See no gambling, hear no gambling, speak no gambling, think no gambling: A 10473

Epic Showdowns 23451208866_cc0bc9a8e0Comments on A 10473 New York State Assembly  “Relates to the registration and regulation of interactive fantasy sports contests”

Introduced by Mr. Pretlow May 27 2016

S 6793A was brought out  in the Senate by Mr Bonacic on May 24.  It is not a “same as” version but not very different.  Comments in the body of this post concern the Assembly version. Do not write to a Senator about the Assembly version.  See the appendix when  writing a Senator.  A letter can be done that can go to either chamber.

 Epic Showdowns

Coalition Against  Gambling in New York  (CAGNY), an all volunteer nonprofit  organization, urges every member of the NY State legislature to vote against the  bill if it comes to the  floor in his or her chamber and to vote no on any larger  omnibus bill into which A 10473  or S 6793A may have been  inserted late in the session.  Seven  really good reasons:

We will return to each of these in more detail below

  1. Assumes that entering contests in fantasy sports is not gambling,  attempting an end run around the NYS constitutional prohibition on gambling.  It  is gambling and internet gambling to boot.  Only a few states allow internet gambling though all but two now allow certain forms of gambling such as casinos, card rooms or state lotteries.
  1. Considers certain video games to be “sports events” and  players to be “athletes.”    The bill would allow entry (that is betting)  in a myriad of  “Interactive Fantasy Sports Contests.”  IFSC provide a vastly  greater platform  of events around the world than the stick and ball sports to which fantasy “sports” “contests” of  the big operators in the USA have previously been confined.  It would allow Daily Fantasy eSports (DFeS) without ever mentioning that term.
  1. Consumer protection has no watchdog,  Everything is based on self-report by “registrants” [operators]  to the Gaming Commission or by “authorized players” (bettors) to registrants.
  2. The drive to be “regulated” comes from companies that expect to profit from “regulation.”  They want to create a market.   Lobbying and outright corruption go hand in hand with such forces.  Draft Kings was getting ready last September to launch its own DFeS.
  3. Revenue to the state from licensing fees and from a 15% tax on what operators hold after paying out winnings would not be even enough to cover the cost of  “regulation.”  This is explicit in the justification section of the bill memo (see below),
  4. Legalizing internet gambling in NYS would not increase tourism, would not promote “economic development,”  would not provide “support  for education”  or “property tax relief.”   The proposed legislation is a concession to special interest groups who want to resume hustling New Yorkers.
  5. Expansion of gambling, particularly to the internet, worsens social injustice.
  1. Gambling or not?

This  dishonest bill  ignores the opinion of the NYS AG, shared by other states’ AGs and other parties  (football player Joe Namath, radio host Mike Francesca) that Daily Fantasy Sports as practiced by DraftKings and FanDuel is gambling.  It  does not even acknowledge  a controversy in NYS or in any state.  The bill avoids the issue by (a) limiting use of words that remind anyone of gambling and (b) implying that the AG’s complaint about DK and FD was related only to insider trading allegations. To illustrate (a), a text analysis:

  • Term or word                         number times used in text of bill

 

“gambling”                                          0

“gaming”                                             once   § 1401   ¶ 3

“internet”                                            0

“skill”                                                  0

“betting” or “bet”                                0

“wager”                                               0

“online”                                               once   § 1401   ¶ 8

“esports”  or e-sports or eSports         0

 

(b)   Watch the subtlety (deviousness) of the justification in the  bill memo, which opens by saying that the AG’s office began in October to investigate “into whether employees of the two biggest daily fantasy sports companies, DraftKings and FanDuel, were able to gain an unfair financial advantage in daily fantasy football contests by exploiting access to non-public data” and continues   “On November 10, the Attorney General’s office issued a notice to DraftKings and FanDuel demanding that they stop accepting wagers in New York.”  It never gives the reason for the demand, namely that the AG considered the operations of DK and FD to be forms of gambling, which with certain exceptions is illegal in New York State.  The justification  pretends that the AG’s objection was to charges of  insider trading.  The AG’s main  motivation,  however,  was not insider trading nor false advertising.  It is given in the office’s memorandum   below (italics added).

