The harm that casinos do

Here is an article from David Frum of CNN.com stating that casinos damage a state's economy more than help it:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/frum-casinos-harm/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

What harm does it do?

That's the challenge the casino industry puts to its critics. A new report by the Institute for American Values presents the answer.

Until the late 1980s, casino gambling was illegal almost everywhere in the country. Today, casinos are allowed in 23 states. These newly authorized casinos are not Las Vegas-style grand hotels. Their customers come from nearby. They don't stay overnight. They don't watch a show or eat in a fine restaurant. Perhaps most surprisingly: they don't play cards.

Modern casino gambling is computer gambling. The typical casino gambler sits at a computer screen, enters a credit card and enters a digital environment carefully constructed to keep them playing until all their available money has been extracted.

Small "wins" are administered at the most psychologically effective intervals, but the math is remorseless: the longer you play, the more you lose. The industry as a whole targets precisely those who can least afford to lose and earns most of its living from people for whom gambling has become an addiction. The IAV report cites a Canadian study that finds that the 75% of casino customers who play only occasionally provide only 4% of casino revenues. It's the problem gambler who keeps the casino in business.

Slot machine payouts vary state by state. Some states set a required minimum: 83% in Arkansas, for example. Others leave that decision up to the casino, as in Georgia and California. Some states require casinos to disclose their payouts. In others, that information is kept confidential. Based on what is published, however, it's a fair generalization that a player can expect to lose 10% to 15% of his or her stake at every session. The cheaper the game, the lower the payout: slots that charge $5 per round pay better than slots that charge a penny.

When New Jersey allowed casinos into Atlantic City back in 1977, casino advocates promised that gambling would revive the town's fading economy. The casinos did create jobs as promised. But merchants who expected foot traffic to return to the city's main street, Atlantic Avenue, were sorely disappointed. The money that comes to the casinos, stays in the casinos. Liquor stores and cash-for-gold outlets now line the city's once-premier retail strip.

The impact of casinos on local property values is "unambiguously" negative, according to the National Association of Realtors. Casinos do not revive local economies. They act as parasites upon them. Communities located within 10 miles of a casino exhibit double the rate of problem gambling. Unsurprisingly, such communities also suffer higher rates of home foreclosure and other forms of economic distress and domestic violence.

The Institute for American Values is sometimes described as a socially conservative group, but with important caveats. Its president, David Blankenhorn, has publicly endorsed same-sex marriage, and its board of directors is chaired by Bill Galston, a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton. The IAV is as worried that casinos aggravate income inequality as by their negative impact on family stability.

Before the spread of casino gambling, the IAV comments, the typical gambler was more affluent than average: it cost money to travel to Las Vegas. That's no longer true. Low-income workers and retirees provide the bulk of the customers for the modern casino industry. And because that industry becomes an important source of government revenue, the decision to allow casino gambling is a decision to shift the cost of government from the richer to the poorer, and, within the poor, to a subset of vulnerable people with addiction problems.

From the IAV study:

"Modern slot machines are highly addictive because they get into people's heads as well as their wallets. They engineer the psychological experience of being in the 'zone' - a trance-like state that numbs feeling and blots out time/space. For some heavy players, the goals is not winning money. It's staying in the zone. To maintain this intensely desirable state, players prolong their time on the machine until they run out of money - a phenomenon that people in the industry call 'playing to extinction.'"

How heavily does gambling weigh upon the poor, the elderly, the less educated, and the psychologically vulnerable? It's difficult to answer exactly, because U.S. governments have shirked the job of studying the effects of gambling. Most research on the public health effects of gambling in the United States is funded by the industry itself, with a careful eye to exonerating itself from blame. To obtain independent results, the Institute for American Values was obliged, ironically, to rely on studies funded by governments in Britain and Canada.

But here's what we can conclude, in the words of the Institute:

"[S]tate-sponsored casino gambling ... parallels the separate and unequal life patterns in education, marriage, work, and play that increasingly divide America into haves and have-nots. Those in the upper ranks of the income distribution rarely, if ever, make it a weekly habit to gamble at the local casino. Those in the lower ranks of the income distribution often do. Those in the upper ranks rarely, if ever, contribute a large share of their income to the state's take of casino revenues. Those in the lower ranks do."

Is this really OK? Are Americans content to allow the growth of an industry that consciously exploits the predictable weakness of the most vulnerable people? 27 states still say "no." If yours is one such state, fight to keep it that way. If not, it's never too late to find a better way. Read the full Institute for American Values study for yourself and see how much is, quite literally, at sake.

