.5%, or 952,000 individuals, are under age 25.
Youth and adolescent gambling produces addicted gamblers at a 2 to 4 times greater rate than adults. Adolescents engage in gambling more than any other addictive behavior. And slots are the most addictive form of gambling.
But while we're blaming another arena for preying on our kids - banks and credit card companies - and putting them into debt, parents remain the biggest problem because an overwhelming majority give their kids permission to gamble.
If you think it's difficult to get kids to enter college now, let alone finish a degree, how much harder will it become if gambling is allowed within less than a mile of the Cleveland State and Tri-C dorms?
Oh - I get it - the very money that would be used to pay for their tuition will simply go right back into the slots. Duh.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
It's bad enough that we can't trust the FBI to keep an eye on adults who prey on kids. If you vote yes on Issue 3, consider yourself a predator of the young too.
Vote no on Issue 3.
JBlog Me
17 Comments:
If you're concerned about youth gambling, you should go after the church festivals. Several years ago on the west side of Cincinnati, I was playing the mouse game at Our Lady of something or another. (You don't want to know what the mouse game is. Trust me.) I was betting quarters while some kids who appeared to be about 10 or 12 years old were betting dollars. The gaming operators were taking the kids' bets, with no questions asked.
One other thing:
"If you vote yes on Issue 3, consider yourself a predator of the young too."
I thought stuff like that was beneath you, Jill. I guess I was wrong.
About comment #1: I agree with you. I think it's a terrible mixed message. And my synagogue will not be doing gambling - not even Bingo. I've posted a reason before about how the Jewish faith regards gambling, especially to raise funds for its operating expenses.
As far as what other churches do, I think you understand that I'm not listing the reasons because I want to go on a crusade that goes after everyone who allows betting or gaming or gambling. I do not want what Issue 3 wants and I am advocating that it be defeated. At this point, that's all she wrote.
As for comment #2: Jason, there is no right I possess that I wouldn't sacrifice for my kids. And certainly, even if I did support the freedom involved in being able to gamble, it certainly could never rise to the level of swapping out my kids' future - via the environment around them or teaching them that they don't need to earn anything for their education or that Mom and Dad need to go lose money in the slots to help pay for them to go college.
No dice.
I resent being called a predator because I disagree with you. I guess you are unable to make your point without engagning in name calling. That's unfortunate, and it says a lot more about you than it does about your adversaries.
"Jason, there is no right I possess that I wouldn't sacrifice for my kids."
That's fine. Just don't take rights away from me.
Jason, you are not a predator because we disagree. That's not quite right.
I feel as strongly about this characterization of the people who want to enable legalized gambling as you do about believing that we possess some right to gamble that deserves legal recognition.
I absolutely do not believe in the existence of a natural right to a freedom to gamble. If you have a basis for asserting that right, I would love to read it.
Whatever right to gamble exists would have to be a man-made right. And to whatever extent exists, I fail to see how it rises to the level of deserving recognition over and above the havoc it reeks on society.
That is how I feel. Likewise, I feel that people who wish to pervert and torture the facts about what Issue 3 will accomplish are predators.
I would like to say to you, don't take it personally, Jason, because you can't be something that you don't call yourself - I believe that.
However, you haven't yet argued that no one is damaged by legalized gambling. You've only being saying that your right to gamble is being denied. To the extent that both these things are true, you are exerting some serious cognitive dissonance - which, by the way, every single human does, on pretty much a daily basis, myself included.
I want to see people work as hard at making college education a reality for as many Ohio kids as possible as the same people have been working to legalizing gambling.
Imagine what could have been/can be accomplished with such energy.
"Jason, you are not a predator because we disagree. That's not quite right."
But in the original post, you wrote, "If you vote yes on Issue 3, consider yourself a predator of the young too." Probably more than a million Ohioans will vote yes on Issue 3. You called all of us predators.
"I absolutely do not believe in the existence of a natural right to a freedom to gamble. If you have a basis for asserting that right, I would love to read it."
I suppose someone could make a substantive due process argument, but I'm not qualified to do that. You brought up rights when you wrote, "...there is no right I possess that I wouldn't sacrifice for my kids."
