Thursday, October 23, 2008

Missouri Proposition A

One of the pieces of legistlation we'll be voting on here in Missouri is Proposition A, which would remove limits on gambling losses at Missouri casinos. Two groups that make a pretty good case for both sides of that argument are Casino Watch, Inc., and the Missouri Riverboat Gaming Association.

My first reaction was to say absolutely not, no way should loss limits be lifted. The loss limit in Missouri for any person in any single visit at one casino is $500, which has been in place since riverboat gambling was legalized in Missouri in 1992. The legislature has had many opportunities to lift this limit, but those bills have never passed in in all this time. The idea is that gambling addicts can't lose too much money in one sitting; it was one of the safeguards that voters insisted on before they would approve gambling. The president of Casino Watch has a lot of other things to say about the negative effects of lifting the loss limit.

But, the MRGA makes some good points about the problems of loss limits. They claim that Missouri loses gambling revenue because tourists go to other states that don't have them, such as our neighbors Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. And if Prop A passes, people can lose a lot more money, which will go to the casinos, which the state can then tax (Prop A includes a 1% increase in the casino tax). And of course, that money goes to the schools.

The Proposition is presented in such a way that its chief arguments are, "Everyone else is doing this and we are missing out on it," and "Don't you want to give money to the schools?"

And yet, I also know how devasting and destructive a gambling addiction can be to a family and community, and how many years it can families take to recover from some gambling losses. I don't know that it's right to fund our children's future on that kind of misery. But nobody is forced to gamble--this isn't a tax--and the schools need to be funded.

I don't know how I'm voting on this yet. I'm leaning toward no, but the arguments for it make a lot of sense, too.

1 comment: