Ethical Questions about Gambling

The Massachusetts Council of Churches again is taking the lead to oppose the expansion of gambling in Massachusetts.  We need you to make your voice heard now by contacting your state legislators. Churches in the Commonwealth have worked hard in past years to stave off the expansion of gambling, but the momentum among pro-gambling enthusiasts is growing again. Although state budget revenues are improved over recent years, some legislators view gambling as an easy way to restore cuts to social services.  Unfortunately, those who propose gambling expansion are not thinking about the social costs of gambling, including its impact on the poor.

Gambling expansion raises some serious ethical questions for Christians:

Does the policy have the capacity to be good news for the poor? Does it reverse the trend toward widening the gap between rich and poor? *

Christians in the Commonwealth can oppose gambling expansion because of the disproportionate impact gambling has on those most in need. Gambling is a back door “tax” on the poor in our society. People who can least afford to lose money are gambling in hope of “striking it rich.”  The primary beneficiaries, however, are investors, many of whom live out of state. In 1997, for example, the Boston Globe documented that Chelsea has one lottery retailer for every 363 residents but Milton has one for every 3,657 residents! The National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that those with incomes of less than $10,000 spend more on lottery tickets than any other income group. Keno and the lottery already are lurking in the poorer neighborhoods of the Commonwealth.  Do we really need slots, too?

Is the policy good for children, the elderly and the disadvantaged?

Gambling expansion is not family friendly social policy. Las Vegas recently shifted its advertising campaign from promoting the town as a destination for family vacations to “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”

Increasing evidence indicates that gambling expansion hurts both young and old. A 2005 study from the University of Pennsylvania and the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry just reported that more than one out of 10 people over the age of 65 are at risk of having financial problems because of gambling, but older gamblers often are reluctant to admit that they have a problem and need help. And older gamblers are the age group increasing at the fastest rate. Because many elderly people live on fixed incomes, bringing more gambling opportunities into Massachusetts is especially risky for this population.

With the popularity of TV shows such as Celebrity Poker Showdow, and the easy access of Internet games, gambling has become increasingly popular with youth and children. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission concluded that young people may have an addiction rate as much as two to three times as high as adults. College students also have a higher rate of problem gambling than the general adult population.

Proponents of gambling have used a subtle verbal shift to make gambling expansion appear palatable; they call it “gaming” instead of “gambling.”  The more accessible gambling becomes the more innocuous it appears.  Yet all the while youth and children are being taught that gambling is a way to improve their lives. What are we saying to our children?

Does the policy represent the common good of society rather than the interest of an elite few?

Gambling expansion has high social costs. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission, created and funded by Congress in 1999, found that the social costs of gambling addiction double within a 50-mile radius of a gambling facility. The Study listed a daunting number of potential social costs, which may include increased divorce rates, domestic violence, child abuse, child death by abuse, rape, assault, suicide, drug abuse, psychiatric and personality disorders, physical illness, bankruptcy, work absenteeism and lost productivity, embezzlement, insurance fraud, arson and increased police, civil justice, and social service costs. These by-products of gambling carry over to other members of the community because they negatively affect our “common good.”

If the proposal being considered by the state Senate were to pass, virtually all of the state’s population reportedly could be within 50 miles of a casino. Proponents of gambling expansion say that they will use some of the money generated from taxing slot machines to help pay for social services.  This poses a strange conundrum.  Increased gambling increases the need for social services, which increases the potential costs of social services.  Wouldn’t it just be easier to not have gambling in the first place?

Is the policy based on true analysis?  Does it disclose its true intention?

While gambling lobbyists may pitch their proposal in terms of economic development,  The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and The Boston Business Journal all have said that gambling expansion hurts business and is bad economic policy. Casinos eat up “discretionary income” from visitors because they tend to patronize casinos instead of local restaurants, shops and hotels.  Of all the ways that a government can raise money, gambling is the least desirable because it defies every criterion for raising revenue for government services: it is regressive; it cannibalizes other forms of revenue; and it is an unstable source of funds. Gambling proponents try to sell gambling as a “sure bet,” but really it’s a gamble!

Proponents often try to sell gambling expansions as voluntary.  They say “If you don’t like gambling, you don’t have to go.”  Casino gambling, however, is not quite as voluntary as the proponents suggest. Deceit runs rampant in the gambling industry. Without clocks or windows, casinos camouflage the passage of time. Casinos meticulously monitor gambling habits with new technology.  They target people based on how fast they play, how much they gamble, and where they live. The Mass. Council on Compulsive Gambling is particularly concerned about the impact that gambling has on under-served communities and high-risk populations such as the elderly, the Latino population, persons working in the financial industry, youth, and persons with disabilities. Meanwhile, Foxwoods Casino has announced plans to increase marketing to blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

Does this policy show sensitivity to the spirit of the golden rule?

Gambling is predicated upon the losses of others; for someone to win, others must lose. Christians strive to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If you were addicted to gambling, would you want to see enticing gambling offerings in your hometown? Certainly some people can gamble without a problem but gambling addiction does not discriminate by education, income, race, class or gender. As Christians, we are compelled to take care of our neighbors. Rates of “problem” and addicted gamblers increase doubles within 50 miles of a casino. That means the prospect of 92,000 new problem gamblers in Massachusetts. How will we afford to take care of these problem gamblers, with money from gambling revenue?

$2,000,000,000

Two billion dollars. That is the amount that Massachusetts residents must gamble and lose here for the state to take in the proposed $400 million in “new revenues.” The average Massachusetts resident currently spends $ 903.63 on the lottery each year (a staggering figure, since it is an average not reflecting persons who do not buy lottery tickets).  If the legislature were to approve slot machines and casino gambling, Commonwealth residents could be asked to lose another two billion dollars. What kind of public outcry would there be if the government proposed a two billion dollar tax increase on poor and working people and on seniors? That is not good stewardship--either on the part of state government or personal financial resources.

Now is the time to raise your voice.  Say NO to Casinos!