"However, you haven't yet argued that no one is damaged by legalized gambling."
You're right. Some gamblers, legal and illegal, cause harm to themselves and others. However, the vast majority of us do not. The criminalization of all gamblers for harm caused by a few gamblers is collective punishment. Collective punishment is immoral.
Furthermore, people will gamble, whether it is illegal or not. The choice is not between gambling and no gambling. The choice is between legal gambling and black market gambling.
Re: predator: what I wrote was that I believe you should consider yourself a predator. You are right. What I should have wrote was that I view people who support Issue 3 as supporting predatory behavior. I do see the gambling industry as a predatory industry, Jason. Just like I think cats are adorable and loveable. But they're also predators and bring mice to me and never eat them.
Count me out as well re: making the argument that gambling is a fundamental or other right. I'm sure if we google, we might find something. Nevertheless, I don't see it as anything other than a statutory right that can be given or taken away.
Hmm - collective punishment is immoral. Well, the Old Testament has a few stories of God engaging in collective punishment. I've never liked those stories and I'm not sure how I feel about them.
But I guess the problem here between you and me is that I do not see the failure of Issue 3 as punishment.
You really feel you're being punished by not being able to have 31,500 slots in Ohio? I think you are taking literary license now, yes?
As for the last choice, I think you and I have made it clear that you view the second sentence as the choice involved, while I don't. I do not want more gambling, more addicts, more foreclosures, more bankruptcies and more excuses by Ohioans as to why they shouldn't be making efforts to make college more affordable without inflicting social costs. You want to talk about punishment? Why should those folks pre-disposed to addictions be punished because you want gambling expanded? Why aren't the methods of gambling available to you now adequate? Are you addicted? (that last question is rhetorical - I would never ask you if you are in fact addicted but my point is, why isn't what we have as gambling enough? Why do we need more?)
"I do see the gambling industry as a predatory industry, Jason."
The gambling industry provides a service. The house edge is the customers' payment for that service. If the house edge is too high, customers won't gamble.
"Count me out as well re: making the argument that gambling is a fundamental or other right. I'm sure if we google, we might find something. Nevertheless, I don't see it as anything other than a statutory right that can be given or taken away.
Here are some interesting things on both sides:
- In Paradise, Inc. v. Pierce County an appellate court in Washington rejected a substantive due process claim against a local ordinance restricting gambling.
- Here's a review of a book called No Price Too High: Victimless Crimes and the Ninth Amendment by Robert M. Hardaway.
- Here's an opinion by Atty. Gen. Don Stenberg of Nebraska. (You might recognize that name from Carhart v. Stenberg)
- There's more here.
"But I guess the problem here between you and me is that I do not see the failure of Issue 3 as punishment.
"You really feel you're being punished by not being able to have 31,500 slots in Ohio? I think you are taking literary license now, yes?"
Not the failure of Issue 3 specifically, but the criminalization of some forms of gambling in general. Issue 3 wouldn't solve this problem, but it would be a small step in the right direction.
"As for the last choice, I think you and I have made it clear that you view the second sentence as the choice involved, while I don't."
OK. Show me a place where laws against gambling actually eliminate gambling, rather than create a black market.
"You want to talk about punishment? Why should those folks pre-disposed to addictions be punished because you want gambling expanded?"
That's like arguing that the 21st Amendment punishes people with a predisposition toward alcoholism.
"Why aren't the methods of gambling available to you now adequate?"
They are adequate. I'm within half a day's drive of full-service casinos in Detroit, Windsor, Niagara Falls, and even Lawrenceburg. If I want to wager on sports other than horse racing, I can bet on the internet, or find an illegal bookmaker. It's pretty much all available to me.
I guess you meant to ask why the means of gambling currently legal in Ohio aren't adequate. The answer to that is that casino gaming is much less unfavorable to the player than the forms of gaming currently legal in Ohio. A lottery player will lose about 50% of his or her total wagers. A horseplayer, on average, will lose between 14% and 30% of his or her total wagers.
Contrast that with casino gaming. A slot player will lose between 2% and 17% of his or her total wagers. A roulette player will lose about 5% on an American wheel or about 2.7% on a European wheel. Craps and blackjack players can minimize their losses to under 1%.
"Why isn't what we have as gambling enough? Why do we need more?"
No one needs to gamble, but we all do things we don't need to do. My question is, Why does the state need to criminalize gambling? My default position is in favor of freedom unless there's a compelling argument for prohibition. Your default position seems to be in favor of prohibition unless there's a compelling case for freedom.
Sorry to not to have responded to this particular comment earlier.
okay - let me see:
If the house edge is too high, customers won't gamble. Hmm, well see - I don't think people's interest in gambling is predicated on that. Now, those who are particularly savvy might, but are you really saying that people would give up gambling altogether at a certain breakpoint?
See, even if that were the case, the business interests would be sure to locate precisely where that breakpoint is so that they could continue to make money off of people's interest in pursuing risk which, even tho minimal, still provides some payoff.
Also - taking the risk itself, whether one wins or loses, for many people, is the enticement itself.
About victimless crimes etc., see, I'm mental health professionally trained person, Jason. No crime is victimless - to say so means that the actor him or herself doesn't count as a person or isn't someone about whom we should care. I don't believe that.
Thanks for those links though - you give good link.
I don't view laws against gambling as being in existence to eliminate gambling. I agree that if people want to find a way to do something they will indeed find a way. But I do not have to help make it easier for people to engage in destructive behavior.
As for equating the 21st Amendment with legalizing gambling, if that's the case, what's your reasoning for why the US government hasn't created a cabinet-level department to regulate gambling and dole out the proceeds to education?
As for the point about why isn't what's in Ohio adequate, so, you are saying, you just want better odds? Well then, aren't you saying that the break point isn't good enough to keep you gambling? Why should we make the breakpoint easier for you with a cost to 109K individuals plus their families? I don't get that.
What you say about default positions and being in favor of freedom versus being in favor of prohibition is interesting. And I'm not actually willing to argue with you on it because I want to think about it. I think the default depends on the issue and who is involved and which rights are involved. But I agree - this is an interesting point and perspective.
"...are you really saying that people would give up gambling altogether at a certain breakpoint?"
Probably. Here are a couple of examples. I enjoy playing blackjack. The rules I've encountered at commercial casinos in Ontario give the house an edge of 0.403115% over a basic strategy player, meaning that an average $15 hand of blackjack costs a little over 6 cents. I play, because I find the entertainment value of a $15 hand of blackjack to be more than 6 cents.
Church festivals in Ohio also sometimes offer blackjack, but the house wins all ties. This adds 8.86% to the house edge, meaning that a $1 hand of blackjack at a church festival in Ohio will cost, on average, just over 9 cents, and so I don't play, even though the minimum wager is much lower and a local church festival is much more accessible than a distant casino.
Horse racing is a pari-mutuel game, meaning that bettors bet against each other, and the track takes a percentage of the wagering pool. This percentage, known as a "takeout," varies depending on the type of wager and the state in which the race takes place. Tracks usually take a larger percentage out of wagers involving more than one horse, such as exactas and trifectas, than they do from wagers win, place, and show wagers, which involve only one horse. For example, the takeout on win, place, and show wagers at the tracks operated by the New York Racing Association is 14%. The takeout on trifecta and pick-3 wagers at Calder Racecourse is 30%. Consequently, when I bet $1 across the board (a total $3 wager) on a race at Belmont Park, I've decided that the entertainment value of the wager is greater than 42 cents. I also tend to avoid multiple-horse wagers, especially at Calder.
"See, even if that were the case, the business interests would be sure to locate precisely where that breakpoint is so that they could continue to make money off of people's interest in pursuing risk which, even tho minimal, still provides some payoff."
Yes, they try to maximize their profits. So do other sellers of products and services.
"No crime is victimless - to say so means that the actor him or herself doesn't count as a person or isn't someone about whom we should care."
First, this assumes that illegal activity is necessarily harmful. Whom do I harm by playing blackjack? Sure, I lose a bit more than I win, but I'm exchanging money for entertainment, just as I would if I went to a theater or a sporting event. Why is one exchange of money for entertainment harmful, and the other not?
Here's another example. When I was in college I drank underage. I never drank to the point of intoxication, so where was the harm? Who was the victim of my crime?
