0
votes

Pennsylvania Targets Addictive Personalities For Revenue

posted September 29, 2006 - 5:43pm
Pennsylvania Targets Addictive Personalities For Revenue

Pennsylvania has finally passed Act 71, the bill to legalize casino gambling in the state. Simultaneously, the
state passed a smoking ban that prohibits smoking in any public area. Ironically, casinos could gain
exemption from that ban, making them the only public facilities where patrons can both drink and smoke in
a social setting. In addition, 2006 marked the first full year that the changes to U.S. bankruptcy laws have
been in effect. To the casual observer, those three facts may seem unrelated but upon further investigation
we find they are undeniably linked.

It is common knowledge, among addiction specialists and those they treat, that one addiction can easily bleed into another, commonly called cross addiction. What a bonus it would be for the Pennsylvania gaming industry, to develop casinos in areas that already struggling with drug and alcohol addictions while providing the only public establishments where those addicted to nicotine can socialize.

By allowing smoking only in casinos, the state will be sending a powerful message to those willing to hear
it. In effect, legislators are saying they are superficially against smoking and the health risks it presents, but
are fully capable of taking advantage of those already addicted to a substance, a strikingly similar stance to
that taken by the tobacco industry. Not only is Pennsylvania willing to capitalize on the smoking ban, the state is also admitting through their actions, that they are fully aware of the addictive nature of both smoking and gambling and the ease with which an individual addicted to one substance can move into having a cross addiction.

Arguments can be made that cigarette smoking is not as problematic or dangerous as a cocaine or heroine addiction; nevertheless, chronic smokers do suffer from a scientifically proven addiction. Inviting them to be able to smoke only in a facility that promotes other addictive pastimes is an obvious and sickening psychological manipulation. Casinos will be
the only establishments where Pennsylvanian's can consume alcohol, smoke and gamble silmotaneously and legally—that's quite the hotbed of addictive activities.

Perhaps, Pennsylvania legislators have adopted the same philosophy as a spokesperson for Indiana's Aztar Casino who, as reported by Online Casiono News, said that Aztar Casino makes every effort to protect problem gamblers but the customers have a personal responsibility to get treatment for their addiction, especially after being diagnosed as addicts.
Such a position on gambling addiction is equivalent to saying we should set up legalized crack houses, where addicts can use drugs freely so long as they remain within the building; but the consequences of their addiction, the crimes committed to support it, the loss of life and welfare resulting from drug use will not be the concern of the government. After all, if the drug users know they are addicts, they should "just get help" and quit abusing substances, it's that simple-- Apparently, someone needs to educate the casino owners and supporting government officials on the nature of the disease of addiction!

Supporters of Act 71 are quick to point out the many ways Pennsylvania's economy "should" benefit from casinos and out of state revenue. However, they repeatedly shy away from questions addressing how much more addiction counseling, police work and crime prevention measures will cost the
taxpayers. They also continually dodge questions on the effects legalized gambling is likely to have on the individual citizen's pocketbook. The proven statistics regarding the bankruptcy filing rates in states that already have gaming facilities in operation, may provide the answers.

If we examine the findings of the Bankruptcy Developments Journal, we see that the third leading cause of individual bankruptcies in the United States is legalized gambling. Statistics show that more than 20% of compulsive gamblers have filed for bankruptcy after financially bottoming out on the gambling scene and maxing out credit cards in attempt to finance their addiction. States including Minnesota, Michigan and Kansas reported increases in bankruptcy filings in addition to higher unsecured credit card debt and inflated debt-to-income ratios consequent to the introduction of legalized gambling.

In 2005, laws for individual filing of bankruptcy became more strict, limiting and costly. It is now much more difficult for the average American to file for bankruptcy yet, in a few short months, it will likely become easier for certain residents of Pennsylvania to find themselves in the position of having to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the non-discharge of gambling debts will keep gambling addicts and their families in debt to the casinos forever, which would perpetuate addicted gamblers' desire to continue gambling in
order to "get out of the hole".

