Letter to the Editor
Daily Oklahoman
P.O. Box 25125
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125—0125

Dear Letters to the Editor:

I was shocked to see the misleading editorial that appeared in your paper in early February urging the people of Oklahoma to vote against casino gaming. Indeed, casino gaming may not be right for every city in the United States, and recently Oklahomans decided it wasn’t right for them, but it is wrong for a newspaper to use deceptive means to try and persuade the public against such an activity.

Every argument made against casino gaming in your editorial was non—factual, extremely misleading and came straight from anti—gaming zealots. Their theories, in turn, are not backed by any hard evidence, but rather from economic models. Recent studies that have actually examined new gaming jurisdictions found that casino opponents’ theory regarding the “redirection of money” holds no clout. In fact, time after time, it has been proven that the introduction of casinos has led to growth in retail sales, commercial and new housing construction and restaurants. Money is not being taken away from these places — in fact just the opposite.

Your reference to a 230 percent crime jump in Atlantic City clarifies that you have done no research on the issue of crime and gaming. Simply stated, there is no relationship between the two. In fact, in most gaming jurisdictions, crime has either remained the same or decreased after gaming has been introduced. A recent study on the subject, conducted by a former federal prosecutor and director of the Illinois State Police, actually used Atlantic City as a prime example of how gaming opponents misconstrue numbers in order to satisfy preconceived notions. What is not factored into this supposed 230 percent crime increase is that after gaming was introduced in 1978, the average daily population (residents plus visitors) tripled in size. Atlantic City’s crime increase was not credited to the relationship between crime and the increase in visitor population. In reality, the post—casino crime rate for permanent residents and the risk of being victimized is less than it was before the introduction of casinos.

The author of the suicide study, which you refer to, openly states that his findings “suggest but do not prove that gamblers experience abnormally high risks of suicide,” and he acknowledges that other factors could contribute to increased suicide levels.

In fact, an August 1997 study conducted by the Center for Disease Control, found that Hawaii and Utah, states with no legalized gaming, had higher suicide rates than Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey, all states with a large influx of gaming. It also found that New Jersey had the 2nd lowest suicide rate in the nation, even with the existence of casinos for 20 years. The study found that Western regions of the United States, such as Nevada and Wyoming (which has no casinos) were found to have higher suicide rates for reasons linked to isolation, migration and a growing population. In fact, an examination of Nevada found that Las Vegas had a lower suicide rate than rural areas of the state.

Finally, your haphazard use of numbers relating to problem gambling only serves to sensationalize the serious issue at hand. The casino gaming industry is fully aware that problems do exist for some people when it comes to gambling, and the industry is addressing the issue in a variety of proactive ways, including financing most of the serious research that is being conducted in this country today by leading hospitals and universities. But again, your misuse of numbers to underline your anti—gaming bias is irresponsible. Surely you are aware that a recent Harvard Medical School study conducted by the Division on Addictions found that only 1.29 percent of the adult population has a serious gambling disorder — a far cry from the careless math equation in your editorial. This means that the overwhelming majority of Americans gamble with no adverse consequences and enjoy it for what it is: entertainment.

You are more than entitled to your own opinion about gambling, but you most certainly are not entitled to your own set of facts about the issue. Should you decide to write about the subject again, I would suggest using a little more intellectual honesty with your readers.

Sincerely,

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.