anti-gambling

October 17, 2005

Testimony submitted to The Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies

Laura Everett, Program Associate at the Massachusetts Council of Churches

Dear Senator Hart, Rep. Bosley, members of the Joint Committee on Economic Development,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. My name is Laura Everett, program associate for the Massachusetts Council of Churches. I write on behalf of the board of directors of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. The Massachusetts Council of Churches is an ecumenical partnership of seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations in the Commonwealth with more than 1700 affiliated congregations. Together, the member churches of the Massachusetts Council of Churches have opposed gambling expansion in the Commonwealth in years past and again oppose all forms of gambling expansion today.

Many of the proponents of gambling expansion see gambling as ‘easy money.’ Unfortunately, those who propose gambling expansion are not thinking about the social costs of gambling, including its impact on the poor. There is also moral component to this debate- the morality of a government bringing to its citizens something known to cause harm.

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 the common good.

If the proposals being considered 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?

Gambling expansion for Massachusetts is not family friendly social policy. Notice how 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 Showdown, 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. This reality is not incidental to the debate in Massachusetts.

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?

Moreover, what are we saying to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? In the end, gambling is a bad way for the state government to raise additional revenue. Massachusetts’s residents would need to lose over $2 billion additional dollars each year for the state to receive its projected $400 million in ‘new revenue.’ Gambling implemented by government is not less government. It is different government of poorer quality. Is this the kind of revenue source we want as a community? With gambling, the state is capitalizing on the desperation of people who can’t afford to lose and importing more social problems. How is this just public policy that promotes the common good?