Dear Editor:
While the American Gaming Association does not take a position on the decisions of individual states regarding the legalization of gambling, we do take issue with the numerous misstatements made in a recent op-ed on this topic by Stephen Adams of the Pioneer Institute (“Casinos come up snake eyes for common good,” Dec. 2).
According to national prevalence estimates from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 percent of adults gamble without experiencing any adverse consequences. However, we believe the 1 percent that doesn’t gamble responsibly deserves our attention, and, since our organization was formed in 1995, in addition to spearheading public education initiatives, our industry and related organizations have funded more than $7 million in independent, peer-reviewed scientific research to better diagnose, treat and prevent this disorder.
Although it’s important to consider potential impact on children, the research thus far shows that gambling expansion has had no impact on youth pathological gambling prevalence rates. While higher than the adult rate, the youth rate has remained constant during the past 25 years, despite a significant increase in gambling opportunities. That’s because when kids gamble, it usually involves cards, dice or sports - not organized, legal gambling. Of course, that doesn’t mean youth gambling doesn’t need to be addressed; it just means that adolescents have gambled, and will continue to gamble and engage in other risky behaviors, whether or not there is an increase in gambling in Massachusetts.
Adams easily repeats stereotypes about gambling participation. In fact, according to extensive survey research, casino gambling rates increase as income rises. Additionally, the median age of casino gamblers closely mirrors the median age of the overall U.S. population.
Contrary to the picture painted by Adams, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 found that casino gaming yields economic and social benefits in many communities, creating high-quality jobs, generating economic development, and reducing unemployment and government assistance.
As to the negative impacts Adams alleged, the federal panel concluded in its research that the presence of casinos does not correspond to increases in crime or bankruptcy. A research report on the economic impact of casino gaming found that “… a new casino of even limited attractiveness, placed in a market that is not already saturated, will yield positive economic benefits on net to its host economy.” The National Research Council report cited by Adams also reached this conclusion: “Gambling appears to have net economic benefits for economically depressed communities.”
Two independent government reports conducted at the request of a prominent gambling opponent in Congress echoed these findings: A study conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) failed to find a link between gambling and purported social costs, while a 1999 U.S. Treasury Department study found no link between casino gambling and bankruptcy.
Even if one were to ignore all the independent government research, there are many real-life examples of communities - many of which had fallen on hard times prior to the advent of casino gaming - that have since experienced economic turnarounds, such as Joliet, Ill.; Gary, Ind., and Biloxi, Miss. And if things were so bad after eight years with riverboat casinos and racetrack casinos, why would the citizens of 11 Iowa counties vote last month by overwhelming majorities - from 60 percent to 80 percent - to keep them?
It’s certainly not my place to say whether or not gambling is right for Massachusetts, but it’s important that the citizens make their decision based on the facts, not trumped up claims by uninformed observers.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
President and CEO