“The New York State Constitution has prohibited bookmaking and other forms of sports gambling since 1894. Under New York law, a wager constitutes gambling when it depends on either a (1) “future contingent event not under [the bettor’s] control or influence” or (2) “contest of chance.” So-called Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS”) wagers fit squarely in both these definitions, though by meeting just one of the two definitions DFS would be considered gambling.  DFS is nothing more than a rebranding of sports betting. It is plainly illegal. 

  1. “Daily Fantasy Sports” becomes  “Interactive  Fantasy Sports Contests”

Since video game competitions are a booming activity around the world,  the bill would allow betting (or in DFS terms, paying to enter a contest) on a vastly greater platform  of events around the world than the stick and ball sports to which fantasy “sports” “contests” of  the big operators in the USA have been confined.  The bill is dishonest.  It uses  empty harmless-sounding terms (“interactive,”  “contests”) to hide a huge intended expansion of opportunities to “play” on the internet.  The most outrageous terminology calls video game players  “athletes”  so that competition in video games can be called a sports event.

http://www.legalsportsreport.com/4037/daily-fantasy-esports-market-overview/  Chris Grove on DFeS and the potential for growth September 18 2015.  Quoting below

“Daily fantasy eSports (DFeS) is essentially identical to the mainstream DFS product. The competition structure, lobby, promotions, and other core elements are more or less interchangeable.  The difference is that DFS players build rosters from athletes in stick-and-ball sports, while DFeS players build rosters from  athletes in eSports like Dota 2 and League of Legends.”

http://www.legalsportsreport.com/4025/draftkings-fantasy-esports/  Dustin Gowker posted Sept 18  2015 on the announcement that DK was preparing to launch its own DFes site.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/29/sport/esports-revolution-revenue-audience-growth/   posted May 29  by a CNN writer describes the potential for growth.  League of Legends is a game that DK  had  its eyes on last September for  its  DFeS offering.  A quote from this is below.

“The eSports industry has been experiencing  double digit growth for several years and according to the research group Newzoo, it boasts a global community of 148 million enthusiasts. That number is projected to hit 215 million by 2019. Just one game — “League of Legends” — drew an audience of 36 million for its World Championship last year, that’s more viewers than the NBA Finals.”

  1. Consumer “ Protection”

The bill looks very consumer-protective, addressing many of the criticisms made of DK and FD, seemingly correcting those weaknesses.  For example,  it requires  that the mean and median net winnings of all players be made public and that “highly experienced players” be labelled as such.  It requires that payments be made to authorized players on time.

Loopholes abound.  Here are some

If someone becomes highly experienced in the future but was not on the registration date,  what mechanism ensures he will be labelled?  Who checks for omissions? Who checks for aliases?

Can college students on e-sports scholarships be picked for an IFSC team, or is their “sport”  a “collegiate sport” and therefore not eligible? Click here for more on athletic scholarships.

Persons under age eighteen are not supposed to be authorized. §1404 (b) (iii) says each registrant shall take all appropriate steps to confirm that  an individual opening an account is not a minor.

There is no definition of “appropriate.”  Is this an elaborate investigation  like New Jersey’s “Know Your Customer?”  Nothing is said.

Regulation, apparently on the honor system,  is based on self-report, of  registrants to “the commission”  [ the Gaming Commission without the  word Gaming] or of  “authorized players” to registrants.

The proposed  plan for voluntary self-exclusion has no supervision and no time frame.  Someone could self-exclude from one site,  then join another  tomorrow.  §1404 (d) reads enable authorized players to exclude themselves from contests  and take  reasonable  steps  to prevent such players from entering a contest  from which they have excluded themselves;

What are “reasonable” steps?  The  Upstate New York Gaming Economic Development Act of 2013 spells out more detail on self-exclusion than “reasonable steps.”

The use of scripts is prohibited.  (Section 1401 para 7)  Without these computerized routines for composing teams, sharks and minnows would be on nearly equal footing.  This would move things toward a truly fair game, closer to what seasonal fantasy sports were and are.   “Highly experienced players” (AKA sharks)  will not approve.  The use of scripts is hard to prove  though easy to suspect.   Scripts  will still be used sub rosa.  The proposed legislation says nothing about penalties.

4. Who is behind the insertion  of  eSports into  “regulation” of DFS?   The drive to  “regulate” comes from companies that expect to profit from “regulation.”  They want to create a  market much bigger than current DFS.   Lobbying and outright corruption go hand in hand with such forces.  Draft Kings was getting ready last September to launch its own Daily Fantasy eSPort (DFeS) with the video game League of Legends.

