I completely disagree that restricting his access to casino gambling is going to prevent his destructive path. He needs to do no more than sit at his computer to do the same activity. The difference is that his money is not benefiting the community/state that will eventually be taking care of his family. It's lining the pockets of investors in off-shore gambling sites. Additionally, he's likely betting on sports in some way, and taking trips that aren't too far out of his way to do actual casino gambling. In each case, again, no revenues generated for the state. A person with a gambling problem is NOT stopped by the lack of a nearby facility.

 

Then I guess we disagree.

Then I guess we disagree.

 

I am curious as to what specifically you disagree with from RM's post. That a gambling addict will not gamble his money away online, only if he goes to a casino?

I completely disagree that restricting his access to casino gambling is going to prevent his destructive path. He needs to do no more than sit at his computer to do the same activity. The difference is that his money is not benefiting the community/state that will eventually be taking care of his family. It's lining the pockets of investors in off-shore gambling sites. Additionally, he's likely betting on sports in some way, and taking trips that aren't too far out of his way to do actual casino gambling. In each case, again, no revenues generated for the state. A person with a gambling problem is NOT stopped by the lack of a nearby facility.

 

Yet the figures cited in the article I posted show that social problems do in fact increase when a casino opens, particularly bankruptcies. Perhaps it is not the problem gamblers but those who are drawn in by the glitz who otherwise would not be gambling? I really don't know.

You state your argument well & make some valid points. A disagreement I have, though, is about laws protecting people from themselves. If Joe Blow goes & gambles his family into bankruptcy, his children are going to be affected by that. So it's not just a law that protects himself from himself. This reasoning is also why I feel like there has to be some semblance of government assistance when it comes to lower income families.

 

As far as the Bible goes, there's nothing forbidding gambling; nor do I believe it to be a sin. As with many other subjects (alcohol, for example), the sin is in the excess. I do believe the Bible teaches that wealth is best built by accumulating it little by little (see Proverbs 13:11), but not everyone gambles to strike it rich.

 

For me personally, I'm not in favor of the expanded gambling, because I've yet to be convinced that the positives outweigh the negatives. I've also had some experiences with friends where casino trips shattered their families, so I'm sure that has something to do with my position. But my reservations with it don't stem from anything Biblically related.

 

What I do think is that this should go to the ballot for the people to decide.

 

I fully understand your concerns, particularly in light of the effect gambling has had on families that you know.

 

But I'd ask you to consider the following: if Colt wanted to open up a pistol manufacturing facility in Ky, would you be opposed to it? Like casinos, a gun manufacturing plant would generate much needed jobs for Kentuckians. Like casinos, a gun manufacturing plant would generate much needed revenue for state and local governments. And like casinos, a gun manufacturing plant would generate a product that when handled irresponsibility, would shatter lives and families.

 

The only possible difference I can see at this point is the allegation that casinos attract/create crime. I've yet to see concrete evidence that such allegation is correct. And looking at the issue simply from a logical perspective, if there was hard concrete evidence that the operation of a casino did create some significant amount of crime, we'd know about it. Ohio recently approved casinos and there is one being built in Cincinnati, the construction of which I can see from my offices. If there had been real hard evidence, as opposed to just emotional allegations, I'd have heard it and seen it. Casinos have been operating for years in nearby Indiana. To my recollection, there has not been the groundswell of crime generated that some fear. rockmom would be in a great position to know if there has been a groundswell of crime created near French Lick. Knowing what I know of Jim Justice and his love for the Greenbrier area, I feel confident that he would not have built a casino at the Greenbrier if he felt it was going to generate a bunch of crime. Bottom line: I'm not a believer of the casinos create a bunch of crime.

 

So, we then get back to: is it logical and reasonable to be okay with Colt opening a gun manufacturing plant in Ky but not with opening a casino?

Just read an article that two racetracks in New York will be increasing their purses over 40% as a result of casino money. That is huge in attracting both the horsemen and the handicappers.

I fully understand your concerns, particularly in light of the effect gambling has had on families that you know.

 

But I'd ask you to consider the following: if Colt wanted to open up a pistol manufacturing facility in Ky, would you be opposed to it? Like casinos, a gun manufacturing plant would generate much needed jobs for Kentuckians. Like casinos, a gun manufacturing plant would generate much needed revenue for state and local governments. And like casinos, a gun manufacturing plant would generate a product that when handled irresponsibility, would shatter lives and families.

 

The only possible difference I can see at this point is the allegation that casinos attract/create crime. I've yet to see concrete evidence that such allegation is correct. And looking at the issue simply from a logical perspective, if there was hard concrete evidence that the operation of a casino did create some significant amount of crime, we'd know about it. Ohio recently approved casinos and there is one being built in Cincinnati, the construction of which I can see from my offices. If there had been real hard evidence, as opposed to just emotional allegations, I'd have heard it and seen it. Casinos have been operating for years in nearby Indiana. To my recollection, there has not been the groundswell of crime generated that some fear. rockmom would be in a great position to know if there has been a groundswell of crime created near French Lick. Knowing what I know of Jim Justice and his love for the Greenbrier area, I feel confident that he would not have built a casino at the Greenbrier if he felt it was going to generate a bunch of crime. Bottom line: I'm not a believer of the casinos create a bunch of crime.

 

So, we then get back to: is it logical and reasonable to be okay with Colt opening a gun manufacturing plant in Ky but not with opening a casino?

 

You provide a very good example, as I figured you would. I would not oppose the Colt plant. And the reason for that is there are at least laws in place as it relates to firearms. In other words, lawmakers recognize the potential dangers & put in place restrictions in an attempt to preserve as much safety as they can. Unfortunately, in the case of gambling, stupidity & carelessness are perfectly legal.

 

A guy goes crazy w/ a gun & the law comes down on him. A guy gets crazy at a blackjack table & not so much.

I am curious as to what specifically you disagree with from RM's post. That a gambling addict will not gamble his money away online, only if he goes to a casino?

 

Both you & rockmom presuppose that I'm speaking of gambling addicts. As I stated before, I don't believe expanded gambling will create a lot of new gamblers. My concern is mostly with recreational gamblers becoming more habitual or addictive gamblers.

You provide a very good example, as I figured you would. I would not oppose the Colt plant. And the reason for that is there are at least laws in place as it relates to firearms. In other words, lawmakers recognize the potential dangers & put in place restrictions in an attempt to preserve as much safety as they can. Unfortunately, in the case of gambling, stupidity & carelessness are perfectly legal.

 

A guy goes crazy w/ a gun & the law comes down on him. A guy gets crazy at a blackjack table & not so much.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of: a guy gets foolish handling his Colt pistol and kills himself, leaving his family without anyone to provide for them and his children, fatherless with . Or even worse: a guy leaves his Colt pistol on his night stand and his 6 year old son gets a hold of it and a devastating result.

 

Bottom line to me: both the pistol manufacturer and the casino operator bring a product or service that can devastate people if not handled properly. But at the end of the day, we have to rely on the personal responsibility of the person handling that product or service to prevent devastation from happening.

Just read an article that two racetracks in New York will be increasing their purses over 40% as a result of casino money. That is huge in attracting both the horsemen and the handicappers.

 

And Turfway just sent out a press release today stating they would be cutting purses 25 percent for the remainder of the meet.

Both you & rockmom presuppose that I'm speaking of gambling addicts. As I stated before, I don't believe expanded gambling will create a lot of new gamblers. My concern is mostly with recreational gamblers becoming more habitual or addictive gamblers.

 

 

From experience (both as a patron, and now in operations), true recrational gamblers are just that....like drinkers. They may go too far from time to time, but in general they are looking for a recreational activity once in a while. Most people are responsible enough to know when they've gone too far, whatever the vice of choice may be. Those that aren't are well aware of how they can indulge their vice, conveniently or inconveniently, and the compulsion to do so will not be stopped by the inconvenience. Look at dry counties. Are there no alcoholics because they can't buy alcohol there?

I was thinking more along the lines of: a guy gets foolish handling his Colt pistol and kills himself, leaving his family without anyone to provide for them and his children, fatherless with . Or even worse: a guy leaves his Colt pistol on his night stand and his 6 year old son gets a hold of it and a devastating result.

 

Bottom line to me: both the pistol manufacturer and the casino operator bring a product or service that can devastate people if not handled properly. But at the end of the day, we have to rely on the personal responsibility of the person handling that product or service to prevent devastation from happening.

 

And I agree that both can be dangerous if not handled properly. And the unfortunately realistic scenario with the 6-year-old proves just that. The same could be said about cars or something like that. Almost anything can have a downside if handled improperly or carelessly.

 

Again, I'm not inherently opposed to casinos. If individuals choose such a venue for responsible entertainment, then more power to them. And I trust folks like yourself when you mention all the positive by-products of expanded gambling. My reservations are with how those positives stand up against the negatives.

My friend did but he works for Toyota.

 

He never specified that that would disqualify them....

Randy, would you find casino gambling more acceptable if there were regulations added to prevent some of the problems similar to some of the gun regulations (I'm not sure what these would look like, just thinking out loud)?

From experience (both as a patron, and now in operations), true recrational gamblers are just that....like drinkers. They may go too far from time to time, but in general they are looking for a recreational activity once in a while. Most people are responsible enough to know when they've gone too far, whatever the vice of choice may be. Those that aren't are well aware of how they can indulge their vice, conveniently or inconveniently, and the compulsion to do so will not be stopped by the inconvenience. Look at dry counties. Are there no alcoholics because they can't buy alcohol there?

 

I'm not questioning the compulsion, but rather the frequency and/or volume. Do you think most gambling addicts start as addicts, or do they progress over time? I feel like it's the latter. And I feel like, specifically with casinos, the convenience is just a part of the story. In the situations closest to me, the environment/atmosphere of a casino (or whatever that place is in Lawrenceburg, IN) was alluring. Yes, there were poker games with buddies where there was participation; but the casino was where there was indulgence.

Randy, would you find casino gambling more acceptable if there were regulations added to prevent some of the problems similar to some of the gun regulations (I'm not sure what these would look like, just thinking out loud)?

 

Absolutely, and I thought about that too. But I have no idea what it would look like either.

 

Again, I'm not even opposed to casino gambling. For some, it's recreational & fun. And for those that do it with responsibility--just as with alcohol or whatever--I say that's fine. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with that at all, in my opinion. I've just had considerable exposure to situations where it got really out of control. And since I live in the equivalent of Mayberry, USA, I have to wonder what kinds of situations go on elsewhere.

 

It's obvious there are financial rewards to be reaped from expansion. A lot of people in this thread have eloquently stated those advantages. I just also feel like there are downsides that come with it too.