Editorial: Treat gambling addicts with gaming revenue
Posted: March 8, 2013
Gov. Sam Brownback’s recent decision to reconsider his administration’s budget recommendations on the distribution of revenue generated for problem gambling services was welcomed by those charged with providing such services, but the brief controversy left unanswered an important question.
Is the state doing enough to identify problem gamblers and inform the public that help is available for them?
The Associated Press in March 2012 released a story that reported just more than 100 Kansans had sought help through the Problem Gambling and Addictions Grant Fund during the previous year.
The fund is supported by a 2 percent surcharge on net gaming revenues from state-owned casinos and was included in the 2007 legislation that authorized the casinos. The state began collecting revenue for the fund once the casinos opened.
For the state’s current fiscal year, the budget calls for nearly $6.5 million to go to alcohol and drug treatment for low-income people who qualify for Medicaid and allocates to the Kansas Department of Corrections. Another million has been earmarked for non-Medicaid alcohol services, and about $740,000 goes to problem gambling services.
The governor’s budget recommendation for the fiscal year that begins July 1 would have allocated $868,000 total for problem gambling services and non-Medicaid alcohol services, which led gambling treatment advocates to assume only half of that figure would be available to treat gambling addicts.
Reversing the budget recommendation restores money to problem gambling services, but that amount still is only a fraction of the total being collected for that purpose.
Is that all that is really needed to treat the state’s gambling addicts? And what is the state doing to define and identify gambling addicts?
We’re not suggesting that the definition of a gambling addict be broadened just to find some way to spend more of the money being collected for that purpose, or that money be tossed at treatment programs that aren’t necessary. But reports from some of those who voted for the 2 percent surcharge in 2007 have said they weren’t sure at the time that it would generate enough money for treatment.
During the state’s relatively brief history with casino gambling, most people have read or heard stories about people who gambled the family into bankruptcy or stole money to fund trips to a casino.
Perhaps more should be done to inform problem gamblers, their family members and friends that help is available and tell them how to access the services.
Alcohol and drug addictions are equally damaging to individuals and families and the intent here isn’t to suggest treating those addictions is less important than treating problem gamblers. But the pool of money being discussed was brought into existence to combat gambling addictions and collected from casinos.
The Problem Gambling and Addictions Grant Fund should be used to address other addictions only after the state has done all it should to identify and treat problems gamblers.
http://cjonline.com/opinion/2013-03-08/editorial-treat-gambling-addicts-gaming-revenue
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment