http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051001912.html
In this editorial, the author points out that crime in casino areas increases. The jobs and increased tax revenue are an illusion according to him. Here's my take on gambling casinos. Gambling Casinos do not create wealth. They merely redistribute it, which is why there's always a few losers for every winner. Moreover, many people who walk into gambling casinos become addicted to gambling. Like the drug addicts who rob stores to buy drugs, gambling addicts often do the same thing. Gambling is not normal entertainment like sports or music shows. It is a destructive addiction like drugs and extreme pornography.

Do gambling casinos cause crime?
Is so, why do they cause crime?

Do gambling casinos cause crime?

No they do not cause crime. They are used by criminals to justify their illegal actions. There is no gambling addiction, there are just people who make choices and some of those choices happen to be illegal. People choose to gamble and they choose to steal or commit crimes to fuel their want to gamble. Its people that commit crimes and blaming anyone but the perpetrators is ridiculous.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that casinos are "making them do it", Lederuv. If, for example, the police department was removed in your neighborhood tomorrow there would likely be a corresponding increase in crime. No police protection=higher crime rates, or we wouldn't have police to begin with and could save a lot of tax money. That isn't making excuses for crime, it is simply aknowledging the obvious. To answer the first question is very easy, as we have longstanding examples from which to draw data. Yes, studies indicate that there is a corresponding higher incidence of crime in gambling counties.

Why? I'm not sure. I could hazard a guess that gambling is more likely to draw riff-raff and riff-raff is more likely to commit crime. Higher rates of vagrancy, public drunkeness, ect. Same reason red light districts tend to draw crime, and other internet forums lots of SPAM, I suppose. Same reason neighborhoods without HOAs, that permit trash in the yards, tend to get more trashy. I'd also guess that education rates are lower in casino towns (based on anecdotal experience) so this might have an impact.

Do gambling casinos cause crime?

Not at all. Do casinos attract a certain set of criminal elements? Of course. Then again, when gangster Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said "because that's where the money is". I don't think anyone is advocating the closing of banks across the country because they too, attract a criminal element.

Criminals, being basically lazy in nature, go where the money is easily had. And no doubt about it, casinos attract a lot of money. Unwary tourists that can be pick pocketed, or mugged. Drunken conventioneers looking for an available female companion for the night, that attracts prostitution. Loan sharks that provide ready cash at exorbitant rates to folks who don't know when to quit.

But, do they cause cime? I hardly think so.

And, contrary to your editorial's assertion, skeeterses, the author didn't say that increased tax revenues were an illusion, only that they plateau after a certain level of increase. Well, duh. After a while, the casino's revenue levels off to a relatively stabilized amount, and therefor so do its income tax revenues. That doesn't mean though, that real tax revenues are no higher than they were before the casino started operations.

I also take umbrage with your contention that gambling is not a "normal" form of entertainment. Yes, there really is a small percentage of people for whom gambling can become addictive, like alcohol or drugs. But for the vast majority of people that gamble, it's nothing more than a pleasant way to kill a few hours with friends or family.

For example, my brother and his wife, and my wife and I all get together once or twice a year in Las Vegas, usually over a long weekend. We bring X number of dollars to spend in the casinos, and when it's gone, it's gone. If one of us should be lucky enough to win more than we lose, so much the better. But none of us has yet spent more than maybe a ten bucks more than we intended to. And we spend far more time enjoying the food, the shows and various other sights than we do at a one armed bandit, or playing poker or blackjack.

Well, banks actually serve more of a purpose than entertainment, for starters. We don't need casinos, but we do need banks. Is entertainment important? Sure. Should casinos be banned everywhere? Definitely not.

But, I would much rather raise a family here in Alexandria, Virginia than Las Vegas, Nevada. This is especially true of the teen years, where nearly every teen I knew in Vegas dropped out of highschool (and this was a relatively well-to-do neighborhood). The crime rate was very bad in most of Vegas, and the areas that were safe were gated communities. I'm not advocating closing gambling parlors, but I think before a community makes the decision to open casinos they should be very aware of the risks to rewards.

Edited to add: Nevada was ranked the most dangerous state in 2004, based on crime stats (I don't have more recent information but I doubt this has changed markedly in a year and a half). This probably isn't entirely the result of gambling, of course, just another piece of evidence to consider.

Do gambling casinos cause crime?
Is so, why do they cause crime?

We actually have gambling casinos in Colorado. They are carefully regulated, so no, in this situation crime doesn't accompany gambling.

What does accompany gambling is the destruction of funky little mountain communities. Cripple Creek has survived this somewhat. It's still fun to go there and not gamble, partly because it's around 10,000 feet in the air and has beautiful vistas and interesting historical places. Black Hawk is fully destroyed. It's crowded, noisy, irritating and has zilch for redeeming qualities. The drive up there is cool, and so is driving right past the casinos. Another difference is the proximity of Black Hawk to Denver, so there's more feed to the casinos. Still, I miss the tiny village that was once Black Hawk with its charming eateries and tourist shops.

So I can say that from this perspective, casinos cause crime, but not as we usually think of it. Development can do the same thing to a place, and Colorado Springs is a prime example of how overdevelopment destroys as it builds. The Springs has lost its soul. Manitou Springs still retains it, as does Old Colorado City. Our little town of Woodland Park is becoming rich suburbia, although there's a balance going on. As we look toward the time when stairs become a problem (we got a bunch of 'em), Buena Vista attracts. No gambling there, and probably never will be. But it's flat and funky, our two main old coot requirements.

It's undeniable that both Cripple Creek and Black Hawk have garnered tons of money from gambling. Property values skyrocket, and this drives old timers to sell out and newbies to seek cheaper digs. But where Black Hawk supports only newer and bigger casinos, Cripple Creek actually attracts other types of business, like gift shops and bed&breakfast places. I suppose this is because the traffic that goes to Cripple Creek isn't all gamblers. I also imagine that *most* of the Cripple Creek traffic *isn't* gamblers, and this due to the number of casinos that have shut down.

The remaining casinos have to pay out more to attract customers. They also have to support community things, like a cool theater that features 19th century melodrama. Hey, I ought to be paid to write this stuff! But anyway, the charm of Cripple Creek still exists, and I do believe it has a lot to do with the town's spirit, location and history.

In a nutshell, casinos don't necessarily hurt a community. They can though, and deciding whether or not to let them in is a big thing. Money and crime aren't the only considerations.

Gambling is not addictive? Why yes it is. And casinos count on people to become addicted, in fact they make their billions strictly from addicts. Casinos do research that determines how many people they can "burn out", i.e. take their last penny. And they're PROUD of that.

I think casinos are a bad influence for many people.

And if casinos were not addictive, why would a police officer blow his brains inside a casino after losing his entire life savings at a Detroit casino? Would someone choose that for themselves if they really had "free choice"? Gambling is very addictive and even slitghtly addictive to the least addicts out there.

In Detroit I think crime went down after opening the MGM there. But probably because the billion/year they make comes from the suburbs and not the city itself.

I would argue the notion that as a general rule, Casinos come to areas where no other viable industry resides to sustain growth or the needs of the indigenous population. Las Vegas is an anomaly in that there was no real community prior to its existence, but Biloxi and Shreveport are good examples. (I'm from Shreveport.)

Shreveport Louisiana is one of the best examples. According to this site, Shreveport's crime is worse than Las Vegas, and significantly worse than even New York. However, compare this to Biloxi, crimes such as theft are nearly identical. (Murder and Rape aren't... but that's a topic in itself.)

Did the Casinos cause this??? Of course not. According to the National Institute of Justice's 1992 "Weed and Seed" project, shown here, the Shreveport crime rate was about 3 times the national average even before the Casinos came to town. Now it's not quite that bad, at about twice the national average in some cases, and 1.5 times the average in others. However, we could talk about non-gambling towns such as Dallas or Detroit as comparisons, but that's a different topic.

I believe that Casinos are great options for those without viable substitutes. Shreveport's population is largely less-educated than it's closest metropolitan counter part (Dallas), has fewer financial resources, and it's only attraction for large companies would be a low-wage based economy. Companies that invest in the Shreveport Bossier area typically have menial labor type positions to offer, and hence, rarely change the dynamic of communities. Over 19% of residents of the Shreveport/Bossier area didn't even have High School educations in 2003, according to the Census bureau study, found here. In 2003. the poverty level according to the same study was at about 16%, where as the poverty level in 1990 was about 26% (give or take, depending upon which study you read).

In Shreveport's case... many could argue that the Casinos had a positive impact. The poverty level has fallen, as has the crime rate. Mostly because folks that might've been robbing you at gun point in 1992 are now helping Harrah's rob you at the black jack table!!!



I won't argue that gambling is a detriment to many people, but what you find is that addictive personalities fall into similar traps regardless of the vice. I believe that a large number of gambling addicts carry other destructive vices, such as alcoholism and/or drug addiction. It's nearly impossible to track these trends, as addiction centers feel an obligation to not portray their clients as "worse off", but in my experience one often is coupled with another. Ever wonder why many (if not most) Casinos give away free alcohol and allow people to smoke wherever? hmm.... addictive personalities, in my opinion, are partners in crime so to speak.

Funny thing is that in areas where the residents live with relative ease, and industry sustains a healthy lifestyle and growth, there's a slim chance that you'll see gambling as a large portion of the economy. Indian Casinos are a thread to themselves...but places like Shreveport and Biloxi didn't happen by accident...

My only gripe with the statement Mrs. Pigpen is that the idea that casinos "cause" crime almost takes away the responsibility for the individual for committing the said crime. It is implying that the casino is responsible for an increase in crime when that is not the case. Casinos merely provide services that people enjoy and partake in. It is people that choose to steal, rape, and murder and while there is obviously a correllation between casinos and crime stats, I think that we have to be careful when we start pointing the fingers and make sure we dont absolve the individuals for their actions simply because a casino is in the area.


Gambling itself is an addiction in the sense that any habitual activity is an addiction. It is NOT an addiction in the sense that people are unable to stop themselves. For more on that i proudly direct you to the Addiction debate to defend your statements.

Casinos are no different than any corporation who does research into finding out how to provide a product that many people want. The product in this case are slot machines and card games among other things. Casinos in no way force people to enter their property and don't force anyone to gamble. How can they be responsible for the actions that individuals undertake?



And its your right to believe that and to stay clear of all casinos. It is not your right to tell others what to do. If people want to gamble and waste all of their money, that's their business and their choice.



Would that same police officer have blown his brains out if he double his life savings instead of losing it? No of course not. The officer made a choice to gamble the money. Nobody forced him to. He could have chosen to cut his losses and leave. But he decided to keep going until eventually everything is gone. Who is to blame? You think the officer is a victim of the casino but he is only a victim of his own greed. Again gambling is not addictive in the sense of an uncontrollable disease. People have choice, whether you choose to accept that or not is another matter.

That's the problem, if he would have doubled his savings he probably would have gone back and lost those winnings as well. And the odds are severly stacked against him of ever doubling his savings.

I know problem gamblers and I think you're being way over simplistic about this. I realize you live by this baravado of "free choice" and you paint everything with one single swipe, but you're just wrong that people can simply "switch off" their desire to gamble. I know people that simply cannot stop gambling and will keep going until all their money is gone.

There's a reason they have gamblers anonymous.

If you've ever been to a casino you can see these people without much effort. You go to the cash cages and see people with their payroll check giving over their week's earnings. THen you see them at the roulette wheel and see it all go away. Or you see them at a slot machine with a giant bucket of dollar coins putting them in as fast as they can when you know they can't afford it.

Sometimes you do have to protect people from themselves. Not everyone is a PhD with zen-like self-control. That's why most cities vote on whether to have a casino or not.

The issue of crime is something else. Poverty in itself causes crime so if people are doing very well financially a casino may not be an issue with increased crime. Like I said before, the 3 casinos in Detroit appear to be far less harmful than the economy of Detroit itself.

Do gambling casinos cause crime?
Is so, why do they cause crime?

I don't think they cause crime, but I think that they attract it, especially in the USA, because gambling and bookmaking are themselves crimes in much, if not most of the country.

People who don't want to be arrested for making book or running card games pretty much HAVE to move somewhere with a casino to make a living. And, like in other career choices, they'll have to dabble in something first before they decide to do it full-time, which means most people who aren't born in Vegas or AC (I know it's more widespread these days, but you still don't have corner shop bookies in pretty much every town like we do in the UK. And besides, I'm trying to make a point ) are almost bound to rub along with criminals because of the way you arrange gambling over there.

Before I go on - yes, gambling can be a problem for some people. Personally I think any behaviour that generates internal endorphins to which people get addicted, as opposed to external chemicals that trigger, mimic or exceed the same effects, are better thought of as compulsions than addictions, but the secondary behaviour they can cause (theft, family and career breakdown, etc.) are much the same.

But let's not kid ourselves, there are gambling addicts in towns with no casino, just as there were alcoholics during Prohibition. And not all gamblers are in any way addicted. I've been to Las Vegas for a week, to Atlantic City for two days, and I bet on the Grand National horse race almost every year. I think maybe I've sepnt the equivalent of about $300 on gambling in my whole life - most of it in Vegas & AC.
Not a day goes by where I can think.... of gambling unless something prompts me to; hardly the trait of an addict.

Indeed, my consumption of comes a lot closer on that score, even if my posting has slackened off of late. I miss it while I'm not doing it; it serves little purpose understandable to outsiders (I could say it improves my written English, but then compulsive gamblers have much better mathematical skills than most other people); it consumes lots of time that I could spend doing things other people would describe as more constructive. I haven't yet got to the point of bunking off work or missing social appointments to visit (though I will if I don't leave soon & go to my theatre club meeting), but a specialist in addictive behaviour would probably have some harsh things to say about my relationship with my beloved board.

Casinos do not cause gambling addiction - gambling does, and gambling, like prostitution, drugs, alcohol and every other vice ever practised has never been controllable by making it less commonplace or more illegal.

The only sensible way to control vices which do no harm in the vast majority of cases (most gamblers are not addicts, most dope smokers are not junkies, and most drinkers are not alcoholics, and most of the ones that do not harm themselves don't harm anyone else either. But nobody really benefits from paedophilia) is to legalise, regulate and tax them.

Yet it is HE who persisted through no force of coercion. People know full well that when they enter a casino that the odds of winning are not too great. To claim otherwise seriously doubts the intelligence of the common man. Yet even with this knowledge he entered the casino and gambled. Even if your hypothesis that he had an uncontrollable disease called a gambling addiction explains why he continued to gamble and lose...it doesn't explain how he entered the casino. How he went to the ATM to withdraw cash, hop into his vehicle to head to the casino, and finally walk through the casino doors. For me to accept your belief system, I wwould have to concede that all of those fully conscious actions were null and that he was simply a walking zombie, a slave to a master he could not control. Luckily, science and logic reject this.


They can't stop or they won't stop? You see the problem that you have is that you cannot accept that people can partake in self-destructive behavior willingly. To you, if people gamble habitually or do drugs, there is no rational explanation for why they would do that to themselves. So you come to the conclusion that they MUST have some sort of uncontrollable disease which governs their lives and clears of them of responsibility for their actions.

I live by this bravado of free choice because science and logic support my argument. The "loss-of-control" theory which you so often bring up has been debunked on numerous occasions and there is ZERO proof that people cannot control their actions even in the face of compulsion.



Well this is just a fundamental disagreement RedCedar. You believe your intentions to be noble because you think you know whats best for everyone and thus everyone should listen to you. I believe that however noble your intentions may be, they are totalitarian at the very core. If we accept that people do not have the ability to do what they believe is in their own self interest then you accept that government has the right to regulate every aspect of human behavior. I believe that every individual does know whats in their own self interest and that as long as their actions affect no third party, that government should stay out. Even if that behavior is self-destructive. Who am I to say that another's gambling habit is wrong? Is that imposition of one's moral beliefs onto another? How is that any different from religious zealots who want to impose strict moral codes according to Bible teachings?

I think that cities have the right to vote on whether or not they want casinos in their town...but following your line of logic, maybe those people do not know what's best for themselves. I mean they don't have PhDs and zen-like self control right? How can you expect people to govern others if you don't let them govern themselves?

Again, I think you're being way oversimplistic about this. Sure people make choices, but they often make bad choices for whatever reasons. Just like you wouldn't hand a load revolver to a suicidal person you shouldn't encourage someone who's overcome by gambling to go to a casino.

You seem to think people are robots. Maybe you're really young have never experienced such situations and so you assume everyone has a grasp of their actions. I'm not sure. Life is a lot more complicated than your credo or idealogical bent.

I know when my father was dying in the hospital I started drinking. I've never had a problem with alcohol before that point but because of the situation it seemed to help. Obviously that's a bad move. But I'm not a robot, I'm subject to my bodies emotions and feelings. Sometimes we make bad decisions because we have no one to help us or we have no alternatives.

I think you're being way over-simplistic on this. I think you have this idea of "free choice" that you learned somewhere and want to push that for every situation. Again, people are NOT robots. To assume that we always are level-headed and in control is just wrong. To assume that people can always behave responsibly is wrong. Your THEORY makes great sense in some text book or talking point on Rush Limbaugh....but even look at HIM. The guy rips drug users as criminals....then suddenly the tables are turned on him.





I'm not saying they aren't doing anything unwillingly. Again my analogy, I'd never give a loaded gun to a suicidal person. Would you? After all, they can decide for themselves, right?

You seem to think "the heck with people if they can't cope". You're position is very sterile and non-humanistic.



You are way too into this idealogically. If someone close to you had such addictions and the casino kept lending them credit to bury the person, tell me you'd feel the same way about the casino.



That said, I don't really care if there are casinos. I just think they're a blight on society and wouldn't lose sleep if they went under or were all closed. I've seen to many people hurt by gambling to like gambling.

You can't equate a person who is suicidal to full functioning person who chooses to gamble. The analogy lacks any logic. I would not hand a suicidal person a loaded gun, but that doesn't mean that i fail to recognize his right to take his own life. I just choose not to have any part in it as it is not my business. And I wouldn't encourage a person who likes to gamble to go to a casino, hell i would do everything I could to talk some sense into him. But if he still wants to go to the casino, who am i or you to stop him?


What does one's age have to do with anything? If you cannot debate the logic of your arguments, then just bow out. Don't try to invoke age as a sign of logical superiority. Furthermore, this statement cannot be more backwards. I am making the argument that we are creatures of free will who are able to make choices. You are arguing that people are led by an uncontrollable disease to gamble, drink, or take drugs. Which sounds more like a robot? I have never heard of robots having free will to make rational decisions.

Life is complicated, and it becomes more complicated when this unsubstantiated medical jargon becomes mainstream dogma. My ideology dictates that people have a right to make decisions that pertain to their own bodies and that those same people are responsible for their choices. Your ideology dictates that some people are not responsible for their choices and that people sometimes do not know whats best for them and thus need someone to tell them what to do. I much prefer to have the former ideological bent.


People make bad decisions and they are responsible for those choices. In your situation, there were obvious environmental and social factors that led to your drinking. But did you have a disease? Hardly, despite what your local AA chapter will tell you. I am the one making the argument that people are subject to their emotions and feelings and THAT is what contributes to partaking in vices such as gambling and drinking. YOU are arguing that emotions and feelings are meaningless since once a person is addicted to a substance or activity that they cannot stop themselves despite their best wishes. So really your all over the map here and I don't really know what your true belief is because its all jumbled.



I have never and will never make the assumption that people are always level-headed or that choices are ever easy or fair. I have made the argument that despite social and environmental factors, that we all choose what it is we do. To use as an example in the Addiction debate (which i implore you to return to if you want to debate addiction) droop224 created the situation where you are being hijacked. Obviously if one values their life, they will vacate the car give it over to the hijacker. You have no choice. But you do in fact have a choice albeit a very easy one to make. If you value your life, you will leave but you can choose not to leave the car. Maybe you will try to fight off the attacker or drive away before he can harm you. Choices are never easy but that doesn't take away from that fact that they are still choices.

People don't always act responsibly but they are responsible for how they act. People are not robots and they have a choice.


Perhaps in a twisted view of my logic you can come to that conclusion. Again, i would not hand a suicidal person a loaded gun but that in no way means that i reject his right to take his own life. If the same suicidal person had a loaded gun from personal possession and claimed he wanted to die, i would do everything in my power to sense him out of it...but in the end it is his choice whether or not to go through with it. I want to believe that I have control over my own life...but how can i have said control if i can't take my life willingly?

I in no way say the heck with people who can't cope. Like i say above, i would offer as much assistance as i possible could to change the mind of a person in pain. But i would also remind that they are responsible for their actions and that they are human beings who control their own destiny. Accept that the choices you have made, both the good and the bad, are yours and that you shoulder the responsibility for them. You seem to think that telling people that they are NOT responsible for their actions and that they have no power over their life choices that they are better able to cope with life's situations. But it doesn't, it distorts reality.



How can i not be into this ideological when you make the outrageous claim that people do not know whats best for them and thus need someone other than them to tell them how to live. If you find this statement contradictory to totalitarian principle, then i would sure like to know how you derived to that conclusion.

If a person kept going to the casino and gambling away all their money...i would be mad at the person, not the casino. What has the casino done? Existed? They don't force people to gamble, people choose to go.

That's the comment I was addressing. I never said it was a disease, I never said people do it unwillingly. Also, I think you've already made a case that gambling is indeed addictive.

And to be frank, it seems kind of silly to argue to the contrary especially when so many people are problem gamblers. There is a strong desire to gamble among many people, some to the point that it's very hard to control. It has nothing to do with responsibility, I'm just stating the fact that people are in fact attracted to and compelled to do certain things.

Just like Pavlov's dog, people learn behaviors. People are animals and are subject to the biological laws that control our actions.

Are people responsible for their own actions? Sure, most of the time anyway. Do casinos prey on people's weaknesses? Yes they do. On many, many people in fact.

I said it was an addiction in the sense that an 'addiction' is any habitural behavior including, exercise, drinking coffee, or watching your favorite tv show. It is not an addiction in the sense that it is a disease as is the common concept in medical circles. If you have indeed been saying that it is not a disease or that people do it unwillingly then why exactly are you arguing with me? If people do it willingly as you just said, then how can you ridicule my argument that free will and choice govern their actions? You have to stay consistent.


And i of course agree with you. But if we accept this premise then how can any of the blame fall on the casinos? Attraction and compulsion are definately factors in one's choice in whether or not to participate in an activity but they in no way determine the outcome of the decision. Just because people have a tough time controlling their own urges to gamble doesn't mean that the casinos are responsible for their habitual gambling.



Again, i agree with you to an extent. And that extent is that you cannot equate the psyche of a dog and that of a human being. Surely you would agree that the intellect of a human being is different and superior to that of a dog. So while comparisons can be made, we shouldnt put a large amount of credit to the comparisons. And if i can use your example of Pavlov's dogs as an example, wouldnt the habitual losing effort while gambling be a learned behavior that a human being would try to avoid? Theoretically yes, but since humans have a stronger will and the power of thought, they can choose to ignore their experiences.


Most of the time? Not quite sold yet RedCedar? People are responsible for their own actions and yes casinos prey on people's weaknesses but it is the people who allow themselves to be taken advantage of. As long as no coercion takes place on the part of the casinos, the full blame must be placed on the individual.

The human mind and body are subject to manipulation. Do you not agree with this? I feel almost silly debating this. It's as if you refuse to acknowledge reality because you don't want to believe that people may not be responsible for what they do.

But again, responsibility is a relative thing. How responsible is someone? That's always up for debate.

It's like saying if I shoved a red hot poker in your back and you flinched, that it's your fault you flinched and not mine for stabbing you.

So if I inject your body with drugs that cloud your thinking, that make your body crave that drug every second of the day, am I not a little responsible for your condition and whatever you do next?

How can you control what is out of your control? A person on heroin can no longer choose whether to desire or not desire heroin. Nature, chemistry and biology have taken over. A person is subject to the world around them, their intellect is part of their body. If you're hungry, you eat, if thirsty, you drink.



Again, responsibility is a relative thing. Addiction and self-control are another. You could easily argue that a person high on drugs who dives off a 10 story building is responsible for their actions, but may not have been "in control". Or you could argue that they weren't responsible because they weren't in a condition to make a wise decision.

People are subject to manipulation and aside from "who is responsible", it's pretty apparent that outside influences can make people do things they may not normally want to do. Who do you find responsible? I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder. Me personally I think Casinos are manipulating people and are responsible for the behavior of people.

Well finally something I can be called an expert on. I've been in the business for 15 years so I think I may have some input.
Casinos do not create crime. People create crime. Criminals are drawn to the money. Plunk a pile of money down and criminals will follow.
Crime rates may increase or decrease depending on the preparedness of the community.
In my town, there was unbelievable unemployment, crime and poverty. The casinos came and nearly overnight things changed for the better. Crime fell. This occured because much of the crimes of desperation (shoplifting) and crimes do due alcohol and drug abuse (brought on by despair over poverty) tend to clear up in times of prosperity.
The casinos made giant contributions to the local police force as well as a rather well formed internal police force and uniformed security force. These improvements in overall enforcement made crime a very difficult thing.
The casinos do create jobs...tens of thousands in our area. In fact trying to find someone to take some of the available jobs has become very difficult.
Casinos do redistribute wealth...but so does any business. Money is recycled round and round. It is how capitalism works.
Gambling is not an addiction, but a compulsive behaviour. An addiction requires a chemical dependancy. Gambling is simply something someone does. About 1 in 10 people can develop into a problem gambler and 1 in ten of them into a compulsive gambler. But casinos do not create compulsive behaviour. It certainly brings it all under one roof for everyone to see, though.
Compulsive gamblers nearly always have multiple compulsions. Most, even when 'cured' of their gambling habit, simply re-direct it into another compulsion.
Casinos are very aware of the negative impact they can have. Our casino puts tens of millions of dollars into helping problem gamblers each year. We do not need compulsive gamblers in order to be a success. Most casinos, like ours, have many programs in place to help problem gamblers including self exclusion, on site counselling and intervention.
Casinos pay steep property taxes in our area and pay huge electric bills, water bills, etc.
Government regulation is absolutely essential in ensuring casinos are an asset to an area. This is one of the reasons gaming commissions carry so much clout.
If planned for properly they can be a productive part of a healthy economy.

Once again RedCedar, i can only point you in the right direction. I have time and again told you to head over to the Addiction debate to discuss this issue where I have already addressed this issue extensively with scientific research. But for some reason i don't think you'll go.

Yeah, but most businesses create something in return. You buy a car, you have a car to show for it.



No casinos don't "create compulsive behavior", but they definately encourage it. I think you make the casinos out to be better people than they are. Casino managers use terms like "burn people out" to basically mean to bankrupt someone.

Casinos milk people with "compulsions". They COUNT on them for their money.



I guess I should have posted this before. Casinos feed on the people with "compulsions". In fact, they do studies to determine how many people they can milk before moving a casino into an area.



Yeah, they really care, after all that's how they make their BILLIONS.



Have you ever been to a casino?? They care? Are you serious? Do you run a casino or work for one? They care that they get all your money!

They pay large bills? Well who cares! They have a license to print money. They set up tables and say "empty your pockets sucker!". Gee, what bad luck they have to actually PAY THE WATER BILL too.

The 3 Casinos in Detroit took in more than a BILLION dollars last year. Now that is friggin OBSCENE and disgusting. I doubt the Casinos cared that people lost their homes.



Extensively? You are really one for exageration. You have one study that you probably did a quick google search for and that's your proof that people are not subject to addictions?

I don't need a study. I have some "extensive" medical training as well as other education as well as LIFE EXPERIENCE that leaves me without a doubt.....people are subject to addictions and people can become addicts.

Casinos are entertainment. Like any other form of entertainment, you do get something in return.

Bars encourage compulsive drinking, malls encourage compulsive shoopers, resturants encourage compulsive eating. People have to be responsible for themselves. The majority of people can do this quite easily.

That is absolutely false. Casinos study traffic and market. There is no way to know how many people in an area have compulsive tendencies. Each and every business on earth has to do a feasability study before selecting a location.

Had you read my post you would have noticed I mentioned that I have been in the business for 15 years. I am a manager. In fact I am a manager in one of the most successful casinos on earth. We do nearly a billion dollars a year alone. Our high limit area is the most successful high stakes room on earth. No one in there is at risk of losing their homes any time soon. You must change your entire idea on how much 'alot' of money is. It isn't what people like you and I think. There are all kids of people with a ridiculous amount of money out there.
Our casino's profits all go to hospitals, schools, roads, day care etc. All of it.


Clearly then your 'medical training' taught you of the addictive personality type. And it also taught you that these types will become compulsive to the point of despair at anything they do. Drugs, drinking, the stock market, shopping, eating, sex...anything.

I never said they didn't. But the way you portray casinos, they'll jump up in front of you to prevent you from "losing it all". Maybe you work at the only "St. Casino" in the world that actually gives a care about their "patrons", but every casino I've read about or been to wants to drain as much from you as possible....however they have to do it.

How do you think your Casino gets a billion/year? By pushing people to gamble.

And fwiw, no one ever lost their life savings at a bar, at a mall or in a restaurant. I guess a more comparable industry would be illicit drugs, where they push it and you can lose your life savings.



Sure you can know. I'm sure there are profiles for people that are more likely to be compulsive gamblers. You probably would want to avoid areas where people are highly educated...




I can only speak from what I've seen. In a Detroit Casino a cop blew his brains out inside the Casino because he indeed lost his life savings.

http://www.policetalk.com/detroit.html

I actually played at the table he shot himself.

And recently in the very same casinos, a hockey superstar Darren McCarty went bankrupt over Casino debt.




You'll excuse me if I don't believe you....



Is this you justifying your profession? "They'll burn them out with something, it may as well be my casino that does them in".

I agree drugs and alcohol are problems, but how many organizations are there for problem stock marketers or problem shoppers?

I agree with you that people need to control themselves, but to pretend Casinos aren't pure FILTH is just wrong.

