Commentary––

An Honest Look At Gambling

By William A. Collins

End all gambling,

And you’re bound;

Just to drive it,

Underground.

Gambling might be a sin if the Church didn’t make so much money off it. This ecclesiastical dilemma reflects the ambivalence of our whole society. And obviously the wagering industry itself is highly sensitive to the moral question, because its leaders always refer to their business as “gaming,” not gambling. Nice try, but since “gaming” has no common verb form, it’ll never sell.

Nor will our societal ambivalence toward it ever be successfully resolved. Clearly, prohibiting it doesn’t work. We tried that once, but too many people insisted on doing it anyway. Numbers and other creative games of chance soon dominated the cash flow of organized crime.

Wiser heads eventually prevailed. Policymakers decided that if people were going to gamble (game) anyway, why not capture those profits for the state instead of the mob? And lo, it came to pass. Connecticut Lottery has developed more new games than Nintendo, and the old numbers runners are now off running drugs. Meanwhile the state has been ethically compromised by becoming dependent on that lottery revenue. Thus from a moral policy of trying to protect poor people from their own weakness, we have now shifted to a fiscal policy of preying on that weakness in order to keep taxes down. But since few middle-class or wealthy citizens are harmed by lotteries, we pretty much let that grasping state agency do whatever it pleases.

Not so with casinos. Because they congregate so many gamblers in one place, they have a clear impact –– some good, some bad –– on the surrounding society. But since most of the impactees are middle class or higher, and wield a lot of influence, casinos are the subject of a whole lot more debate.

On the face of it they seem a sensible solution, particularly since Indians successfully elbowed their way into the equation. Earlier casino gambling was essentially limited to Nevada and Atlantic City, acknowledged sin capitals of America. Though the profits went to questionable characters, we could at least feel comfortable about keeping our public vices quarantined in Sodom and Gomorrah.

But Native Americans offered a new opportunity. With a single stroke we could now assuage our growing guilt as to how our ancestors treated their ancestors; create more convenient gambling venues; and add a whole new revenue stream to state coffers.

Indian casinos are generally a bit more presentable too. Somewhat less lurid and sleazy, they take some of the tawdry edge off what goes on there. Plus now they’re hosting good restaurants, basketball games, and rock concerts. All very legit and middle class. And nobody seems to worry much about addiction, until some new tribe wants to build one in Fairfield County.

So maybe we’ve got this gambling thing about right. We have Lotto and dog tracks for the poor, casinos for the rich, balm for our guilt, revenue for the state, a big reduction in crime, and thousands of marginal jobs for the unemployed. It’s hard to beat a record like that. There’s even money for addiction services and municipal casino-damage reparations, if the legislature were ever willing to part with it.

But the system could use a little tweaking. The lottery board needs more oversight, lest they cruelly tempt gamers into more play than they had in mind or can afford. Plus, we would probably profit from a casino (Indian only) in western Connecticut. Both Bridgeport and Waterbury crave the jobs. This would also help us defend our revenue against the inevitable competition that will one day sprout in the Catskills or closer.

In short, people will always gamble, but right now we’re not doing a bad job of managing that dangerous instinct.

(Columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk.)