Two Downstate Racinos Are Downstate Casinos Now

Posted on by
Reply
spin

spin

     

 

 

        For  practical purposes, there are at least two non-tribal full-service casinos operating today in New York State. If that surprises you, read on.   The facilities at Aqueduct  and at Yonkers call themselves casinos yet pose as “racinos.”  In my opinion they are real casinos, cleverly disguised as “racinos.”   They don’t have human croupiers or dealers, but offer table games in which the outcome of a play is governed by the same  laws of physics that determine the outcome of a throw or spin  by a human being.  Such table games are billed as part of lottery.  I say  they are illegal.  What’s your opinion?   

     An editorial in the New York Daily News May 5 showed that at Resorts World Casino (Aqueduct Racino) “electronic table games” of craps, Bo-Sic, roulette,  and baccarat are bringing in a good part of the “video gaming” revenues. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/playing-games-law-article-1.1334713

     I am not a lawyer, but was persuaded by the carefully-researched editorial and by my own reading of the opinion of the Appeals Court in 2005 that these games are not permitted under the present New York State Constitution.  Though operated by NYS Lottery, they do not meet the definition of “lottery” in the same way as do video lottery terminals (VLTs).

Continue reading →

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

Posted on by
Reply
St Paul's from flickr 5172661797_d7003e47a8_m

St Paul’s             flickr 5172661797_d7003e47a8_m

5639243328_ce8f602a7b_mStPeter's

 

 

 

 

St Peter’s ,  photo from Flickr

 

     Some cynic wrote “Whoever robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s support.”  Too many people, though they might  hesitate to call gambling robbery, are comfortable with  government’s taking gambling-derived revenues from Peter (the gambler)  and converting them into what looks like a fiscal benefit  to Paul.  Paul here is the citizen whose tax rates were not perceptibly increased when government got revenue another way, from its share of Peter’s losses at legalized gambling.   Paul is expected to be grateful for government’s easing up on him thanks to  Peter’s losses.  To feel that way in good conscience,  though,  he has to think it’s really not “robbery,”  merely  “parting a fool from his money.”

     In NY we are most all Pauls, thanking government for fending off tax rate increases by reaping Lottery money.  There are two things wrong with this state of affairs that should make us change it, hard as that would be.  First, about half the revenue to government from gambling it sanctions is from the losses of addicted and problem gamblers.  To keep “playing,” these people almost always have to take money from others who trust them. Whether predatory gambling literally robs the gambler himself or herself can be disputed.  (See discussion below the “read more“  break.)  That it robs others via the gambler cannot be disputed.  It robs them not only of savings accounts, vehicles, retirement funds, lunch money,  furniture etc., but of reputation, affection and self-esteem.  These others number,  for each affected gambler, as many as 10 to 17 [Politzer et al, 1992 citing Lesieur 1977].

      Then there is robbery going on to keep Paul’s tax rate from rising. Paul can still be comfortable with that, if the identity of the victims is  abstract enough.  He ought also to realize, however, that he is not really benefiting by the apparent flatness of his tax rate.  The money Peter cozened  from his trusting family and associates (referred to as “abused dollars”) are only a piece of the hidden quantifiable socioeconomic costs of gambling.   Counting in all those hidden costs doubles what it costs society to  raise a dollar by tax-on-casino instead of by  stepping up the rate of a conventional distortionary tax like sales tax or income tax. [Earl Grinols (2004), Gambling in America  pp 180-181]

     If Paul feels no compunction about seeming to get a break on his taxes due to revenue  to government from gambling,  still insists  it’s a free lunch,  it’s not.  He gave at the office without knowing it.  Some of his tax money went to criminal justice administration or social services triggered by events in  the gambling exchange.  He is also part of an economy hurt by lost productivity and lost creativity due to gambling.  This is  a touch of rot. Continue reading →