Read More

The Embarrassment of Senator Ted Cruz

Here is an article from The New York Times saying that Ted Cruz's filibuster on Obamacare is merely for attention and countless donations from Tea Party supporters.  Ultimately, the article states that he is only embarrassing himself and that the Tea Party movement will eventually fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/the-embarrassment-of-senator-ted-cruz.html?ref=opinion

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the public face of the aimless and self-destructive Tea Party strategy to stop health care reform, began an endless floor speech on Tuesday with the theme of “make D.C. listen.” But even his Republican colleagues had long since stopped paying attention to his corrosive bombast, tired of his pious insults to his own party and unimpressed with his eagerness to shut down the government in pursuit of an ideological dream.

Like hard-liners in the far right corner of the House, Mr. Cruz has grabbed for every possible lever in his campaign against President Obama’s health law, fully aware that he will not succeed but eager for the accolades and donations that will inevitably follow from the Tea Party’s misguided faithful. In the process, he has demonstrated how little he understands Senate rules and, more important, how little he appreciates the public’s desire for a collaborative Congress.

Mr. Cruz’s campaign to defund health reform consists largely of an absurd plan to filibuster the very House bill that kept the government from closing and defunded the health law, a notion that was rejected by the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and most Senate Republicans. After he lost their support, he began an extended tirade anyway, a stunt that might resemble a filibuster but in fact will have to end Wednesday morning before a prescheduled vote on the House bill takes place.

In just the first hour of his speech, Mr. Cruz said his fellow senators were no more sincere than professional wrestlers and that accepting the health law was like appeasing the Nazis. His own goal of tearing down the law, he said, was a dream on par with President John F. Kennedy’s promise to put a man on the moon. This combination of grandiosity and pure nastiness helps explain why the senator has become the least popular man in Washington.

But it also shows why the Tea Party’s plans will inevitably fail. Americans may remain confused about the health law, but they aren’t interested in a government shutdown or credit default to get rid of it. Mr. Cruz may love the spotlight, but, when it fades, he will find he was only speaking to himself.

Read More

Aiming at the wrong target: Some Republicans want to fight other Republicans

Here is an article from the Washington Times that suggests Republicans should not fight amongst each other and work together to take on Barack Obama and the Democrats.  Recently, some Republican senators have not been supportive of the ideas of Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz in regards to Obamacare:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/24/editorial-aiming-at-the-wrong-target/

With Republican friends like these, Ted Cruz needs no Democratic enemies. Once word leaked that the maverick Republican senator from Texas would appear on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace says his email inbox bulged with “unsolicited research and questions” to use against him. The unsolicited material came not from Democrats, but from Republican elites. “I will tell you I have never in my time in Washington seen a party so upset with one of its own members,” Mr. Wallace says.
Opposition research is always vicious, used to advance one candidate in primary and general election campaigns by cutting another candidate low. It’s highly unusual, however, in an intramural skirmish, where everyone is supposed to be on the same side and agree on the goal. Everyone wants to kill Obamacare. Mr. Cruz says using the leverage of shutting down the government is the only way to dispatch Obamacare to the big sleep. He’ll even use a filibuster to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from restoring Obamacare funding in the continuing resolution passed by the House. “Fund the government,” said Mr. Cruz, “but don’t fund Obamacare because it’s hurting the American people. It’s not working . It should be an easy decision for Senate Republicans to stand united and to support House Republicans.”
Other Republicans say the Cruz plan is suicide. Karl Rove, the Republican strategist who helped elect George W. Bush, is no fan of the shutdown. Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Rove to explain the anger toward Mr. Cruz, and he said it was because Mr. Cruz, together with Sen. Mike Lee, devised the strategy without consulting the Republican leadership. Failing to kiss the ring has been the most unpardonable of sins, and it’s a sin Mr. Cruz frequently commits, though it’s not a sin as rare as it once was.
The elites have snubbed Ted Cruz since he walloped Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the 2012 U.S. Senate primary. Mr. Cruz inspired Tea Party conservatives to bypass Mr. Dewhurst, whom party elders had anointed to take the Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison. Since Mr. Cruz had only been the solicitor general of Texas, he was told to wait his turn.
Republican elders often care more about protocol than ideas, and they’ve made no secret of their disdain for Tea Party conservatives, whom they call “wacko birds.” Country club Republicans abhor conflict, and would often rather lose than damage their reputation for being nice. When Democrats tell them they’re maybe not as bad as everybody thinks, they take it as a compliment. The Senate is a stronghold of nice Republicans, which is why the nation faces $16.7 trillion in debt.
Mr. Cruz has attracted the eye of the Great Mentioner, who christens prospective presidential candidates, for attention in 2016, and this makes him a target. It further gives him coveted attention as a conservative eager to stand his ground on principle. “There are lots of folks in Washington who choose to throw rocks,” says Mr. Cruz, “and I’m not going to reciprocate.” That’s a good thing for his party, because throwing rocks plays neatly into the schemes of President Obama and the Democrats.

Read More

Crazier Than Liberals

Here is an article from Ann Coulter from Townhall.com stating that liberals and gun-rights advocates do not acknowledge the possibility of institutionalizing the mentally ill as being the problem for gun violence:

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/09/18/crazier-than-liberals-n1704041

There's been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill.
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.
But liberals won't allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals' genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.

Read More

Keep guns out of dangerous hands

Here is an article by Daniel Webster, professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, from CNN.com that states there should be stricter gun ownership policies in wake of the Washington Navy Yard shooting on Monday:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/webster-navy-yard-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

We are still learning key details about Aaron Alexis, the man named as the shooter in this week's horrific mass killing at the Washington Navy Yard.

So far there is a record of at least two prior incidents in which Alexis fired a gun under circumstances that should have brought criminal charges. His time as a Navy reservist was checkered with accounts of insubordination and disorderly conduct. He was reportedly seeking treatment for mental illness (he was hearing voices and having problems sleeping). More importantly from the perspective of risk for violence, a former roommate reported that Alexis was a heavy drinker.

While much of the focus has been on how a person with this background obtained clearance to work at a military facility, a similar question could be asked about how he could legally buy a firearm in Virginia and allegedly obtain a permit to carry loaded firearms in Texas.

The gun lobby and other opponents to stronger gun laws like to talk about the rights of "law-abiding gun owners," but the policies in place in most states allow individuals with backgrounds far worse than that of Alexis to own legally as many firearms as they can afford and carry loaded firearms most anywhere.

To appease the gun lobby, lawmakers have created an environment where individuals with numerous convictions for misdemeanor crimes involving violence, firearm misuse, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, and who have previously been subject to restraining orders for domestic violence, can legally arm themselves to the teeth.

Several states have stricter standards for legal possession of handguns than federal law, and states such as New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts give law enforcement some discretion in determining who should legally be able to buy and carry handguns.

My colleagues and I published a study last year where we found that in states with the weakest standards (similar to federal standards), nearly one-third of state prison inmates incarcerated for crimes committed with guns would have been prohibited from possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had standards for legal gun possession similar to those in place in high-standards states. With reasonable regulations such as background checks for all gun sales and proper regulation of gun dealers, many of these inmates would not have had guns to use in crime.

In order to reduce significantly the gun violence that occurs every day in communities across the United States, we must focus on the issues that matter the most where there is broad consensus. Public opinion surveys show large majorities of gun owners support stronger standards for legal gun ownership and policies designed to keep guns from prohibited persons, including universal background checks and stronger regulation and oversight of gun dealers.

We can't say for sure whether such policies would have prevented the recent mass shootings that have gripped our nation, but they would reduce a significant number of shootings that don't receive national news attention, though they are no less devastating to the individuals, families and communities.

Unfortunately, the gun debate in the United States has been just that -- a debate. Instead of engaging in the all too familiar, polarizing discussions that have characterized gun policy, let's act upon the things we all agree upon -- keeping guns from people who shouldn't have them.

Read More

Fighting marijuana ... or reality?

Here is an article from CNN.com by David Nathan, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical associate professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, stating that the dangers of marijuana are largely embellished and that marijuana should be legalized:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/opinion/nathan-pot-legalization/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

David Frum's recent op-ed on CNN.com exemplifies why Americans are becoming deaf to the critics of pot legalization. Their hyperbolic claims about the dangers of pot -- along with the realistic ones -- are being dismissed by a justifiably cynical public. Anti-marijuana propaganda isn't stopping the march toward national legalization, but the opposition is losing its voice as it screams about the falling sky.

A majority of Americans favor full legalization, and they understand that recreational cannabis is not now and will never be legal for minors. They know better than to believe Frum's prediction that "half the states may soon allow the sale of marijuana to almost anybody determined to buy it" -- an assertion so broad as to imply that even children would be permitted to buy pot legally. This is simply not so.

Americans are also informed enough to realize that medical marijuana is not a "laughable fiction." This week, I saw a longstanding patient with a rare, ultimately fatal neurological disorder that causes chronic, painful muscle spasms. For years, this patient has smoked marijuana to counteract this terrible symptom, and it works.

