Natchez, Mississippi saw 70% of its retail businesses reporting decreased sales after the first casino moved in. South Dakota saw statewide losses in the retail sector of $60 million in the year after legalized gambling arrived.

The reasons are obvious. People only have a limited amount of money to spend. If people spend their money at the casinos, there will be less money for a night out at the movies, or a family meal at the local restaurant or that new pair of running shoes.

Most of the money spent in casinos comes from the local economy. Gambling promoters will suggest that casinos will become tourist attractions, bringing in new money to the local economy. The experience from other states belies that claim. Casinos in Illinois get 85% of their money from people who live within 50 minutes of the casino. Iowa casinos got 94% of their business from in state. Likewise in Missouri, 88% lived within 45 minutes of the casino.

Gambling promoters will also cite new jobs as casinos come to town. The reality is very different. The community hosting the casino will lose 1-2 jobs for every job created by the casino. As local stores and restaurants lose business, they cut jobs.

In short, if you add all of the supposed benefits of gambling and compare it to the economic and societal costs, it will cost Pennsylvania somewhere between $3 and $7 for every dollar in gambling revenue.

Pennsylvania is facing an economic decision of serious proportions. The Lottery is no longer able to provide the funding necessary to maintain some very important programs. In 1971, when the Lottery began, it was to provide tax relief for the elderly. As revenues grew, it expanded to provide rental and transportation assistance, money for the Area Agencies on Aging and prescription drug coverage for the elderly. As costs have increased and revenues have stagnated, the Lottery finds itself unable to pay projected costs. These are important programs that demand continued funding.

The old party solution is to target the poor once again and increase gambling. All three old party candidates are proposing the expansion of a system that hurts poor people, small businesses and the economy as a whole. In gambling parlance, this is called "chasing." Chasing is a common symptom of the pathological gambler who seeks to make up gambling losses by taking ever-increasing risks.

The Morrill/Smedley solution is to accept the costs of the programs we want to fund and rely on traditional means of funding-taxes and fees. If programs are important enough to fund then we should bite the bullet and pay the costs collectively. We should not tax hope by offering dreams of wealth at astronomical odds.

The Morrill/Smedley economy will be a growing economy that will increase revenues through higher wages for working people and more taxes generated by new businesses created by our economic initiatives. The Morrill/Smedley budget will eliminate corporate welfare and will institute a more equitable and just taxation system that will protect working people and generate more income.
A better economy and more equitable taxation-that's the solution to Pennsylvania's gambling addiction.

In closing, let me suggest to Ed, Bob and Mike that perhaps you might want to call the Pennsylvania Gambling Hotline. You seem to exhibit the warning signs associated with compulsive gambling. So we've made copies of the PA Lottery's Compulsive Gambling brochure for each of you. We care about you and want to help you with your addiction to gambling, so you will stop hurting those you love, the People of Pennsylvania.

(From the brochure)

How do you know if you or someone you care about has a problem? Here are some warning signs to look for:
¿ Denying there is a problem
¿ Lying about where the money is going
¿ Borrowing money to gamble or pay off debts
¿ Taking time off work to gamble
¿ Losing touch with friends
¿ Looking for the "high" that comes from gambling

I admit, I am a bit unclear as to what specifically would be legalized as far as gambling goes. I do understand the concern about casinos, but addiction aside, personally I am more concerned about racetracks, specifically dog tracks. My family adopts racing greyhounds, and due to thier treatment on the tracks they have both physical and psychological problems. I hope that Pennsylvania, a state well known for saving these dogs and placing them in good homes, will not become another state to encourage their mistreatment.
Don't misunderstand; I have no desire to trivialize the very real problem of gambling addiction. I simply want to know what kinds of gambling will be introduced, and speak for a moment against dog racing in our great state. Thank you.

I don¿t doubt the original poster¿s sincerity in exposing one of the negative consequences of the state lottery. I think that it¿s an unfortunate choice for 5% of the people to pay for 50% of the lottery revenues.

It¿s not clear if the original poster is opposed to gambling or to too few government programs to combat gambling addiction. If it were the latter, then maybe it would be cheaper to have no government anti-gambling programs, but more winners with smaller payouts.

Seriously, the underlying issue is one of choice -- not engineering public behavior. No one is forcing people to gamble with their money. After all, it¿s not like taxes. With taxes you pay under threat of government force. With taxes you pay as a penalty on your own industriousness. With taxes you pay for things you may not even want or don¿t even believe in. With taxes you don¿t have a choice.

Let me suggest that before we focus too much attention on saving gamblers from themselves, let¿s first consider saving the state taxpayers from state taxes and state government spending. If we don¿t, it¿s a safe bet that we¿ll all lose even more.

MDC
Pittsburgh, PA

I agree with Mr.Rendell on using the slot machine money for the school districts that are in distress in this state.

Im 16 years old but when I run for Governor I want more gambling in all of the counties in this state.