The Albany Gambling Diet

Posted on by
Reply

albanydiet  The Albany Gambling Diet

Thoughts on Healthier Eating

by

David Colavito

 

 

 

     When you consider how injurious the socioeconomic consequences of state-sponsored gambling are, compared to its benefits, you have to ask why Governor Cuomo is promoting the expansion of casino gambling, let alone as economic development.  Sure, “gambling is already here” and “New York needs jobs” – neither is in dispute.  And used as they are to promote the Governor’s plan, they’re certainly appealing.  That’s the sweet side of half-truths many of us prefer to our vegetables.  But if Albany isn’t serving a balanced meal, it’s in our interests to understand why.  I’m suggesting it’s a failure of imagination. 

    The thesis has been with me for some time and came into sharper focus recently while reading False Idyll, an essay by J.B. MacKinnon.  Dealing with an unrelated topic, MacKinnon’s words struck me as eerily apropos to the social injustice inherent to the casino economy – “…  the way you see the world determines much about the world you are willing to live in …“ 

    And because I choose to be generous in spirit, I choose to believe Governor Cuomo’s promotion of the casino economy is rooted more in how he sees the world rather than in the belief he can make it better.  It’s an unfortunate conclusion, considering what life would still be like if others before him had constrained their own imaginations when confronted with the same choice on important public policy matters: emancipation and suffrage to name just two.

    And though you might argue Mr. Cuomo’s recent policy commitments to gun control and gay marriage render my thesis flawed, I’d respond by saying perhaps you’re correct, but unlike for example integration in the south, I don’t think either would have occurred without strong political winds blowing at Mr. Cuomo’s back.  Regardless, what really matters is the facts of the casino economy, their implications for social injustice, and Mr. Cuomo’s refusal to acknowledge either in his pursuit to fill state coffers.  All of which is also to say, his fixation on the gambling economy is apt subject material for an as-yet conceived book to be titled after MacKinnon’s essay.

    So, what might we imagine if enough people in Albany saw the world more through the lens of what it could be rather than the way it is?   Given that the majority of casino gambling revenue dollars come from the minority of gamblers with serious gambling disorders, would lawmakers continue to endorse expanding that predatory business model to increase state revenues?  And given the well-established relationship that increased opportunity to gamble produces more people with serious gambling disorders, would they continue promoting state policies that cultivate making people sick to balance budgets?  Or, might they instead work to formulate policies that mitigate the interstate impacts of gambling so often used to conscript state residents in a race-to-the-bottom casino economy?  I think we know what they’d choose.  And there’s also recent precedence for pursing equally important objectives.  Consider, for example, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  Regardless of where you come down on the 2nd amendment debate, Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t just believe in the need for federal gun policies that don’t undermine those of states; he’s a fierce advocate for them in Washington.

    Still shooting for the stars you say?  How about then just punting for the moon?  Albany could acknowledge a false premise it uses to pursue expanding the failed policy of state-sponsored gambling, though I suspect it isn’t spoken aloud there often.  It’s the keystone for the arch of my thesis – “we’re desperate; what else can we do if we don’t promote gambling?”

    The answer is, plenty. 

Continue reading →

“Job Creation” by Casinos not a Net Boon

Posted on by
Reply

“ JOB  CREATION ”  BY CASINOS  MAY NOT BE A  BOON  FOR THE COMMUNITY

"School Buses in the Fall" found on flickr commons

Building a new casino complex opens job lines in the locality.  This is often trumpeted  as “job creation.”  Job creation is widely desired at a national level.  On a local or regional level, however, it may be more job substitution.  Persons newly hired at the casino complex will often have quit another job nearby for what they hope will be better conditions.  In a rural area a new casino complex will abruptly have hundreds more openings than there are ready able and willing workers in the community.  It will have to import staff, many of whom have left their jobs elsewhere.   The check list below refers to a medium-sized non-tribal casino complex in a mostly rural area.  Opening and filling job titles novel to  a community is not necessarily  True job creation, widely desired at a national level,   is not necessarily a net benefit to the community or county .

YES MAYBE N0
Construction jobs building  casino complex   ●
New construction or renovation outside casino complex    ●
Local skilled unionized work force enough for construction ●
Non-resident skilled workers needed for construction  ●
Most new job lines can be filled by local unemployed ●
Most new lines can be filled by local people who switch jobs ●
Some local workers will switch job to casino complex  ●
All casino job lines can be filled by local residents ●
Interest in hiring disabled persons  ●
↑sales local gas stations  ●
↓ sales local stores and restaurants  ●
Net ↓in total property tax roll due to devalued businesses    ●
Casino employees in rental housing will pay school taxes  ●
Casino will pay  school taxes ●
School  budget  overall  definitely bettered by casino  ●
Existing stock of rental housing for casino employees good    ●
 County-wide unemployment definitely decreasedOpinions in this piece are those of the writer, Stephen Q. Shafer MD, MA,MPH and are not necessarily shared by any or all members of CAGNY.  Photo of schoolbuses in the fall from flickr commons 5111493374_ca620e7837schoolbuses  ●
   ●

Five Arguments against Legalizing Casinos in NY

Posted on by
Reply

 

The Great Seal of the Sate of New York

The Great Seal of the State of New York

Five current arguments about legalizing non-tribal casinos in New York State in the light of the keystone estimate for casino revenues shown in bold below. 

52% of revenues at the average casino are from problem or pathological gamblers. (Grinols and Omorow 16  J. Law and Commerce 1996-97 p. 59)  Together, these types of gamblers are 4% of adults,  about 7%  of casino  clients.

 PRO: Would send new revenue to Albany without raising tax rates.

CON: Half that revenue would have been diverted, to their lasting harm,   from the families and associates of addicted and problem gamblers, or would be proceeds of outright crime. 

CON: If quantifiable social costs are considered,  raising $1  via tax on casinos costs the private  sector twice what it costs to gain that $1 by a step-up  in a conventional tax rate.  (*Grinols pp. 180-181)

 PRO: All or nearly all that revenue would be dedicated to “education.”

CON: Simply allows $$ that would have gone to education to be spent elsewhere in state budget. 

CON: Creates a pretext for annual increases. Who’s against “more money for education?”

 PRO: Would be regulated to cut out underworld and instructed to “prevent problem gambling.”

CON: See keystone estimate.  Casinos get 50 % of revenues from < 7 % of clients.  Steering those clients into lasting recovery and halting their replacement would ↓↓ high profit margins.  What for-profit business wants to cooperate in drying up the 7% of customers that leave half its take ?   No business.

CON: Promoting “responsible gaming” is a sham.   Seriously-affected gamblers seldom benefit by government-sponsored treatment programs until terrible damage has come to them and those close to them.  

 PRO: “Creates jobs.”

CON: May hurt other businesses by taking workers from them (“cannibalization” ).

CON: Importing workers can burden host community (housing stock, schools).

 PRO: “Economic development”

CON:  Increased local cash throughput  ≠ (does not equal)  economic development.

CON:  Local property taxes promised by casinos ≠ economic development.

Then what is economic development ?  “The creation of greater value by society from its available resources”  (*Grinols p. 57) 

*footnotes refer to Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits by Earl L. Grinols (Cambridge University  Press, 2004). Earl Grinols is Distinguished Professor of Economics at Baylor University.

 The opinions in this piece are those of the author, Stephen Q. Shafer MD MPH and are not  necessarily shared by any or all members of CAGNY.  Permission is hereby granted to quote from this piece at any length if the source is cited using the permalink.

 

“Sorry, So Sorry”

Posted on by
Reply

quickDraw_playcard 

 

 

 

 A real-life narrative about Quick Draw

 

 

 

 

 

 

In describing certain measures the  nascent  Responsible Play Partnership proposes to police gambling by under-age persons, the RPP states  tamely “violations could result in fines, suspensions or revocation of an entity’s license.”  The verb is “could,” not even “may,”  much less “will.”   The url for the press release about the RPP is shown below. http://www.gaming.ny.gov/pdf/press_022013.pdf 

     The following true story instances  a  shocking lack of  oversight  circa 2002-2008 of the  lucrative New York State Lottery “game” Quick Draw in one small city.  It could be entitled “ ‘Regulation’  In Action;”   alternatively,  “Regulation  Inaction.”  Considering that legislation is pending as of March 2013 to relax rules about Quick Draw,  more stories like this – if not quite as infamous – may be expected unless regulatory policy can get out of the conditional mood.

 

Summary: a Quick Draw addict with unfettered access to his stepdaughter’s earned fortune gambled away a large part of it “playing” at a favorite bar.  The local  newspaper  investigated how the bar’s owner  could have permitted this abuse of trust to run  for years. The owner then  surrendered the QD license. This ended official enquiry.   Three years later he told the Lottery Licensing authorities that the newspaper had maligned him for political purposes.  The license was restored without investigation.

 

      From mid-1998 well into 2002 the Speak Easy Bar at 557 Pearl St. Watertown NY had an habitué who played Quick Draw there  over and over and over – and over.  A real estate agent, he was locally famous as the stepfather of a high-paid supermodel who had grown up in Watertown.  Not everyone in town, however,  knew he had induced her in 1998 to have him replace the outside financial manager she had recently taken on.  

     In 2002, after four years of near-daily multi-hour “play” the Quick Draw aficionado started to bounce checks.  According to the local  newspaper, instead of warning him to stop playing or (within their rights) prosecuting him, the owners of the Speak Easy Bar and of other Quick Draw locales in town borrowed money from their friends to let him keep “playing”  until he could cover the bad checks. They of course were profiting from his losses.  In fact the owner of the Speak Easy had received a “Top Agent Award”  from Lottery in 2001.

     In January 2003 the Quick Draw addict told his stepdaughter that he had been using her money to “play” and had lost a lot of it.   He was prosecuted for writing bad checks.  When he pled guilty to that charge and others in October 2004, his stepdaughter’s  losses 1998-2002 were estimated in documents submitted to the court at 7 million dollars, nearly all of her assets.  In early 2005 the  stepfather was sentenced to prison. After the newspaper ran a story on the bar-owner’s role in enabling the stepfather’s addiction and consequent abuse of entrusted funds, the bar owner “opted to surrender” his Quick Draw license as of March 2005.  This ended  investigation by Lottery. 

     In May 2005, the model brought suit against her stepfather and the bar owner.  After more than a year, the latter was removed as a party.  Later, he changed the name of the bar  and applied to get the Quick Draw license back.

     Writing in  2007  to the Licensing Director of the NY Lottery, the owner of the Speak Easy Bar said that all published charges of his enabling the  gambler’s addiction after bad checks began were false.   His letter, published in the Watertown Daily Times of May 18 stated  “I cut him off  [from Quick Draw at the Speak Easy].”  He did add a sort of apology (quoted below) which implies in the passive voice that someone had failed in a duty to “cut off service.”   This contradicts his assertion that he had refused to allow the habitué to continue Quick Draw at his establishment.

 “Clearly there is a lot to be learned from such an incident, including the need to impose restraint on customers in the same way we would cut off service of alcohol to the obviously compulsive drinker.  There is also a need for those who sell tickets not to get caught up in playing such games.  I understand that. “ 

After no investigation Quick Draw was re-installed at 557 Pearl Street  in early May 2008.  Just ask in town for “The Mayor’s Bar.”

Notes: For a description of keno (the generic name of  Quick Draw) go to http://preview.tinyurl.com/awf3yvb

The opinions in this post are those of the writer, Stephen Q. Shafer MD MPH, and are not necessariy shared by any or all other members of CAGNY.  Permission is given here to quote from this piece at any length as long as the source is made clear using the permalink address above. 

 

Risks to Self and to Others: Where is the Line?

Posted on by
Reply

The Marshalsea Debtors' Prison, image from google

Gambling is the only personal behavior with high potential for harm to self and others actively encouraged  by civil government.  Why the anomaly?   Revenue

Most Americans say government  should  not legislate  behavior  any more than speech.  Risky or self-destructive actions  internal to an individual  are personal  freedoms when  they don’t infringe  on the rights or the welfare  of others.  That line, however,  is hard to define.  

Some smokers chafe at laws to ban smoking in indoor public places.  There, sensitivities  more than cancer-causing potential of second-hand smoke are detriments to others.  No laws limit smoking in a home with young children,  though  beating and starving are prohibited.  Inference: society considers domestic second-hand smoke relatively low-hazard.

Take  money. Most people say that government should not decree what individuals may do with funds to which they have access  (not necessarily  really theirs).  By this philosophy,  there should be no laws that one cannot literally burn money,  or spend it on valueless objects, or run up credit card debt or take out loans with no intent to repay.   There aren’t.  Even when others (close or remote) lose by these behaviors,  society  allows them. Inference: society considers wasting someone else’s money tough luck for that someone.

Recently I  heard  this  “personal freedoms”  theme from a friend about  legalized  gambling.   My first response was to point out that active pathological and problem gamblers always abuse others around them, psychologically and fiscally.  No problem gambler is an island.   Those in recovery have always left  mayhem behind.   Even if launched with millions,  like ex-Mayor Maureen O’Connor,  they will all if active  go broke eventually and start taking from others who trust them.  My friend is too conservative  or  too libertarian   to be swayed by the harm-to-others  case as I put it. 

He could not, however, refute the observation that no laws are made on purpose to encourage behaviors like heavy smoking around children at home.  In contrast, changing laws to expand gambling so the state gets money from it encourages gambling. Addiction and Problem Gambling follow in too many people, despite “preventive” nostrums.  

My friend acknowledged  that in legalizing  gambling  government  is not making irksome laws to curb personal  behavior.  Quite the reverse.   By licensing gambling  to get revenue (via lottery or tax on casino),  government actually legislates  in favor of  personal behaviors some of which are bound to hurt trusted others.  Those who say “legalized” gambling  entitles  anyone  to use available  money any way  he or she wants  deplore  a ban such as New York  has on non-tribal casinos.  A ban, though, is to buffer gamblers and innocents around them, not to draw them in, not to exploit them.   In granting license for gambling to raise revenue,  government becomes an exploiter.    This is plain wrong. 

 

Note : The picture (from Google.com) shows the Marshalsea  in 19th C. London.  Charles Dickens knew this prison well. His father, though not a gambler,  was usually  in debt.  Debtors were locked up, unable to earn money, until someone else sprang them.

The opinions in this post are those of the writer, Stephen Q. Shafer MD MPH.  They do not necessarily reflect opinions of any or all other members of CAGNY.  Permission is granted for reproduction in whole or in part as long as the source is acknowledged with the permalink above.

No Place for Casinos

Posted on by
Reply

Dawn over Hudson River 12/25/2010DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Every week CAGNY (courtesy of our anti-gambling allies  at NYCF) distributes a one-page handout to the offices of all legislators.  In the  bulletin to legislators of March 5 (posted last week on this site as “Central Statistic”), we stated that it is the practice of the casino cartel, which gets  35-50%  of  its profits from out-of-control gamblers,  to foster  irresponsible gambling while pretending not to.  To learn how the fostering is done, read Addiction by Design (Natasha Schull, 2012, Princeton University Press). 

