|
Senator Robert C. Jubelirer
Floor Remarks on Compulsive Gambling
July 2, 2004
This debate is certainly not
a surprise. Those of us who oppose slots have long realized that the day could
come, when the advocates would find accord on venue configuration and money
distribution, and then slots would be a reality.
There is also no surprise in
my view. I have consistently opposed slots and other forms of gambling
expansion. I have been called a “puritan” and worse, in letters and in
editorials, but that is all right. The people in my district have, year after
year, in large proportion, opposed gambling expansion.
I am not going to change
anyone’s vote at this point. So I just want to underline a key consideration in
the process that is about to unfold.
As this discussion has
evolved over the years, much of the advocacy and commentary has taken on an
“everyone wins” boosterism. Of course, the so-called success of gambling is
predicated on lots of people losing, not winning. With the ambitious revenue
targets in this plan, it is predicated on lots and lots of people losing lots
and lots of money.
Some of the folks on the
outside touting slots regard this as little more than what the NBA describes as:
“No harm, no foul.” The impact will be more profound than that. The traveling
gamblers are not all staying home. The other states are not standing pat; they
will take measures to add to their allure. So to produce the targeted revenue
numbers, a new generation of slots players must be hooked. That “pressure to
produce” will inevitably mean more problem gamblers.
This bill is bringing a
tremendous number of slot machines into Pennsylvania communities. That
increased access will inevitably mean more problem gamblers. More problem
gamblers means a ripple effect of more crime and more social problems.
Twenty-five years ago, when
some Pennsylvanians were seriously pushing casino gambling in the wake of its
advent in Atlantic City, I sponsored legislation to establish a program
providing treatment for compulsive gamblers. At the time, we were looking for
$150,000 to fund it. Many people sneered at the idea. In their view, we were
throwing money away on people who merely had bad luck or weak character.
Unfortunately, time has shown
that the compulsive gambling problem is very real. I once attended a meeting of
Gamblers Anonymous. The stories that individuals told -- of lives thrown away,
of careers wrecked, of families lost, of trust betrayed, of reputations ruined
-- were extremely sad. These individuals were not hardened criminals or
habitual con artists. They were business owners, and church workers, and
community organization volunteers, everyday people, young and old, who had
temptation turn into unquenchable addiction.
Some of us will not have a
slots parlor in our district. That does not mean that the problems attendant to
gambling expansion will bypass those who we represent.
This bill at least contains a
series of provisions and somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 million dollars directed
toward the treatment of compulsive gamblers. We cannot gauge how much will
ultimately be needed, but make no mistake -- it will be needed. It is extremely
important to establish a structure, because no matter how much someone wants to
sugarcoat the discussion, easier access to a quick-action form of gambling will
mean more addiction. Preventing the increase would be preferable, but with
approval of the slots package imminent, attention must turn to dealing with the
consequences.
Nothing I have read, nothing
I have heard, convinces that slots are a necessary thing, or a good thing, for
Pennsylvania.
Yet, I do want to acknowledge
the leadership and effort of Senator Tommy Tomlinson. He started many years ago
with the idea of protecting jobs in his district, helping an important but
struggling industry, and giving a financial boost to his local communities. He
stuck with these goals through the years and the many twists and turns the issue
has taken. That is a rare brand of determination. He is fighting for his
district and his constituents, and that is why we are sent here.
Maybe that is what makes this
issue so difficult. Good people and solid leaders have poured so much time and
talent and energy into a result that has raised a lot of hopes in a lot of
places, but that will be so disappointing to many and so devastating to some.
# # #
|
