Bad Bet

Bad bet

State shouldn’t expand its gambling game

The state’s at the table holding the dice. It reaches out its fist over the green felt, finally ready to roll. Players of every description lean in, keenly eyeing the hand that shakes their fate.

The gambler hesitates. What will happen?

If Massachusetts is wise, it will gently place the clinking cubes back on the table, get up and walk away.

With its April 14 veto-proof vote of 120-37, the House has cleared the way for two resort casinos and slot machines at the state’s four racetracks.

The matter is now up to the Senate.

But what is the state proposing? To welcome enterprises whose purpose is to entice residents into losing their money, the more of it the merrier. There is no actual product, no necessary service, no cultural advancement, no shared joy or prize in exchange for that money. Yes, there is some fun and amusement for players who choose to spend their money at a casino — and can afford to budget an almost sure loss — but residents who go to the slots or the casinos are also fueling a system that will ruin the lives of some.

That is no game for government to play.

We recognize this state already sanctions gambling via a lottery. That’s no reason to expand its role in gaming. The Lottery, at least on its face, encourages small-time bets, has low administrative costs, and returns a portion of its proceeds as local aid to cities and towns.

With casinos and slots, there is no guarantee the state’s take would be spent carefully; the net outcome could be to bloat a bureaucracy that will have to deal with added addiction and weakened families.

The House’s bill proposes putting some gaming revenue into rainy day reserves, education funds, local aid and other positive pockets, but members failed to enact any of dozens of amendments to give the state greater control over casinos.

Job-creation claims are also suspect. Many of the new jobs touted would be temporary construction jobs. Others would depend on the success of the casinos. Connecticut’s experience shows that a prolonged recession such as the current one can severely tarnish the get-rich-quick glitz and glam of gambling. Revenues have been down at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. And New Hampshire legislators this week rejected a proposal to add video slots in that state.

Gaming, in short, is neither inevitable nor universally acknowledged as a sound financial move for states.


Alarm bells should have been ringing for residents over a series of measures the House recently voted down — not so much because of the “no” votes but because of the seamy nature of the decisions. Casinos won’t be required to have clocks. They won’t be prohibited from pumping in extra oxygen or synthetic pheromones. There will be no “gamblers’ bill of rights,” no open bidding on slot machines, no requiring insurance companies to cover pathological gambling.

We believe casinos and slots are a losing proposition in terms of the state’s time, attention, morality and perhaps money. For residents who teeter on the edge of desperation, more gaming could spell disaster. Some folks will enjoy the occasional trip to a conveniently sited casino, but any money they take would be paid for in pain and problems by their neighbors, including existing entertainment venues, such as Worcester’s Hanover Theatre.

The Senate needs to get the state on its feet, turn it away from the tables and guide it firmly to the door.