The issue of table gambling is being discussed in our area and our representatives will be voting on whether or not to allow table gambling to pass. We cannot allow table gambling to pass and here is why.
John Kindt, Ph.D., professor of commerce and legal policy at the University of Illinoise, asserts that for every dollar of revenue generated by gambling, taxpayers must dish out at least three dollars in increased criminal justice costs, social-welfare expenses, high regulatory costs, and increased infrastructure expenditures. (John Warren Kindt, statement before a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business, 21 September 1994.)
When people tell you how much more money will come in with the table gambling remember that it WILL cost us more than we will gain!
Economists David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia and Earl L. Grinois of Baylor University insist that "Even using conservative estimates of costs and generous estimates of benefits, we still find the costs [of casino-type businesses] exceed the benefits." Mustard and Grinois examined crime data from each county in the U.S. between 1977 and 1996, comparing statistics from those counties which had casinos and those that did not. Their research found that by the fifth year of a casino's existence crime increased as follows: murder went up by 12%, rape went up by 21%, larceny went up by 38%, burglary went up by 50%, auto theft went up by 78%, aggravated assault went up by 91% and robbery went up by 136%.
Is that what we want in our community?
NORC (National Opinion Research Center) estimated that the annual average costs of job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological gambling treatment is approximately $1,200 per pathological gambler per year and approximately $715 per problem gambler per year. (NORC,p. 52) NORC further estimated that lifetime costs (Bankruptcy, arrests, imprisonment, legal fees for divorce, and so forth) at $10,550 per pathological gambler, and $5,130 per problem gambler. NORC did not attempt to estimate the financial costs of any gambling-related incidences of theft, embezzlement, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and the non-legal costs of divorce. (NORC, p.41) The figures stated above must be taken as minimums.
The National Gambling Commission was created through Public Law 104169, which was signed by President Clinton on August 3, 1996. The Commission heard testimony from social service providers that churches, charities, domestic violence shelters, and homeless shelters are often significantly burdened by the problems created by problem and pathological gamblers. They also found that there are many consequences commonly attributed to problem gambling, such as divorce, child abuse , depression, bankruptcy and so forth. Families of pathological gamblers suffer from a variety of financial, physical, and emotinal problems, including divorce, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and a range of problems stemming from the severe financial hardship that commonly results from proglem and pathological gambling. Children of compulsive gamblers are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and using drugs, and have an increased risk of developing problem or pathological gambling themselves. The National Research council found that gamblers often resort to crime in order to pay debts, appease bookies, maintain appearances, and garner more money to gamble.
Those who are addicted to gambling show a pattern of substance abuse(1), suicide attempts(2), and child abuse and neglect that warp and scar the lives of children growing up near them(3). Seven percent of teenagers are estimated to be pathologically addicted to gambling at their young age(4). [(1) Henry R. Lesieur,"Compulsive Gambling," Society, May/June 1992, 46. (2)National Council on Problem Gambling, Inc. "The Need for a Natinoal Policy on Problem and Pathological Gambling in America," 1 November 1993, 7. (3)Ibid (4)J. Taylor Buckley, "Nation Raising 'A Genrarion of Gamblers,'" USA Today, 5 April 1995, 1D.]
David Phillips, a professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, compared suicide statistics nationwide and traced significantly higher numbers of suicides in cities with casinos than in those without. Las Vegas displays the highest levels of suicide in the nation. Suicides shot up in Atlantic City in the first few years after gambling was legalized there. Seven out of 100 Americans and Canadians have gambling problems.
Problem gambling among adolescents is more than twice the rate for adults. (Dr. Howard Shaffer, Harvard Medical School's Division on Addictions)
If our teens are twice at risk to develop a problem gambling issue, and problem gambling issues lead to higher suicide rates, criminal activity, drug and alcohol addictions, etc..... do we want to keep allowing more gambling to pass in this area? What about the costs to this area? What about the increased crime?
The Weirton Daily Times reported February 5, 2006 that the drug problem is getting worse in our area. Studies are showing increased drug usage among gamblers. Could there be a connection?
Please forward this e-mail to everyone you know in West Virginia!!! People have the right to make informed decisions. The Secretary of State's website is www.wvsos.com. From there you can find campaign finances and where our representatives have gotten their money to run their campaigns. Joe Delong got in 2006 $1000 from a greyhound breeder, $1311 from greyhound owners, $1450 from kennel operators, $1000 from Ted Arneault (President and CEO of Mountaineer) and $500 from Wheeling Racetrack. Joe Delong is also an employee of Mountaineer Racetrack. Randy Swartzmiller received $1000 from Ted Arneault in 2006. Senator Ed Bowman received $1000 from Ted Arneault. Should our representatives work for a gambling facility or take money from people who are promoting gambling when they need to make the decision for the citizens of West Virginia concerning gambling? Is it not a conflict of interest? Will they think of the social costs or the money they'll make?