In Illinois last week  a similar bill was tabled by its sponsor for the current session because of allegations of proposed vote-buying by a FanDuel lobbyist whose hapless explanation (“corporate social responsibility goals”)  is here .

5. Revenue to New York State

Assuming “the commission” has the staff  to add regulating IFSC to its other duties, who is going to pay for the effort?    The Justification section of the bill Memo addresses the question.

“By registering and taxing interactive fantasy sports contests, this bill will also bring about a new and abundant source of revenue for New York State. Such funds will help [emphasis added] pay for the cost of regulation.”

How abundant will the funds be if they will not even cover the cost of regulation?  It they don’t, what source will?  This writer suspects that if this legislation passes not very much will be spent on enforcing regulations, and that some or most of the revenue will go  into the General Fund.  Realizing income to state coffers  by stinting on regulation of gambling is hardly a new concept but, sad-to-say, appeals to budget-makers.

Admitting  that legalizing internet gambling in New York State will not  pay for “regulating” internet gambling in New York State shows  that the  drive to legalize internet gambling in New York State is not to help all New Yorkers.  It is to help internet gambling special interests.

6. Tourism, “economic development” “support for education” “property tax relief”  CAGNY has long said that “benefits” such as the above to localities, regions or states are illusory,  really net losses when hidden costs are accounted for.  This opinion, I  admit, was was not shared by a number of  lawmakers who voted for “second passage” of the “casino amendment” in 2013 while saying “I don’t personally support casino expansion.”

Legislators who  previously voted to expand gambling in New York State because they believed the benefits to their constituents outweighed the costs can  vote their consciences against this  Interactive Fantasy Sports Contest legislation.   It  does not even pretend to offer any such economic benefits to the people of NY State.  Nor does it enjoy popular support.  A recent Siena poll showed 45% of respondents oppose legalization of Daily Fantasy Sports,  37% want it, 17% undecided.

Passage of this legislation is a handout from all New Yorkers  to corporate special interests that can’t even pretend their plans will improve the quality of our lives.

6. Social injustice Government-sanctioned predatory gambling wreaks hardship and suffering  not just on gamblers but on  their families, friends, relative, employers, employees, clients and more.  It contributes to social injustice.  The  60+ posts on this site pile up the evidence.

Permission is hereby given by the author, Stephen Q. Shafer  MD MPH,   to reproduce this text in whole or part as long as the permalink above is cited. The photo image is from flickerCC  title “Epic Showdowns” 95205711@NO2/23451208866.

Since publication on June 1 this post has been slightly revised.

Appendices

From § 1401 ¶ 8   The term  “Interactive fantasy sports contest” makes its debut in proposed legislation

18    8. “Interactive fantasy sports contest” or “contest”  shall  mean  any

19  online fantasy or simulation sports game or contest offered by an opera-

20  tor  or  registrant  in  which an authorized player manages a fantasy or

21  simulation sports team composed of athletes from an amateur  or  profes-

22  sional sports organization and which meets the following conditions:

23    (a)  the  value of any prizes and awards offered to authorized players

24  shall be established and made known to such players in  advance  of  the

25  contest, and such value shall not be determined by the number of author-

26  ized players or the amount of any entry fees paid by such players;

27    (b)  no  winning outcome shall be based on the score, point spread, or

28  performance of a single sports team, or any combination of such teams;

29    (c) no winning outcome shall be based solely on any single performance

30  of an individual athlete in a single sport or athletic event; and

31    (d) no game or contest shall be based on a prohibited sports event.

Comparing the Senate Version to the Assembly version:  The Senate version is not as sanitized as the Assembly version.  The word “gambling” is allowed, as is “gaming.”   “Internet” appears   The Senate version recaps and swallows whole  tortuous arguments by counsel for FD and DK that skill is material, making the process not gambling.  No mention  that the Attorney General has ever said a word about DFS.   The  Assembly version avoids all discussion of controversy as to whether DFS is gambling.

The Senate version offers  another gambit by DK and FD,  that since seasonal fantasy sports were carved out from the  UIGEA of 2006, Daily Fantasy Sports ( a later development) have been too.  This to me is like saying that cars with engines should be allowed into a soapbox derby as long as they have four wheels.

The Senate version  is even more vague than the Assembly’s on what sorts of “interactive fantasy sports contests:  would be allowed.  Neither version mentions eSports (video gaming).

The Assembly version prohibits high school sports; the Senate’s does not.

Senate: 15% tax on gross revenue from New York players  Assembly 15% on gross revenue, residence not mentioned.

Senate version even looser than Assembly on what “compulsive participants” might do to remove themselves.  Assembly calls them “compulsive players.”

Senate version more specific about how to keep minors out.

Both versions are vapid and vague about how to prevent use of scripts.  Neither prescribes punishment.

Both versions share a unilateral assumption that Daily Fantasy Sports is not gambling,  though they get there by different paths. The Senate version parrots Mssrs Mastro and Boies, counsel for two of the big companies.  The Assembly version is a thick  whitewash.  They are asking the legislature to make an end run  around the prohibition against gambling in the state constitution. Both versions provide paper-kitten protection against being hustled and fleeced. Neither version offers any benefit, credible or not, to the vast majority of New Yorkers.  Casino expansion and Lottery expansion have been sold to New Yorker by mirages. Promoters of “Interactive Fantasy Sports Contests”  (hitherto called internet sports betting)  don’t  offer mirages to the general population.   Could it be that  campaign contributions are  a better deal ? This legislation is for special interests.

Archives about the AG’s case against FanDuel and DraftKings

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/sports/football/draftkings-fanduel-new-york-attorney-general-tells-fantasy-sites-to-stop-taking-bets-in-new-york.html?_r=1   NY Times November 11,  the day after AG announced the cease and desist letter

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/fanduel-draftkings-assure-users-remain-open-article-1.2431300   NY Daily News from November 11

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-fantasy-meet-reality-article-1.2431796  NYDN editorial says DFS is gambling.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fantasy-sports-predatory-gambling-dangerous-article-1.2431896  sidebar by Stephen Shafer in Daily News article linked to above

http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/DK_MOL.pdf complaint against Draft Kings submitted Nov 17, 2015

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ag-schneiderman-bad-gamble-bluff-law-article-1.2441071  op- ed by AG Schneiderman November 19

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fantasyland-n-y-bets-albany-casino-article-1.2652600 Daily News  holds its great position  May 31 2016

 

“Fair Game,” “Fair Game” “Fair Game” and Daily Fantasy Sports

Super Bowl 50

Super Bowl 50

What is “a fair game?”  According to game theory,   it’s one in which all participants have an equal chance to win whatever is at stake.  A classical lottery is a fair game in that sense.     Any game of pure chance, even when the house gets a cut on every round, is a “fair game”  among  the wagering  participants  if there’s no cheating.

There is another meaning to “a fair game,”  this  one  from sports: a contest that follows explicit rules agreed to by all participants and does not allow cheating.  No pretense in this kind of fair game that all contenders have an equal chance to win.  Skill, that is getting and holding an advantage over the opponent(s),  is paramount. Strength, stamina, strategy, practice, motivation and innate talent are some elements of athletic skill.    Pitting an Olympic volleyball team all out against the junior varsity of a 300-student high school is “fair”  in this sense  if  the rules of volleyball  are followed, yet everyone who hears about such a “contest”  knows it’s “not fair.”  Even if the rules are strictly followed, the HS team has absolutely no control over the objective  outcome, i.e. who wins.   By contrast, a big urban marathon is “fair”  in the sports sense and in the ethical sense.  Everyone is aware that among 5000 female entrants the first-place finisher will be one of twenty women identified days before.  The other runners have no thought of winning.  Who places first is not under their control.  They do, however,  have control over other outcomes such as logging a personal best or completing their third marathon of the year or  simply finishing.   These events (accomplishments) have subjective, not objective,   value.

Live poker has a different skill set than athletics.  A trained memory, long attention span, ability to mentally reckon probabilities and a knack for reading other people’s body language are some of the requisites.

What is “fair” in the sports sense becomes unfair in playing for a money prize or for public honor when disparities in the multiple dimensions of skill  are overwhelming.    The facade of fairness can also warp into actual unfairness  when  the supposedly explicit rules are vague,  deliberately obscure or pliable or not enforced.  This leads down a slippery slope through “gamesmanship” to outright cheating.  Both situations – disparities in skill or bendable rules – mean that some of the participants  have no control over an objective outcome like winning money or  public accolades.

