Over half of the propositions up for vote on Feb. 5 involve expansion of gambling facilities by state tribes. I have to admit that I haven't paid much attention to the issue so far, so I don't know what the pundits & editorials have to say about it. so far I don't see an obviously right decision, either for philisophical or economic reasons. My gambling behavior extends only to a buck here & there for the lottos; my first tendency would be to vote against the props, with the assumption that gambling is generally a self-destructive behavior. More gambling=more self-destruction.
More gambling facility in the state means more temptation for problem gamblers. The ballot says, "Impact: Net increase in annual state revenues..." This increase will come at the expense of the economic well-being of problem gamblers & their families. There will no doubt be hidden societal costs due to destruction of families - everything from bankruptcies to suicides and higher divorce rates. It appears that these costs haven't been taken into account in those "$10 million net increase" figures.
On the other hand, the state of Nevada, where gambling is even more pervasive than proposed for California, is a vibrant, stable state economically, and societally. And an argument could be made that an increase of gambling facility in California would mean fewer California dollars going to Nevada. Last, I admit that to me there is a factor of "restitution" justification for California tribes.
Haven't made a decision on this issue yet. The closest issue to it I can think of is another potentially self-destructive behavior, drug use. With drugs, I tend towards a society that doesn't try to regulate what an adult uses for pleasure on their own time. So far, for me the same principle would seem to apply to gambling.
lifequest
01-13-2008, 12:23 PM
The tribes involved are all in Southern California and have done well with their casinos. The initiative allows them to expand the number of slot machines and a portion of the additional revenues go to the State. As I recall it's opposed by other gambling interests (race tracks etc) as well as tribes which aren't benefitting from casino gambling.
Our local casino at River Rock is preparing to expand by opening up a resort hotel and remodeling their casino. They sent me an e-mail asking for input on potential names for the resort and offered a gift certificate from Amazon. After I responded no gift certificate. Bait and switch who knows...
But its not the reason I voted No on the initiatives.. just didn't want to approve making the already successful casinos even richer at the expense of the others.
ChristineL
01-14-2008, 02:02 AM
The bottom line issue for me is what one of my Native American clients explained. She wasn't sure how she felt about using Casinos to make money, but the one thing she did know is that when she was a child the children on her reservation did not have enough to eat and were always hungry. Her reservation sits on land whose soil is so poor and the climate so bad that one acre cannot support one chicken. They were placed on this land to become farmers. They can't. Today, thanks to the casinos, the children of her tribe are eating and no longer suffer from hunger. Many tribes were initially forcibly relocated to land nobody else wanted and, therefore, had little opportunity to improve their lot. You can't get a proper education when you're hungry all the time.
As for the hidden costs of temptation to those with gambling problems...I don't believe in, nor want, government as baby sitter. If you follow that logic; Bars and liquor stores are too much temptation for those with alcohol problems (alcoholism costs a lot every year); bakeries and candy stores are too much temptation for those who are addicted to sweets and have obesity problems. Just as the acute alcoholic will manage to get liquor even if the nearest liquor store is miles away and his car keys have been taken away, those with gambling addictions will get on the internet, use a bookie or drive to Reno. We need more support for treatment of addictions, less temptation is not an answer. At least, with the Indian Casinos some of the money enables many Native Americans to eat well, improve their housing, schools, etc.
TayanaGirl37
01-14-2008, 08:24 AM
Observations:
Kansas City, MO added riverboat casinos where I lived there. Within a few years, crime rates were up in the immediate area drastically. Businesses also had trouble filling basic positions as there wasn't the population to fill casinos and other jobs (yes, this was urban setting, and I realize that's different).
Someone said, not sure who that gambling is a tax on people who can't do math.
ChristineL
01-27-2008, 12:51 PM
Is there anyone on WACCO that can give the California Northern Tribes perspective on these propositions? If it will truly benefit all California tribes, then I would vote for, if it will only benefit a few Southern Tribes that are already making a good Casino income, then I would vote against them.
Christine
theindependenteye
01-27-2008, 06:44 PM
>Is there anyone on WACCO that can give the California Northern Tribes perspective on these propositions? If it will truly benefit all California tribes, then I would vote for, if it will only benefit a few Southern Tribes that are already making a good Casino income, then I would vote against them.
I think it's great that Indian tribes are making some money. What's not so great is that it's through the agency of casinos. I'd appreciate any posts that could convince me that the encouragement of gambling to solve the problems of poverty and government deficits is a good thing — and that of course includes state lotteries. I'd love to vote in favor of these propositions, but my gut resists.
I realize that for many, games of chance are just good fun, like alcohol (my own vice), and that to discourage it is to enforce a morality that's not universally accepted. I also realize that there's a strong tradition of gambling in the culture of some tribes, part of the "cultural heritage." I also think there's validity to the argument that the propositions are opposed by other gambling interests. And I certainly empathize with the desire to allow native peoples to better themselves economically.
But I can't get around the feeling that this whole paradigm is deeply offensive and self-defeating. It's like financing public health or education with taxes on cigarettes: funding depends on the continuance of a practice that kills. Funding government and/or needy groups of citizens through a perniciously regressive source that promotes win-the-lottery mentality and saps the weekly paycheck of needful families — what does that do to the social fabric?
Would we all be so gung-ho to promote propositions that filled state coffers with the proceeds of Indian whorehouses?
Please take my first statement literally: I'd be very desirous of hearing an argument about state-sponsored gambling that would allow me, in good conscience, to vote for these propositions. For the record, I'm not at all against gambling, prostitution, or any other form of commercialized "vice" — only against institutionalizing it as a means of funding good governance.