As for caring about people, I care enough about my fellow human beings that I respect their autonomy and mind my own damn business.
"I don't view laws against gambling as being in existence to eliminate gambling."
So it seems to me you're conceding that the choice is between legal gambling and black market gambling, and you're saying that you prefer black market gambling.
"As for equating the 21st Amendment with legalizing gambling, if that's the case, what's your reasoning for why the US government hasn't created a cabinet-level department to regulate gambling and dole out the proceeds to education?"
Well, the state and federal governments both levy excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, but I was responding to your argument that merely allowing an activity means punishing people who chose to engage in that activity to their detriment. This line of argument against legalized gambling sounds an awful lot like Leslee Unruh's argument against legalized abortion.
"Why should we make the breakpoint easier for you with a cost to 109K individuals plus their families?"
Jacob Sullum asks, "Should people die so that you can buy beer on Sunday?"
1. Based on how much you know about the odds, you are scaring me. If you're trying to argue that gambling is entertainment, you've shown that it's far less than that, to me anyway, because anyone who knows that much about their entertainment, I don't know - but for me? It would no longer be entertaining if I have to think that much.
2. We don't allow sellers of products and services to maximize their profits if that includes knowing that it will injure people. Just ask folks in the tobacco or asbestos or paint industry.
3.Just because you're willing to lose money in exchange for what you consider to be entertainment, doesn't mean that the way that others profit from your willingness isn't a crime. Statutory rape exists because even if a minor consents, it's still a crime. Am I saying that you as an adult should be treated like a minor who may not be able to give consent? No - I'm saying that others shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of you - no matter how willing you are to be taken advantage of. That is not behavior we want to encourage, as a general rule, in society.
4. I don't know who Leslee Unruh is but I will check out the link. I promise - I am unequivocally pro-choice.
5. Who exactly is dying so that we can buy beer on Sunday? As a sidenote, I really wouldn't care one way or another about buying beer on Sundays. It's only done now so that people can make money from the sales. You're fooling yourself if you think it's done so that people can have more access to liquor whenever they want.
Ooops - I missed the thing about black market gambling. Yours is another cheeky answer, there. Of course I'm not endorsing black market gambling. If you want to characterize my position that way, go ahead. If you want to say that that's the effect of myposition, you can say that too. But obviously I'm arguing about the expansion of what already has been authorized as legal gambling. Any discussiona bout black market gambling we can do on another countdown. :)
You're uniquely well qualified to determine what entertains you, and I'm uniquely well qualified to determine what entertains me. The thinking is a big part of what makes gambling fun for me. Handicapping a horse race is like solving a puzzle. I don't play blackjack very often because there isn't as much thinking involved. Once you've memorized a basic strategy table, it gets to be rather mechanical after a while, unless you can count cards, which I've never been able to do from a 6-deck shoe.
"We don't allow sellers of products and services to maximize their profits if that includes knowing that it will injure people."
Casinos don't injure people. Irresponsible gamblers injure people. Irresponsible gamblers, not casinos, are the actual and proximate causes of social problems that result from irresponsible gambling.
"Am I saying that you as an adult should be treated like a minor who may not be able to give consent? No..."
Oh. really? Why else use the example of statutory rape?
"...I'm saying that others shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of you - no matter how willing you are to be taken advantage of."
How am I being taken advantage of?
"I don't know who Leslee Unruh is..."
She regrets her abortion, so now she's leading the fight to uphold South Dakota's abortion ban. For another example of the "I regret my abortion, so now I want to make criminals out of other women who make the same choice I did" argument, go here.
"Who exactly is dying so that we can buy beer on Sunday?"
Follow the link. Some public health busybodies in New Mexico have come up with a study that found that the repeal of that state's Sunday blue law resulted 543 more alcohol-related traffic accidents, and 42 more fatalities, in the 5 years after the repeal. Mr. Sullum responds, "Does that possibility justify the imposition on the vast majority of drinkers who are not driving while intoxicated and getting into crashes but who might like to purchase a sixpack or a bottle of wine on a Sunday? Is it fair to restrict their freedom because of other people's recklessness?"
"It's only done now so that people can make money from the sales."
That's true of most of the products and services that we buy.
I disagree. I believe casinos do injure people. Yes, I really believe that. Quantify or define it anyway you want. Casinos are inherently dangerous products from a mental health perspective and I give parity to the importance of mental and physical health.
Others can take advantage of people regardless of whether they're minors. If you want to see yourself as a minor, fine. Adults get taken advantage of all the time and we frequently consider the circumstances that gave rise to that situation as criminal.
Jason, whether or not you see yourself being taken advantage only goes to how you choose to see it, frame it feel it. As we are showing over and over, we view that situation differently.
I haven't updated this research so I could be wrong, but it used to be that studies showed a very small percentage of women regretting their abortions and that the overwhelming feeling was relief. Apparently the more deeply religious you are, the more likely you are to regret your decision. I know this from firsthand experience of a friend who was in that small percentage.
About the blue laws: you know, for me - I couldn't care too much less. I'm a teetotaller these days, generally speaking. It really wouldn't bother me to maintain blue laws. It was changed for profit to begin with - there was no other reason.
Jason, I'm not a fan of doing stuff just to make money. Never have been. That's not what life is about for me. As I've alluded to before, it's driven my parents in particular quite nuts - my dad wanted to know why I couldn't take one of those highpaying law firm summer jobs in NYC rather than unpaid, grant-funded positions in public interest law groups or in juvenile court. I've promised my husband that I wouldn't write much about him but he too has gone through the phase of wondering why I have to take all the nonprofit writing projects and don't go after the more high-paying corporate or marketing or PR jobs.
Again, - just because it's true of most of the products and services we buy, doesn't mean I'm copacetic with it for everything in life.
"Casinos are inherently dangerous products from a mental health perspective..."
According to an article from Forbes, via MSN Money, gambling ranked as the fifth costliest addiction, behind alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and food. Alcohol results in more than four times the social costs that gambling does. Are taverns and package stores inherently dangerous? Overeating results in more than 2 1/2 times the social cost that gambling does. Are restaurants and grocery stores inherently dangerous?
"If you want to see yourself as a minor, fine."
How could I have possibly given you the impression that I see myself as a minor? You apparently see me that way, though. Why else would you have compared gambling to statutory rape?
"I am unequivocally pro-choice."
So am I. The fact that a small majority of people who engage in an activity do so to their detriment is no reason to criminalize that activity.
"It was changed for profit to begin with - there was no other reason."
So?
"The fact that a small majority of people who engage in an activity do so to their detriment is no reason to criminalize that activity."
Of course, I meant to write minority rather than majority. I really should learn how to proofread.
"So?"
And, to expand on this point, I'm more concerned with results than motivation. You lobbied for the repeal of Pepper Pike's Sunday garage sale ban because you wanted to hold a garage sale on Sunday, not because of any principled opposition to blue laws, and yet I applaud you for striking a blow for freedom. Whether you were motivated by self interest or principle, the result was the same.
On an unrelated matter, I hope your hands get better soon.
Jason - I don't think you're a minor. I can only explain how I feel and approach this issue. I don't know how else to explain it. I agree that such feelings and approach might imply some kind of overseer type relation between the state and the people who are in the state. But that's how seatbelt laws work too.
As for the inherent dangerousness - anything can be inherently dangerous if someone has an attraction to it that they can't control. What I object to is knowingly going into, or opening up an entire industry which we know contributes to misery. That is foreseeable. I cannot justify that - or justify supporting it. I just can't, Jason.
Changing for profit only: for me, rarely a motivation worth pursuing alone. Sounds pollyanna-ish but I'm telling you, really, there's little I do soley with that in mind - even when so many in my life have wished I did. I'm incorrigible in that respect.
My issue with Pepper Pike was actually more about freedom of religion, not the blue law. The ordinance was being defended by the mayor as something that would upset older members of the town because it would ruin their day of peace or rest. His support had nothing to do with the blue law aspect of profiteering.
As for the hands, they're in a holding pattern. And every time they hurt, I just remember that it is temporary and it's not life-threatening or anything like that. Typing actually makes it better because I don't think about it or notice it!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home