Cons of casino gambling outweigh the pros

From Ohio --

Proponents of Issue 3 advertise the creation of over 30,000 new jobs from the opening of four casinos. These ads are funded by large, out-of-state casino operators who want to increase their market share in Ohio. The new jobs created by the operation of casinos do not factor in the job losses from neighboring restaurants, hotels and other entertainment venues. A Hiram College study noted that the passage of Issue 3 would result in a net loss of jobs in the vicinity around the casinos.

When casinos move in, other businesses are often forced to close down. The examples of Atlantic City or Niagara Falls confirm that observation. Gambling preys on people who are poor, luring them with the promise of a life free from financial worries and burdens.

Sixty percent of casino revenue comes from gamblers making less than $25,000 per year. As a result, bankruptcy rates are 100 percent higher in counties with casinos than in counties without casinos. While casinos may bring in tax revenue, this is perhaps the worst form of regressive taxation imaginable. The poorest of the population are the ones funding this tax revenue.

Gambling adversely affects family life. Divorce, child neglect and suicides are products of gambling addictions.

Casino gambling is especially addictive with corporate strategies to stimulate the problem gambler into spending more and more. In challenging economic times, people are tempted to grasp for straws from people promising jobs. This is a very hollow promise. Gambling never creates wealth because no product or service is produced.

Gambling merely facilitates the movement of money from the hands of many to the hands of a few large corporations dedicated to the spread of gambling. Please vote no on Issue 3.

BRYAN GEORGE, JACKSON TOWNSHIP