Balser: No to slot machines

Balser: No to slot machines
By Guest Column/Ruth Balser

Newton — As the House prepares to debate Speaker DeLeo’s proposal to license two resort casinos and install slot machines at the state’s four race tracks, I am reminded of the tale about the seven blind people who are asked to describe an elephant. Each touches a different part of the animal, and “sees” something different. Like those blind people, we approach the casino debate from different perspectives. Some see the possibility of job creation during a time of high unemployment. Others see a revenue stream for a government facing record budget deficits. Still others see this as an issue of individual liberty, the right to choose one’s pleasures. To me, this is about a threat to the public’s health and safety, a threat posed by slot machines. To me, this debate is about gambling addiction.

Gambling addiction is a serious disorder with profound consequences. Compulsive gamblers will gamble until they have nothing left. They will exhaust their savings, their family’s assets and their personal belongings. They will borrow from others, but they will rarely admit it is for gambling. Bankruptcy is a common outcome. Studies show that two out of three pathological gamblers commit crimes to continue gambling. Rates of domestic violence increase. Many become homeless or are incarcerated. The rate of suicide for gambling addicts is higher than for any other addiction. Gambling addiction is an illness that is devastating to individuals, their families, and their communities.

Proponents of expanded gambling acknowledge that gambling addiction is serious, but they assert that those who are addicted can already drive to Connecticut. Massachusetts may as well get the revenue, they argue. However, studies demonstrate that rates of gambling addiction increase with proximity. By expanding gambling in Massachusetts, we will increase the number of individuals who will suffer from this illness, and the number of families who will be destroyed by it.

Proponents of expanded gambling argue that most people who gamble do not become addicted. However, the fact that not all become addicted does not preclude a public policy of discouraging use based on recognition of the dangers. Most users of illegal drugs also do not become addicted. Health and Human Services Secretary Judy Ann Bigby testified at a hearing I chaired that only 1 out of 10 heroin users become addicted, and others testified to comparable ratios between use and addiction in the gambling population. The comparison between compulsive gambling and substance abuse does not end there. At the same hearing, Dr. Hans Breiter, a neuropsychiatrist from the Massachusetts General Hospital, presented images of a cocaine-addicted brain and that of a gambling addict that were virtually indistinguishable!

Proponents of expanded gambling argue that there is already opportunity to become addicted — race tracks, the lottery, sports and Internet betting. However, I would argue that the slot machine is more toxic. At the hearing I chaired, MIT sociologist Dr. Natasha Schull pointed out that in a society that regulates most products, the slot machine is completely unregulated. She went on to say in her testimony: “Every feature of gambling machines — mathematical structure, visual graphics, sound dynamics, seating and screen ergonomics — is geared to increase ‘time on device’ and encourage gamblers to ‘play to extinction,’ as the industry jargon goes (in other words, until their funds are depleted.)”

The slot machine, an unregulated product, designed to addict and impoverish, is being offered up as the engine of the state’s economic recovery.

I am not opposed to gambling. I would not oppose a casino that had no slot machines — one that featured card games, roulette wheels and traditional games of chance. But no one would develop such a casino, because the money is in the slots! Studies have shown that 80 percent of the profits from casinos come from slot machines. The studies further show that most of the profits from the slots come from problem gamblers.

And we are not just talking about slots at casinos, but at the race tracks as well. Massachusetts race tracks are in danger of closing because so few people attend. If this legislation is enacted, machines that are built to addict and impoverish will be installed to put a dying business on life support.

Not all who gamble become addicted. But the profits depend on compulsive gambling. What is driving this proposal is the need for revenue and jobs. The revenue and jobs will come from a business that creates and exploits a serious illness that wreaks havoc on individuals and communities.

Many in Massachusetts are unemployed, and our essential government services are being cut. These are serious problems that cry out for serious solutions. Our response to these problems should be thoughtful, and we need to avoid creating worse problems than we already face. Does the proposal before us meet that standard? I will be voting no!

Ruth Balser is a state legislator representing parts of Newton and a clinical psychologist.