I wonder how many Pennsylvania officials have bothered to sit down with the children of gambling addicts, look into their eyes and listen to the stories of fathers and mothers who have been abducted from the loving arms of their families by the one arm bandits in casinos. Have supporters of Act 71 listened to the heartache of loved ones who have had to sell belongings to pay utility bills after the savings accounts
were depleted by the problem gamblers in the family? Has anyone riding the legalized gambling bandwagon, bothered to investigate the loss of life and liberty suffered by the children of problem gamblers who have found themselves homeless or close to it due to the losses at the slot machines? Where will the supporters of Act 71 be when Pittsburgh begins scrambling to provide rehabilitation facilities and temporary financial sustenance to those individuals and families destroyed by gambling and cross
addictions intensified by legalized gambling?

The state seems ready to capitalize on the weaknesses of individuals without shame. As of September 27, 2006 Pennsylvania has essentially told residents -- We do not care about you, your families or your welfare. We care solely about taking advantage of those individuals we feel are
"expendable" and we are willing to line our pockets with the blood sweat and tears of our hardworking citizens and their families. Pennsylvania's slogan has long been "You've Got A Friend In Pennsylvania." With friends like that, who
needs enemies?

Works Sited: Online Casino News; Gamblers Anonymous; National Institute On Drug Abuse; Casino Free PA; The Canadian Journal Of Psychiatry



Comments

Speaking of lively debate

1)Second-hand smoke reseach is shoddy at best and ill-supported. 2)Its "Works Cited" 3)Idle's completely right about people taking responsibility for themselves. Governments are there to protect you, not take care of you, and there's a difference between the two. I'm glad I'll be able to hop the border to PA to gamble in the near future, maybe then AC will have to step up their facilities because of the competition. Well-written and stated though, I must say. A rarity around here.

I'll look forward

to reading your next article... and I'm sure you've noticed that lively debate is very popular on Xomba!

Good for you!

Idlewild: Thank you for your honest position and for engaging in this friendly banter with me! I am glad to hear that you do support clean air laws and equally as glad to read that you do not get bent out of shape over every hypocrisy you witness. I usually don't either - as you said, anyone who did would probably end up going nuts! I enjoy provocative and interesting subjects that I can write about and stir up emotions with - I have my own positions on issues, as you do - I appreciate your willingness to share and really am happy to know that you stand for something and are not afraid to voice your feelings! Good on ya! I am writing another article which will surely spur much debate as well...I will keep an eye out for your name amongst the comments. Best wishes and thanks, Nichole

Smoking

Since the harmful effects of cigarette smoke are clear, I'm against smoking in any public place where it can affect people besides the smoker. I'm also in favor of clean air laws--a study came out just this week showing the huge health costs of pollution from cars, etc. Ideally, the govt. would take action on all these fronts. Is it hypocritical to ban smoking everywhere except casinos (as they also do in NJ)? Sure it is. But to me it's better to ban smoking in 90% of the places rather than to say "if we can't ban it in 100%, we won't ban it anywhere." If I let myself get upset about every instance of hypocrisy in social and public life, I'd be so frustrated I'd curl up into the fetal position inside a broom closet. ;-) Actually I'm not crazy about casino gambling in general (partly because of the addiction concerns you mention), but that's a whole 'nother story...

These are facts

Fact: Every year millions of taxpayer dollars go toward the funding of rehabilitation facilities to help addicts and their families. Fact: Every year, thousands of individuals and families are killed by motorists driving under the influence (it is not a matter of "unless"..it is a matter of "until") Fact: Every year millions of tax payer dollars are given to addicts (recovering or otherwise) and their families in the form of disability, welfare and other state-funds and programs. (Note: I do not have a problem with this - so do not jump all over me...it is just a fact that a large percentage of funds are being received by addicts in and out of recovery and their families. I am qualified to make that statement based on the fact that I have worked as an addictions counselor and have witnessed the funds being secured and used.) Fact: supporting a smoking ban is hypocritical if you do not support the Clean Air act as well. Automobile and industrial emissions are equally as cancerous and destructive as second hand smoke. How can you be against one form of pollution and carcinogenic toxins but not another? Fact: My article, as I previously stated, was not written in defense of or argument against the single issues of smoking, gambling or drinking. My article was written to illustrate the hypocrisy of a "partial" smoking ban and a government system that talks out of both sides of its metaphorical mouth. I am interested to know what opinions are held by those who support a smoking ban. Do you support it across the board - or only in the places your family frequents? I am not being argumentative, simply playing devil's advocate. If you are against smoking - fine. Be against smoking in ALL public places, not just the places you are interested in visiting. If smoking is unacceptable to you, it should be equally as unacceptable for the government to be taking advantage of smokers by allowing smoking in government controlled arenas- thereby sending the message that smoking really is okay, as long as they are directly benefiting from it. Thoughts??? Again...I am playing Devil's advocate here, not necessarily sharing my personal opinions. Thank you to everyone who has read, voted and commented!! Best wishes to all.

You're forgetting one major fact

--and that is the proven and very harmful health effects of second-hand smoke. Someone can stand right next to me and drink a fifth of Jack Daniel's or shoot heroin and it won't effect me (unless he drives and runs me over). But if I have to breathe in someone's second hand smoke, I can get lung cancer, emphysema, and any other number of diseases. Some people say "well, don't hang out in bars or restaurants." The problem with that thinking is that many of today's jobs are in the service industry. People who work as waiters, bartenders, bus boys, and even musicians are exposed to the deadly smoke eight or more hours a day--far longer than smokers are.

Nichole Neumaier's Excellent Gambling Article

You are right, but more casinos are having to establish "Non Smoking Sections". Smokers make up only about 10-15% of the population, depending on which state they live in. Many people complain about the smoke in Las Vegas casinos and they listen to what the gamblers say there. Some casinos have procedures to let gamblers "ban" themselves from the video slots. That is, they fill out a form stating they have a problem, and not let them gamble! Compulsive gambling affects about 3-5% of the population, again depending on where they are located. (The more opportunties to gamble-the more problem gamblers.) Vital areas of the economy of the United States has been given away! to other countries by decades of the Federal Government policies that leave local governments so desperate for tax revenue that they resort to malls, entertainment districts and gambling casinos to raise the funds they need to complete their budgets. I write about writing for the internet at Click! www.writingfortheinet.blogspot.com

Allow me to clarify

You are absolutely correct...people should be able to enjoy activities such as smoking, drinking aand gambling in moderation! My true point is - PA is outlawing smoking in public - except in casinos! I do not believe a smoking ban should be in place period - but if the state wants to impose one - impose it across the board and do not exempt the facilities which stand to increase state revenue. I believe that sends a contrdictory andpredetory message to the public. I am against the smoking ban...in general. Either ban it or don't! I am upset at the state's hypocrital stance on issues such as smoking and gambling and PA's refusal to face up to the potential problems they are creating by taking such stance. Thanks for reading and commenting - and thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my own intentions! All the best, Nichole

I can tell you're passionate

I can tell you're passionate about this subject, so please don't take my comments the wrong way. If we use the same reasoning you suggested in this story, would it be OK with you if we outlawed alcohol at bars and restaraunts? After all, they would be catering to alcoholics. What about sexual addicts? Should we ban sex? I don't have a problem with casinos allowing alcohol or smoking. This is not a problem with a casino or lawmakers. This is a problem with people who are addicts. They do need to assume responsibility for their own actions. If they want to throw their life away, that's their decision and their families need to take steps to prevent these personal characteristics from controlling their lives. This is also where local Church communities and charities can offer help. For the rest of the population who enjoy these activities in moderation, let them have their fun. We cannot continue to ban everything that a small percentage of people abuse. Personal responsibility isn't just a fancy phrase. It needs to be implemented back into our society. Anyway...although I don't entirely agree with it, your article was well written.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member