Editor's Note
print
September 19, 2008
Where Slots Debate Is Not
Phil Jacobs
Executive Editor
I had the privilege of moderating a two-person debate on the legalization of slot machines last week at the Pikesville library. The event, sponsored by the Northwest Democratic Club, was an important public information event for the community as the state’s November slots referendum nears.
The debaters included two very capable opponents ––pro-slots Del. Samuel “Sandy” Rosenberg (D-41st) (pro slots) and anti-slots community activist Aaron Meisner.
So here’s what concerns me about the evening. Mr. Rosenberg spoke about needing the funds slots would generate, which would help pay for, among other areas, public education.
Mr. Meisner emphasized the negative impact of gambling on the personal incomes of the poor and about how slots could lead to full-blown table games in the future.
With all due respect to the buzz on the street, these two able orators are not really representative of the streets.
It’s time that, when we have these debates on slots, we include on the panel people now in recovery from the disease of compulsive gambling, from which their lives were ruined.
What I’m suggesting is that this slots issue seems to have been co-opted by the elected officials and the community activists.
I want to go to a debate and listen to an educator explain how his job could disappear without a dramatic infusion of funds into the state coffers. I want to hear a teacher talk about how she spends her own money on materials because her school cannot provide them. I want to hear a high school student who says that due to lack of funds he is missing out on curriculum that could enhance his chance of college acceptance.
I want to listen to a slot machine technician explain the real odds of anyone winning anything substantial. I want to hear a sheriff’s deputy from elsewhere who had to evict a family from their home because funds went to slots instead of rent.
And what I mostly want is to hear from someone on welfare on why they would gamble state-provided assistance monies away for the sake of the non-existent big win.
So I want to hear from the real people behind slots. On one side, have the person who exercises the horses and perhaps sleeps in the barn at Pimlico tell us how his life would be should a defeated slots referendum result in big cutbacks for the racing industry. I’m tired of reading quotes from Sen. Mike Miller and Gov. Martin O’Malley. Let’s bring the regular folks into this discussion. Putting a human face on slots, be it positive or negative, would really make it our issue.
Likewise, in the coming weeks, do we want to hear people explain the policies of McCain and Obama, or do we want to hear the candidates themselves speak on their differences and their policies?
The issue of having slots in Maryland should not be a discussion only for the men and women in suits on the state legislature’s floor. This decision will in some way impact every Marylander. And no matter your position, we’re only hearing from the spokespeople and the sponsors, not the guy or the gal next door.
We get upset when we hear that millions of our dollars are being spent in neighboring states. Yet many of us aren’t clear as to our state’s alternatives.
We blithely say that nobody forces you to gamble. Now, if you or a loved one hasn’t had an addiction to anything, you should be thankful. Yet, you should still try to internalize how such illnesses destroy lives. And addictions to gambling are among the most destructive forces in our universe.
Years ago I did a story about a Johns Hopkins program for gambling addiction. More than 20 percent of its clients were Jews.
But yes, you say, we have gambling anyway; just look at the lottery. No comparison. None.
The action of a casino heats up a gambler’s blood. Flashing lights, ringing bells, clinking coins, bright colors, shouts, smells, drinks.
But I can’t tell you that.
Let people with experience talk for or against slots, not just the policy makers and community activists.