Royally Flushed

Voters will have their say on gambling issues in several states.

Election 2008 sees some interesting gambling-related issues on ballots in several states.  Of these, two are of particular interest to me and here’s why.

This past summer, P.B. and I took a cross-country jaunt and stopped to stay and play at several mid-West casinos including Harrah’s St. Louis.  When we arrived at the casino, we were informed that we needed new player’s club cards and to obtain them, we had to produce picture ID’s plus sign the backs of our replacement cards.  We were told that we must insert these cards into the machines in order to play and that’s when we learned about the $500 loss limit.  Huh?  Yes, unique to Missouri, is a law that says a player cannot lose more than $500 in any two-hour period.  (The cards keep track of your play.) 

While obviously the intent is to limit individual losses, is that really the state’s responsibility?  In my opinion — no.   If, as a state, you allow gambling, then allow it.  Why put artificial spending limits on patrons?  I say artificial because depending on your personal loss capabilities, the games you play, etc., $500 is simply a relative number.  One hundred dollars could be too much for one player while $1,000 may be little more than a drop in the bucket for another. 

 Proposition A is on the ballot in Missouri and would:

 1.)  Repeal the limit that’s currently in place on how much a person can lose per gambling session. Proposition A would not only repeal that limit, it would also prohibit any future loss limits.  

2.)  Prop A would require ID to enter a gambling area if a person appears to be under 21.

3.)  It would prevent any additional casinos from being built.

and 4.)  It would increase the casino gambling tax from 20 percent to 21 percent, and would create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds that would go to Missouri schools.

In other gambling news, my home state will decide on the “Ohio Casino Measure” also known as Ohio Issue 6.  This is a proposed constitutional amendment which would allow a $600,000,000 privately-owned casino resort to be built near Wilmington, Ohio. 

If I still lived in Ohio, I would, as you probably guessed, vote “Yes” on this proposal.  I know lots of Ohioans who regularly go to Las Vegas, Atlantic City — even Mountaineer in West Virginia — to play so why shouldn’t the state benefit from keeping some of these vacation/entertainment dollars at home. 

For an excellent article on the pros and cons of this ballot prop, read this article, “Issue 6:  high stakes in casino vote” at Cincinnati.com by Alexander Coolidge.

Tags: 2008 election, ballot, casino, election results, gambling, gambling issues, Gaming, gaming issues, Harrah's, issue 6, Missouri, Ohio, proposition A