In reading your article regarding people protesting for the legalization of slot machines (“Citizens rally for racetrack slots,” page 3, Nov. 10), I noticed only pro-gambling rhetoric in the piece. Allow me to present the other side of the argument. First, tales of spectacular revenue are highly overrated. The assumption is that every Massachusetts gambler will stop going to Foxwoods or Rhode Island to go to an old dog track makes no sense. Next is the corruption issue. Several members of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and executives of a U.K. casino company were convicted of bribery over slot licenses. In the last few days a gambling lobbyist was overhead saying he had information to bury the governor of Rhode Island if he didn’t agree to a casino. After seeing all the lobbyist money thrown at the Massachusetts Senate to approve slots, do we really want this kind of corruption affecting our state? Lastly, the implication in the article that there are no side effects to increase gambling is laughable. Not only does crime go up in the state because people are desperate for money to support their habit, but other local businesses are squeezed out as slots take up more and more of disposable income and pay a lower tax rate back to the state. In conclusion, the only people who benefit from increased gambling are lazy politicians looking for campaign donors and wealthy track owners looking to line their pockets under the guise of saving a dying sport.
Scott Copley SMG ’94, GSM ’98
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