     This post, which will be the  CAGNY bulletin for March 12,   is not on that crucial topic.  It is  about the façade that gambling promoters (private and governmental) put up to look sincere and caring. Part of the act is token sums for research (e.g. to National Center for Responsible Gaming); also for secondary* and tertiary**  prevention to  good, small  advocacy agencies like the National Council on Problem Gambling.  [Most tertiary prevention in this country is provided by GA and Gam-Anon, both all-volunteer organizations.  Neither accepts any outside support. ]

     In New York State most of the meager (near-zero, now) funding to prevent problem gambling has come from legislative appropriations to agencies like Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS).   Lottery and tribal casinos don’t contribute directly to statewide treatment and prevention. 

     If the constitution gets amended,  a legislator will surely  ask on behalf of OASAS and the NYS Council on Problem Gambling that some money coming  to the state from the new casinos go to “treatment and prevention of problem gambling.”   Likely some would, at least for a while.  How much, who knows?  Consider, though, that the revenues projected from casinos for 2016 have a much nobler-sounding destiny than treating gambling addicts.  They are supposed to be 90% “to support education”  and 10% to relieve property tax burdens.  If legislators must choose between allocating (say) $5M of the projected $150M  to counseling for problem gamblers or to “education,”  the addicts and their families will lose.  They always have.  Massachusetts announces intent to spend more than any other state. http://preview.tinyurl.com/ckkhy8p  Good luck, Bay State!

     Even if a huge revenue stream dedicated forever to treatment and prevention of problem gambling could be legislated, it would still be too little and too late to undo the mayhem of gambling. When do addicts enter treatment if not compelled by a judge?  When  they’ve  lost  everything.  Lives can be improved by treatment of  problem  gambling, but the clock does not run backwards.

     The best prevention of problem gambling is primary  prevention . A practical facet of this is an ecological strategy — no new casinos.  We have too many “slots”  now.  Vote  NAY on second passage.

     * This writer defines secondary prevention as keeping someone experienced in gambling who is not yet a problem gambler from turning into one (e.g. “Responsible Gaming” education, HOPEline signs). **Tertiary prevention is defined as steps (e.g. private counseling with or without 12-step program) to begin and sustain recovery from situations that meet at least some criteria for pathological or problem gambling.

    The opinions in this post are those of the writer,  Stephen Q. Shafer MD MPH,  and do not necessarily reflect those of any or all members of CAGNY. Permission is granted to reproduce in whole or part while acknowledging the source using the permalink above.

The Central Statistic of Casino Profits

Posted on by
Reply

  

The_Goose_That_Laid_the_Golden_Eggs_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19994.jpg from Wiki

The_Goose_That_Laid_the_Golden_Eggs_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19994.jpg from Wiki

                                                                      

     When Governor Cuomo in 2012  proposed  new commercial casinos he said they would need regulation.  Casino promoters can’t dismiss the concept,  which  has several aims.  One specific to casinos is to mitigate gambling addiction and problem gambling.*  Promoters don’t deny these  can be outcomes of   “gaming.”  Another goal of regulation, applied also to the banking or securities industries, is to protect investors and tax-collecting entities against in-house predatory practices, organized crime and tax dodges.

     Casino owners want regulation of how they handle consumers and accounting about as much as do big banks or brokerages: the least possible.   In any business, regulation hurts profits by constraining practices (say, payday loans) and limiting externalities.  For example, a company no longer free to discharge waste into a waterway faces new costs; raising prices may lose it business if competitors don’t raise theirs too.   Casinos are uniquely  intent on profit for its own sake. For them, that’s the be-all and the end-all.   Typical  industries, even those as controversial as “Big Pharma” or “Big Oil” make a product of real use to someone.  The casino business has only one tangible product,  in which it cannot take pride:  addicted and problem gamblers.  That product fuels it.