Now drop the “a” and take the phrase “fair game.”  This today  usually means someone whom circumstances (e.g. elected public office,  past history) have made a subject of  criticism or ridicule.  The original meaning came from field sports: quarry taken under established rules such as “don’t shoot sitting ducks.”   Such rules are not to bring parity in survival chances between hunter and hunted. They are just codes against cheating.   Examples of  this kind of “fair game”  are birds shot on the fly or, to some,   rats penned with a terrier.

Learned counsel for Daily Fantasy Sports distance their clients from the “fair game”  model of gambling, declaring that a small fraction of participants take home 90%  of the prize money.

Learned counsel argue that this handful are more skilled than the others, which no one denies.

Learned counsel argue that for the elite handful the outcome (cumulative money won over time )  is under their control; therefore, “it’s not gambling.”    Perhaps it isn’t  for the handful, but it is for everyone else who has no control over the outcome once they are “swimming with the sharks.”

Learned counsel want courts to consider DFS a fair game in the second sense: people enter of  their own free will,  aware  of  rules.  In that sense it is as fair, or as unfair, as the volleyball matchup above.  All persons who enter become “fair game”  for the elite handful whose skill is in sourcing or building  computerized routines to select their players.

If a group of people unfamiliar with  National Football League players were invited to  play a few weeks of  DFS,  90% of the winnings would not follow 10% of the players.  One week’s big winner would flop the next.  If the group is then joined by a friendly stranger who uses customized computer programs to pick his team, that f.s. might fare badly in one week, but would be sure to win more money over time than anyone  else.  Among  players of equally low skill, chance rules completely,  as it nearly does among those  who are all at the same high level.  The effect of skill on outcome emerges when skill levels vary across the players.  Throw in one player much better than all others and the role of chance goes down for him with respect to the rest. He may be so well-informed that he is doing prudent investing, not gambling.    Everyone else is gambling.

DFS is a hustle.  It is not a “fair game” in the game theory sense.  It is not fair in the sports sense because too many matchups are patently not fair, but rather the equivalent of the volleyball game  above.  The only “fair game”  in the story  is the group of new players who jump in thinking they can win big,   not knowing what they are up against.

The prizes come from “entry fees.” which DFS partisans say are not wagers.  If the guaranteed prize pool is $100,000  the companies say entries are closed at  a fixed pre-specified ceiling above  $100,000 such as $112,000.   If  $112,000  of entry fees came in and $100,000  is paid out to winners, the company pockets $12,000 for its trouble in enabling the “competition.”  If only $90,000 of entry fees came in the company has to pony up the other $10,000 to meet the purse money.  DFS is thus “house-banked.”   This gives a very strong incentive to fill every round.  Thus the advertising blitz to recruit new entrants and retain previous ones with accounts of fabulous winnings by smart neophytes.   A house-banked game is different from an office March madness pool where the amount going to the winners is determined by how many people have entered at the start.  If each entry costs a dollar, and twenty enter, then twenty dollars is divided.  If a hundred enter, the pool is $100.

DFS is  a house-banked hustle.  That’s gambling.

Permission is granted to reproduce this essay in whole or part as long as the permalink is cited.  The opinions are those of the author, Stephen Q. Shafer and are not necessarily shared by any or all members of Coalition Against Gambling in New York .  The photo image is from Flickr Creative Commons 24805517021_3fc6989ef3

Crapping Out in New York: For Education

IMG_2115

By Dave Colavito.  first published in Huffington Post July 12 

Whether NY voters consent to amend the state constitution to expand gambling is something that will likely be decided in November. What’s certain is “Gambling for Education” will remain a trusted brand for Governor Cuomo and his handlers. The problem is the subtext: Gambling is Good for the Kids — unlike adequate nutrition, adolescent problem gambling won’t help build strong bodies or healthy minds.

Most adults appreciate the invaluable service carnival barking provides in the service of Albany’s gambling policies — how else do you keep convincing losers they’ll win, so long as they keep losing? But when it comes to educating the kids, voters know the importance of leading by example. So before heading to the polls in November, it’s worth considering whether more of the Albany example is really in their best interest.

State-sponsored gambling is already here, as are other permitted activities. But a proposal for the state-sponsored expansion of say, cigarette smoking or sugary junk food in schools would be roundly rejected and hailed as a public policy victory. Why — not everyone eating such junk food becomes diabetic, and its marketing surely contributes to the state’s economy and creates jobs? The answer assuredly has to do with education. And though Albany is a partner in educating children, it’s a deeply conflicted partner by virtue of its promotion of gambling.

Continue reading

Albany and Art of Deception

Albany and Art of Deception: From the Land Where No Means Yes

by David Colavito

"Peering over the edge" Flickr CC

“Peering over the edge” Flickr CC

Question:  When can state government promote responsible policies without leveling with voters?

Answer:  It can’t.

Question:  Has Governor Cuomo leveled with New Yorkers about his proposal to amend the state constitution to permit casino gaming?

Answer: No

Beyond special interests and hidden agendas, it’s simple.  Public policy initiatives designed to mislead the public aren’t responsible, and when they’re promoted, hang on to your wallet, because you can be sure that same public will eventually be picking up the tab.

In his 2012 state of the state address, Governor Cuomo rolled out his economic development plan that featured, among other things, his proposal to amend the New York State constitution to permit casino gaming.  He implied that those who question whether we should be in the gaming business are the equivalent of delusional because, as he put it, New York is already in the gaming business.  He referred to horse racing and video lottery terminal locations throughout the state as bedrock justification for his assertion.  He waxed, perhaps not eloquently, about the benefits casino gaming would bring to the Empire state.  And he cited, as common-sense, the need to rethink how our state manages gaming, if it’s to stem losses of potential revenue flowing like water out of New York into neighboring casino-permissive states in what might be thought of as a casino siphon.  The Governor came as close to saying as one could without actually saying it: New Yorkers are fools if they don’t get with his program to legalize casino gaming in the Empire State.

And so it was that Mr. Cuomo chose to bury the lead, raising the same tired red flags proponents of similar proposals hope go unnoticed.  It was deeply disappointing for people who took seriously the commitments to transparency and disclosure he’d laid claim to throughout much of his political career.

 Casino gaming is fiction, because casino gambling isn’t a game.  It’s the antithesis of a game, because games aren’t reliant upon participants incurring personal and economic hardships, an immutable aspect of betting against the house.  Medical and law enforcement professionals have long acknowledged that gambling disorders are real and incur substantial costs for society, just as substance abuse and tobacco related diseases do, though you’d never know it from Mr. Cuomo.  And although federal and state governments have for decades derived substantial revenue through taxation on tobacco and alcohol products, they aren’t in the business of promoting either.  But this isn’t about ideological purity; it’s about Mr. Cuomo playing it straight with New York voters, the same ones he needs to ratify changes to the state constitution in order to have his way.  So it’s also about what paths he’ll travel to get his way.

Casino gambling epitomizes wagering against the house, where the house’s odds of winning ensure everyone else must eventually lose, and as every casino owner knows, that’s a very different paradigm than Saturday night card games among friends.   All this isn’t to suggest everyone entering a casino becomes addicted to gambling, anymore than it’s to suggest everyone consuming alcohol becomes an alcoholic.  What it’s saying and not just suggesting is trained professionals tell us gambling disorders are real, and they come with hefty costs to our communities that can greatly exceed benefits.  And if this was intended to be a scholarly work it would also cite documentation of the disproportionately high level of casino revenues obtained from people with serious gambling disorders, sick people in need of help not exploitation from state government.  It’s a predatory business model, because in a variety of ways it arguably cultivates those disorders to facilitate preying upon those so afflicted.  Sound familiar?  It should, at least for those of sufficient age to recall the earlier days of lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, but with one important twist: the government was party to some of those smoking related lawsuits.   

So appreciating the first red flag raised by the governor is to appreciate gaming for what it is, his euphemism of choice intended to inoculate voters against making an informed decision.

Continue reading

Opposing the amendment is not “prohibitionist.” It is protective.

New_York_City

Photo by Alain Maury,  found through Creative Commons

 

 

 

 

On  January 2,  2013 I told a friend about the petition started recently by A.K. France,  Vice-Chairperson of Coalition Against Gambling in New York (CAGNY), against the proposed constitutional amendment that would  allow < 8 new commercial casinos in NYS.   I sent the link by http://tinyurl.com/cj2v5bj.  It was disappointing to get the following response by e-mail:

Continue reading