Gambling in Pennsylvania

The introduction of gambling houses in Pennsylvania appears to be fait accompli by this point (it may be instructive to refer to them as "gambling houses," not just as casinos, in order to reinforce what sort of activity we are talking about). It's unlikely that anything can stop them, just as it's unlikely that anything can stop the existence of gambling generally. This isn't a reason to refrain from asking whether the presence of places like casinos is such a good idea, though. I'm not sure that there is a sound basis for rejecting them outright, but I do think that there are concerns which people should think carefully about.

Gambling in Pennsylvania: Cost vs. Benefits
Gambling is offered as a means for economic progress and increased tax revenues. It is argued that casinos and gambling institutions would bring much needed revenue and jobs to economically depressed areas as well as much-needed tax revenue for the government. This appears to be true, but it would be a mistake to end the conversation there without further inquiring into the cost paid to obtain the revenue and jobs and whether similar benefits could be achieved by other means that come with a lower cost.

Accepting the creation of gambling houses is an easy "solution" to adopt because there are powerful gambling interests promoting them and willing to fund them. It's easy to look at the benefits of casinos and gambling and assume that that's all there is to the equation, never asking about what communities will have to pay or endure. How would we react if someone proposed creating toxic waste dumps? Would we simply be happy if good jobs with good pay and health insurance came with the dumps?

Of course not. I'm not trying to argue that casinos are the same as toxic waste dumps, but I am saying that a failure to ask hard questions about the impact of gambling houses represents a failure to take seriously our own long-term interests - and we shouldn't leave those interests in the hands of large corporate institutions which have little incentive to care about what happens to us. Our future is our responsibility as citizens of a democratic society and this means that we must demand good answers to questions about how gambling houses will impact the long-term social, economic, and psychological health of our communities.

Gambling can come with significant social costs: addiction, increased crime, substance abuse, lost productivity in other businesses, and so forth. Everything has its costs, of course, and perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs - but does anyone have any solid, peer-reviewed figures demonstrating that this the case, either generally or for Pennsylvania? If not, why should we believe it? The possible costs are serious enough that we as citizens deserve to know how high they are before we can give informed consent that we are willing to pay them. We, after all, are the ones who will be paying - not those who own the casinos.

It's Just Business
Is gambling just another business and therefore something that should be treated like any other business? This is an argument sometimes offered by gambling interests, but it's clearly not something that even they believe themselves. In Nevada, for example, patronizing a casino is a privilege rather than a right - a person can be kept out of casinos because of their criminal or gambling history, or even because of their association with criminals. Is this something which other businesses can normally do?

Then there is the heavy government involvement in what sorts of gambling is permitted, where it is permitted, and so forth - even direct involvement with running their own gambling operations, as with state lotteries. You don't find similar government involvement with other industries.

Finally, there is the fact that gambling doesn't "produce" anything - it's not like a manufacturing plant or retail store when patrons exchange money for something tangible which they can come away with. In a gambling house, money leaves the pockets of citizens but nothing substantive flows back into the community. Perhaps gambling is more like an entertainment complex, though. What do people take home from movies or sporting events?

That may be a valid comparison, but then again how many people become addicted to such entertainment? Does a new casino really have economic benefits like a new stadium might? Is a horse track really analogous to a movie theater? It's arguable that a stadium or theater increases economic activity in the surrounding area, thus improving the conditions for other businesses. Does the same occur in the vicinity of a casino? When people come to gamble, do they also spend extra money at nearby restaurants, shops, and so forth?

Gambling isn't just like any other industry and shouldn't be treated just like any other industry. For all the reasons described above and many more, doesn't it seem odd that the government would be involved with gambling at all? Government involvement might be defensible if said involvement were used to reduce the social costs and consequences (like fighting and preventing addiction), but this doesn't always appear to be the case. The government is benefiting from gambling revenues and therefore from whatever harms are occurring without cleaning up mess left behind. There's something wrong with this.

Thinking About Gambling
I'm not trying to argue against gambling because I think it's a "sin." I'm not a Christian and I find the general silence of conservative Christians on the subject of powerful, organized gambling industries to be curious at best. Is it really the case that films like Brokeback Mountain are a more serious threat to families and "family values" than million-dollar casinos? This strikes me as implausible at best.

I wouldn't want gambling shut down merely because Christians object to it for religious reasons, but it's disappointing that Christians who should be opposed to gambling have done so little to promote broader debate and discussion about the introduction of gambling houses to Pennsylvania. It's enough to make one wonder about their priorities and real concerns.

I'd like people to step back and think more critically about the introduction of gambling in local communities, even economically depressed ones where jobs are desperately needed. Perhaps gambling houses would be a net benefit in the long run; then again, perhaps not. Gambling isn't just like every other industry and shouldn't be treated as a simple, easy "solution" to the economic woes of a community, city, or state. If gambling is accepted, it should be with our eyes wide open to the likely costs so that we can be better prepared to deal with those costs as they come due.

-- Guest Blogger, Austin Cline

POLL: Do you support legalized slot machines in Pennsylvania?

1) Yes

2) No

3) Yes, as long as the revenue is used for property tax reform

4) Undecided

>> View Results