 The central  statistic  of  casinos:  a  large proportion  (Grinols and Omorow** estimated 35-50%)  of  the  gross returns after winnings are paid out comes from compulsive and  problem gamblers — about 4% of the adult population — who comprise < 10%  of casino customers.  Most of that 35-50% is from addicted gamblers.  From this statistic comes

The central dilemma (a no-brainer) :  if  casino owners  acted effectively to steer  into lasting recovery all pathological and problem gamblers in their sphere and  to prevent the creation of new ones,  profits would  drop by at least 35%.  How would that play on the bottom line?  Not well at all. 

Resolution: publicly express concern on problem gambling but make it go on  under a façade of “prevention”  methods structured to fail.   Accede to customized and toothless ”regulation” that won’t interfere with the real business.

     Recall the goose that laid the golden eggs.  Casinos do not lay the golden eggs their promoters claim; they are gilded base metal.  Whether the bird’s owner knows this or not,  whether  he stores or markets them,  the owner (assuming  he has more common sense than the yokel in the story, who killed it) will cosset the bird.  He won’t let  anyone  change her diet or re-house her.  To an owner eager for  eggs that look golden, regulation threatens the health of  the goose,  jeopardizing  her output.

      Legislators weighing the proposed amendment in New York State to legalize new casinos must ask three questions. “Would those casinos knock themselves out  to profit 35%-50% less than many others do?” That’s obvious: No

“Do I really believe NYS can and will properly regulate casinos if they don’t want it?”    Someone who believes in the Easter bunny might say so.  No one else will.

“Is it fair to NYS residents to commend to them, by an “Aye” on second passage,  a sham I don’t believe in.”  The response to that should be a third NO. 

*These two categories of  “disordered gambling behavior”  are distinct.  About 1% of North American adults are past-year pathological (addicted)  gamblers, another 3% or so past-year problem gamblers. Sometimes for brevity (not clarity) the two categories are lumped into “Problem Gambling.” 

** Grinols, Earl L. and J.D. Omorow (1997) “Development or Dreamfield Delusions? Assessing Casino Gambling’s Costs and Benefits.”   Journal of Law and Commerce 16, 1, 49-87.

The opinions are those of the writer, Stephen Q. Shafer and do not necessarily reflect those of all members of Coalition Against Gambling in New York.  Permission is granted to quote from this post at any length or to reproduce the entire post as long as the source is cited using the permalink above.

 

 

 

.

Under New Management: Business as Usual

Posted on by
1
Melencolia (A. Durer 1514) file from Wikipedia

Melencolia (A. Durer 1514) file from Wikipedia

A press release dated 20 Feb 2013 announces the formation of  “The Responsible Play Partnership”  to bring together the newly formed NYS Gaming Commission, OASAS (Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services) and NYS Council on Problem Gambling.   The full text may be seen at  http://www.gaming.ny.gov/pdf/press_022013.pdf    I have excerpted one  line and five paragraphs from it, making no changes within the excerpts, which  are in italics.  I have added commentary at the top,  among the paragraphs and at the bottom.

None of the proposed actions is itself a bad idea.  The total package, however,  is wholly inadequate to deal with compulsive and problem gambling in the state now.   Moreover, it takes no account of  new gamblers moving into these two categories  if, as the Governor wants,  seven new casinos are eventually licensed.  Casinos are hardly mentioned.

 … The Responsible Play Partnership will include the following components:

 Swift enforcement of age restriction laws: New York law prohibits gambling under the age of 18 at all OTBs, horse racing facilities and casinos. The current legal purchase age for Lottery tickets is 18 and 21 in establishments that sell alcoholic beverages. Similar to state enforcement efforts that prevent alcoholic beverage sales to underage buyers, the Responsible Play Partnership will help to enforce the age restriction laws for gambling:

  • The Council on Problem Gambling is coordinating with various alcohol and substance abuse councils across the State to carry out underage compliance checks at various locales, with Gaming Commission staff accompanying them. Underage volunteers will attempt to place bets, purchase tickets and/or engage in gambling activities at lottery retailers, Quick Draw locales, off-track betting and E-Z Bet locations, race tracks and video lottery terminal facilities across the state.
  • When violations occur and where possible, Gaming Commission personnel on-hand will issue an immediate notice to the venue outlining the violation and any applicable disciplinary action.
  • Violations could result in fines, suspensions or revocation of an entity’s license to participate or provide such services in New York.