No. Gambling casinos do not cause crime. Gambling is an entertainment that is no different than sports or any other competitive endeavor. Our prohibitions against it are silly and misguided in my opinion. People can get addicted to gambling just like they can get addicted to watching silly TV shows, posting on internet political forums, or even golfing. But, that's THEIR problem, not "our problem". If they break the laws to support that "habit", then we should punish them per the rule of law.

Drugs? Yes, most of them are highly dangerous and destructive and should be banned. Porn? What exactly do you mean by "extreme"? I think that pornography involving minors should be banned and those making/using it should be severely punished. But between consenting adults? It's none of the government's business in my view.

The same is true with gambling. If the people want gambling (and pot smoking legalized) and convince their representatives to pass legislation allowing it, then I'm all for it.

LH, Just like drug addicts, gambling addicts have the free choice before they take that first hit. And like the drug addicts, gambling addicts usually have to hit rock bottom before they choose to seek professional help.
I hope that the politicians can start putting people before their election campaigns and playing shell games with the tax system. Because anytime a polician promises to raise more revenues for the government without raising taxes, they're pulling something over the voters.

BigFish, I'm glad to hear that your casino tries to be socially responsible and seek help for the problem gamblers. The unfortunate truth about casinos though is that too many communities see casinos as a get rich quick scheme for the tax collectors. Those politicians don't think about the problem gamblers who pour their paychecks into those slot machines. The only thing they care about is how many quarters they can skim.

That's like saying heroin is addicting like playing video games. I think you're severly underestimating the lure of gambling and the addictions to it.



The only problem is that the laws that illegalize drugs are highly dangerous and destructive.

And is porn really that addictive? It seems to me that mostly men enjoy porn and once you rub one out you really have no desire to look at porn for awhile. In fact I'd say that porn probably prevents certain people from things like rape by "relieving them".

That statement actually demolishes any inherent credibility you may have had. It is clear you know nothing about human nature.


Our casino is owned by the government. As such all revenues go to schools, hospitals, etc. Please don't infer that I am lying. It is improper debate conduct.



Again...you are showing your lack of understanding of people and compulsive behavour. ANY activity can become compulsive. usually the activities that create a bigger adrenalin rush are the most likely candidates. Porn, excercise, gambling, sex, shopping...there is a segment of the population that is compulsive about these activities.



Your statement that you can infer areas with a higher likelihood of compulsive behiour is not only bizarre, but unfounded. Please back this up if you can. Casinos are located primarily by legislative allowances, proximity to large populations and to other casinos.

Also your inferences that casinos force you to gamble is beyond bizarre.

I know nothing about human nature? That's kind of a broad statement isn't it? I think you can make the argument that porn is not always a bad thing. People say they are addicted to porn, I'm not going to doubt them, but some people actually become desensitized to nudity and pornography from long exposure to it.

In other words, they do their deed and actually get bored with porn. It's like nude beachs, people who attend them often say that nudity doesn't really thrill them as it may for many other people.

So porn provides an avenue for people that may otherwise have pent up sexual issues to release them.

That's not human nature? I think it is.

Many of the people trying to make the case that porn is addictive are people with moral agendas to eliminate porn. It's interesting because it's always some woman talking about a man who is addicted to porn, maybe she just doesn't understand porn and what it means to a man?



Well you inferred I know nothing about human nature, that wasn't polite.

All the casinos here in Michigan are owned by tribes or corporations. And sure the states and cities get their cuts, pretty big cuts, but most of the profits go into god-who-know's hands. After being at several Detroit casinos I'm convinced the money is going to mobsters.




I think you're really stretching things. Yes, I agree that people can have compulsive behaviors about EVERYTHING. People with OCD can obsess about washing their hands or brushing their hair.

From what I've read, porn addiction is a highly debated topic. Not every social scientist agrees that porn is addictive. And yes excercise is addictive, but no one loses their life savings over it.

And sex and shopping can be obsessive compulsive disorders, but that doesn't get gambling and casinos off the hook. Just because people kill in self-defense doesn't mean we allow people to kill for fun. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But you seem to be indicating that gambling is a problem. We can't eliminate sex or shopping, but what necessary function is a casino? I say close em!



I never said they force you, I said they COERCE you.

Well, I would be more inclined to say that the people who patron casinos are the ones who cause the crime. Gambling in itself does not cause crime or every American youth with a raffle ticket would be committing crimes. A combination of fate, liquors and smoke is most likely the probable answer. I suppose the casinos are a gathering place for such events, but gambling on its own is not that bad a thing.