Will 2009 be about Gambling in NH?

Someone was doing polling on expanded gambling (0.00 / 0)

this year. I got a call; it was 'pushy' in that the questions were slanted (in favor of expanded gaming), but it was too long to be a classic push poll.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 17:31:55 PM CST

We may be heading into a perfect storm on the issue this biennium: (4.00 / 1)

Wanna bet?

---

by: cmnh @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 20:38:57 PM CST

we do love us some vice (4.00 / 1)

here in NH. Booze, butts - gambling would be the icing on the cake - and legalizing prostitution would be the cherry (pardon the pun) on top.

Anyone other than me think that to rely on gambling $$ during dire economic circumstances is not only foolish, but immoral?

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 20:52:05 PM CST

I shy away from "immoral" (0.00 / 0)

But foolish, I wholeheartedly embrace. The state (in the broadest sense of that term) should promote the health of its citizens, not its addictions.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 21:48:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm with you on this one, Susan (0.00 / 0)

Take a look at the increase personal bankruptcy rates in places like Biloxi in the years following the introduction of casino gambling. There;s a clear correlation.


America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman

---

by: Peter Sullivan @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:01:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mixed, developing reaction (0.00 / 0)

I do think its coming. Our untenable position on revenue for common needs almost makes it a necessity.

On one hand I hate the idea ("Don't Gamble on Education"), on the other, to be consistent with my thoughts on Gov. intervention in private life (Shavio, choice, rights) I'm not not sure I should be against it... Torn.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 22:48:19 PM CST

One argument is that it's a "race to the bottom" (0.00 / 0)

If New Hampshire had the only state lottery - and we did, for a few years - we would rake in gambling money from around the nation. Our payout rate could be fairly low and our profit high.

But other states created their own games and the profits never got that big.

The same happens with casinos. When Atlantic City had a de facto monopoly its casinos drew a lot of business and the profits could stay high. With others states entering the game it becomes less attractive.

Running a gaming empire as the only game around is an entirely different proposition than competing with all your neighboring states.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:13:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

The places where the gambling would go, like Salem, have many social problems.

New Hampshire has very little in the way of services to assist with the social fallout expanded gambling would bring. We have little in the way of mental health care, and there will be more addictions as a result. Also, crime will increase because of the money and the ancillary things like liquor, drugs, and prostitution. Who will pay for the extra police, courts, etc. so on and so forth? The state? The localities where the gambling takes place? Surely the gaming industry itself will not pay.

Like any other vice adults choose to do, I'm not opposed to gambling in theory. But there are consequences to its expansion, and these need to be considered very seriously.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:09:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't dream of govt. intervention (0.00 / 0)

BUT - when you're selling yet another form of poison to fun our state, what does that say about who we are?

Smoking kills people. We don't want to pay for the health care smokers need, yet our legislators work hard for their right to sell death to addicts.

Booze - we sell cheap booze on the highway, and have strict drunk driving laws. We also have next to no treatment for alcoholics.

So, gambling will be the next thing. We'll be encouraging folks to gamble (while uttering a lip service warning about gambling addiction) in a state where half of the jobs don't pay a living wage. Carsey Institute

I DO find that the height of immorality.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:18:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you've got it right (0.00 / 0)

"to fun our state"

I mean, one could make a similar argument about the risks, costs, and addictive element of skiing, our awesome state sport.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:36:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where to put a casino? (0.00 / 0)

Manchester is out because it is totally awesome w/o one.

Bow sounds like a good candidate, if I recall clearly.

Who has got the juice to land this baby?

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:46:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know about a casino (0.00 / 0)

for other reasons: namely, I don't have a lot of faith in the gaming commission, because the one (former mayor of Nashua) guy I recognize I really don't have a lot of confidence in--if it were bigger or more democratic or had strict term limits to ensure regular turnover of commissioners (maybe it already does, I don't know), I could maybe be down with a casino. If I proposed anywhere but Nashua, I'd sound a bit like a NIMBY type, but the local government here would probably kill it. If we're talking about a huge casino resort thing, and not little gambling dens, the property tax windfall the community would get would probably make up for whatever corresponding increase in services. Casinos in Quebec would probably be a better model to look at than Indian casinos, I imagine, but Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun I think were a net positive for southern Connecticut, as far as creating decent hospitality industry jobs.

Our gaming laws strike me as a bit strict, though. I'm under the impression (though I could be wrong, haven't looked into it), that holding a poker game with your buddies or betting on UNH hockey is basically against the law. Other little things like video prize games at bars don't seem like too big a deal.

My only experience with gambling is buying scratch tickets with a friend of mine  at a bus station once, and we ended up with a dollar more than we started with. So, I guess, it's not that much riskier than other investments...

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 15:07:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lots of options (4.00 / 1)

I like legalized gambling, and have been to casinos and racinos of various kinds.  You can follow the model of the track with slots, or the model of the casino with hospitality facilities like Foxwood, or the model of the place I went to on a reservation which did not serve alcohol. One casino I went to had a limit on how much you could gamble at slot machines over a period of time.  So, I voted yes, but I understand the quality of life concerns, and think those need to be addressed.  Not everyone can look at gambling as just a use of entertainment dollars and have the capacity to walk away when they are losing.

But let me tell you about the time I won $2,400 on the quarter slots at the MGM in Vegas....    

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 15:30:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

aha (0.00 / 0)

it's okay as long as it's not in YOUR backyard. The crime that casinos bring can be sloughed off on someone else - probably some place in the state that has economic problems and lousy representation...kinda like the north country.