 Comments: 

  • Stiff  barriers  to underage gambling are good.  There is no mention, however,  of  how intensive or extensive  the micro-sting operations will be.  Penalties do not seem stiff –  violations “could”   result in  fines  etc.  
  • I expect the  RPP has no authority over  tribal casinos; thus, no mention here of  including   them.   If  non-tribal casinos are introduced, would the RPP be sending its underage undercover agents into those?
  • Is the RPP going to say anything now about the proposal mentioned in New York Times (21 Feb 2013 pp A19 and A22)  to allow  persons under 21 to play Quick Draw in bars?   If  truly responsible, the RPP should not merely accede to checking on compliance with changes in law that deliberately  increase exposure to gambling.  It should contest such changes.

 Proper resources at facilities to identify and address problem gambling: The Gaming Commission will mandate that VLT locations, off-track betting facilities and race tracks in the State  submit a report indicating how they currently handle individuals showing signs of  being problem gamblers. The Commission will evaluate these measures with OASAS, the Council on Problem Gambling and future partners to issue improved consistent policies to all facility operators.

 Comment:  This empty rule will probably get some token compliance hardly worth the paper it’s written on.   It is impossible  that  any of the listed types of facility will look in good faith for  “signs of being problem gamblers.”  For one thing, they don’t have the staff  in settings (e.g. racinos)  which  improve profit margin by mechanization and depersonalization.  Moreover, they have a fiscal reason to be blind to problems unless they anticipate  frequent  inspection and a harsh penalty for failure.   This brings us  to the central statistic  of predatory gambling:  a large proportion of  the  gross returns after winnings are paid out  comes from the small proportion of the gamblers who are compulsive or problem gamblers.  Grinols and Omorow* estimated 35-50% at the average casino, from about 4% of the adult population.   No  sensible gambling  locale will risk offending its best customers and driving them to a competitor by confronting them with the always-denied suggestion that there might be a problem.    No floor manager wants to be fired for remonstrating, even gently,  with  a  longtime customer  who is sure to deny what is felt as an accusation.

Casinos know a great deal about customers, but can always claim that if someone has left $40,000 on their tables in the last year they have no responsibility to know where that money came from.  Is it chump change to a wealthy heir or is it a spouse’s I.R.A.?   Casinos are off-limits to state regulators now in NYS (as NY casinos are all tribal)  but if non-tribal ones are legalized as the Governor wants,  they would theoretically be very important  in identifying problem gamblers.   A major part of the Governor’s idea for new commercial casinos was to regulate (as well as tax) them in a way that tribal casinos are not regulated or taxed.  It is odd  that the RPP omits casinos in their announcement.

 For that matter, lottery ticket sellers and Quick Draw locales (admittedly thousands of times more numerous than the other settings and harder to monitor) are also exempted from  watching for “signs.”  A small-town convenience store is probably better able to know which neighbor-customer  has a gambling problem than a busy racino, but certainly disinclined to report a worry.  The ticket-seller can always hope that tonight’s pick will at last be the lucky one.

The only persons really motivated to confront and point towards recovery an addicted or problem gambler are those around the gambler who are being exploited and hurt by him or her AND KNOW IT.   All too often these people have been deceived outright or bamboozled by co-dependency and fear into doing nothing effective.  One measure that could help those who are actually deceived by a casino-gambler (as opposed to paralyzed)  is that a monthly statement of wins and losses be mailed to each customer’s home address.  Such laws have been proposed in states with non-tribal casinos, but  never pass.  If  New York gets non-tribal casinos our state should have such a law.

Continue reading →