Let's not pretend that we're going to have a glamorous kind of casino in NH. This isn't Las Vegas - there will be no Sigfried and Roy, no Paris Hilton, no Cher. What we'll get will be low rent gambling destined to appeal to bus tourists wearing fanny packs.

I repeat - and no one on the in favor of side seems willing to address the realities of relying on gaming funds for our state govt. What happens when the money stops coming in?  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:02:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To clarify (0.00 / 0)

No, I wouldn't really care and would probably appreciate having a casino nearby, given how little there is to do around here at night. The political reality is, it would not get through in Nashua.

I don't think the north country would make sense, because it's not close enough to population centers to draw people in. If we had a casino, it would do best in the golden triangle, and maybe up in the white mountains in a combo casino/ski-resort.

You're only looking at this from a state revenue perspective, and with the assumption that having a casino is inherently bad and supporters (or indifferent people, like me) would otherwise be opposed.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:01:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

fyi Alex (0.00 / 0)

I lived in Tahoe City, CA for a couple of years. I was 20 minutes from the casinos on the Nevada side of the lake, and 45 minutes from Reno. I'm not making uninformed assumptions.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:44:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I didn't mean to suggest they were (0.00 / 0)

uninformed assumptions, and if we're dropping geographical street cred, I used to live 15 minutes to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun and given the lack of demand for submarines (at Electric Boat in Groton), that area would be economically devastated without them. I lived in Nova Gorica, Slovenia for about a month (with my fairly anti-casino family), where they have smaller casinos on the Italian border, and they didn't seem to have too negative an impact on everyday life. I get up to Ottawa pretty frequently, where I also have family, and the casino across the river in Aylmer/Hull, Quebec is not a big deal. Montreal still thrives despite its casino. There are all sorts of different approaches. New Hampshire can look at different ways expanded gaming has been implemented, and learn from mistakes and successes.

Another reality is, casinos are hurting right now along with everyone else. It would take time to get a law perfected and passed. And then, it would take some more time to build a casino. It's not like there's capital ready to pour tomorrow in and create this industry out of nothing. I guess what I'm trying to say is, support or oppose, there's no real sense of urgency to the issue.

I don't think expanding gaming should be looked at exclusively from a state revenue perspective or be limited to casinos. My concern is more with the puritanical opposition to games of chance as a matter of policy, generally.

Ultimately though, the status is quo is tolerable to me. A change is just as tolerable to me, but intolerable to others. And, I think this is probably generally true. There are more people passionately opposed to expanded gaming than there are people passionately supportive, and those of us who could see it favorably, just don't care that much.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 21:54:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

since expanded gambling (0.00 / 0)

is being sold as a way of adding revenue to the state (WMUR late news tonight, in fact) that really IS the discussion we should be having.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 22:55:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can't compare (4.00 / 1)

NH to Canada. They have more state resources for health and welfare than we do. In fact, we're either right below or right above Slovenia on the WHO table of health care factors used in Michael Moore's SICKO.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:35:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't follow (0.00 / 0)

What's the nexus between gaming and the availability or quality of health care?

Allowing people -- and even advertising to out of staters -- to spend their money on strapping themselves to flimsy boards in order to hurl themselves down mountains seems a much riskier recreational activity. Yet, this recreation  is allowed to exist in Canada, Slovenia, and the United States regardless of differences in the health care systems and without any moralist outrage.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:33:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahem. (4.00 / 1)

Nobody thinks that going skiing will help them pay for their rent.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 20:15:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But, (0.00 / 0)

for using health care as the determinative factor, breaking a leg skiing is probably more common than having a cocktail glass broken over your head at a casino (carpal tunnel from slots?). Differences in the health care system do not seem a good enough factor to reject comparisons.  

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 14:32:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes they are. (0.00 / 0)

NH has a serious shortage of resources for mental health care. Gambling is addictive, as is the alcohol sold at most gambling establishments. The cocktail glass example is a red herring.

Skiing is not addictive in the same way. Plus it has some health benefits--exercise and fresh air come to mind.

According to the evidence I've weighed, gambling will cost NH more than it brings in.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 14:45:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then you should really (0.00 / 0)

be comparing mental health care capacity of Slovenia and Canada, not health care generally. Treating mental health seems far more common in the United States than others places I've been, or else Americans are more open about seeing therapists and taking antidepressants and things of this nature.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 16:10:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahem. (0.00 / 0)

From The New York Times (bold mine):

The United States has a long history of separating the treatment of mental and physical illnesses, dating back to the days when the severely mentally ill were put in poorhouses, jails and, later, public asylums. That ended after the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, but mental health experts and advocates say that the delivery of services is still far from equal, because emotional illness is still not considered to be on a par with medical illness.

Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, with national health care systems that don't limit access to any services, have long ago moved toward merging these two branches of health care, and the Scandinavian countries are known for treating mental illnesses as medical diseases, according to researchers who have studied the various systems.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 17:04:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Health care debates aside (0.00 / 0)

largely, because I don't think the New York Times (or at least Sarah Kershaw) understands how the Canadian (provincial) health care system works at all, if that's the position taken.

If the issue is casino gambling (opposed to loosening regulations on petty gambling, which is what I said I support in the first place), and associated mental health problems, and resources to pay for treatment, then in negotiating with the casino operator, the state should demand a guaranteed payment (revenue floor) and specifically designate that money for investment in those associated mental health areas, rather than pay for building roads or state troopers or whatever else.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 17:33:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]