With medicinal marijuana now legal in New Jersey, this patient is not convinced that she will be safe from federal prosecution if she goes through the state's one operational dispensary, so she continues to purchase illegal, untaxed and potentially adulterated cannabis. While she is technically a criminal, she is neither laughable nor fictional.

Those opposed to marijuana do raise important concerns that are often neglected in the movement toward legalization.

Cannabis is indeed associated with low motivation and poor performance in minors. It may have subtle but long-term negative effects on young users and worsen the condition of some individuals vulnerable to psychosis. Smoking marijuana may be harmful to users' lungs, although vaporizers have long been available as a safer alternative.

Cannabis is habit forming in a small percentage of users. Marijuana intoxication impairs driving, though the risk is similar to that of drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, which is well below the federally mandated legal limit of 0.08%.

So why can't the opposition discuss these problems realistically?

It's simple: Because the only rational conclusion is that the dangers of pot are not sufficient to warrant its prohibition. Yet those who have an ideological opposition to legalization appear immune to reason.

Interestingly, Frum is a moderate in the opposition camp, in that he favors reducing the penalties for marijuana use through decriminalization. But by maintaining pot's nominal illegality, decriminalization denies our government the power to regulate and tax cannabis while removing obstacles to its consumption.

Those who would limit the cannabis trade must make a choice between two Americas -- one that crushes the marijuana trade by any means necessary (as nothing less has worked) or one that regulates and taxes a "soft" drug that millions of consenting American adults already consume medicinally as well as recreationally.

Frum warns of the coming of "Big Marijuana," a term he quoted from legalization opponent Kevin Sabet. Frum and Sabet compare this hypothetical Leviathan to the alcohol and tobacco industries, both of which have been accused of marketing to minors and encouraging destructive consumption of their products by adults. I share this concern, which is why several of the 15 steps I proposed for the federal regulation of cannabis are designed to limit the power of the cannabis industry.

Frum predicts that Big Marijuana will target "young people and racial minorities" because "secure and contented people don't tend to be heavy consumers of psychoactive substances." Setting aside the odd assumptions about who are insecure and discontent, minors and minorities could both benefit from legalization.

It is our government, not Big Marijuana, that disproportionately targets racial minorities for prosecution of marijuana crimes, causing much more harm to those communities than cannabis itself ever could. And our prosecution of healthy adults for their relatively benign use of marijuana prevents the justice system from focusing on the diversion of pot to the young people we all want to protect.

But in reality, we already have "Big Marijuana" in the form of violent Mexican drug cartels and an underground economy in the 48 states where pot remains illegal.

We currently live in a nation that does not regulate the ubiquitous, thriving cannabis trade. I want to raise my children in an America that does.

Read More

The Obama Doctrine has officially collapsed -- Putin is now in charge

Here is an article from FoxNews.com by James Jay Carafano, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, saying that Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is dictating the United States military actions in regards to Syria:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/11/obama-doctrine-has-officially-collapsed-putin-is-now-in-charge/?intcmp=HPBucket

There were numerous oddball characters in “M.A.S.H.,” the old TV show about a surgical hospital in the battlefront in Korea. One of them, Major Winchester, considered himself the consummate practitioner. In one episode, he droned continually, "I do one thing. I do it very well...and then I move on."
That fairly describes how President Obama would have described his approach to foreign policy before Tuesday night’s speech.
He personally handled every serious issue.
He decided on his time table.
He delivered a prepared address explaining how he had solved each conundrum. And then he moved on.
That was the gist of his address this May at the National Defense University, where he confidently explained how his policies had left Al Qaeda all but eradicated. He made similar speeches on Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya.
That was not the Barack Obama America saw Tuesday night. This was a foreign policy speech unlike any other from the president.
In the “M.A.S.H.” episode mentioned above, the surgery is suddenly flooded with casualties. Major Winchester is completely overwhelmed.  A fellow surgeon leans over and says, “Just deal with it.  It’s all meatball surgery.”
For the first time in his presidency, Obama finds himself practicing meatball foreign policy—reacting to events, forced to address issues on a timetable set by others, and made to take steps before he has time to think them through methodically.
Mr. Obama never planned to get dragged into the Syrian civil war. He uttered his "red line" declaration only because it sounded strong and had been advised that, in all likelihood, he would never have to enforce it. But when the line was publicly crossed, suddenly, the White House felt unavoidable pressure to act.
It opted for Libya-lite—an all-air-based assault, without the regime change. The president would strike while Congress was out of town, and then explain his actions to the American people. But Britain bailed, and that plan went south.
Rather than “go it alone,” the president switched to a new plan: try to get a balky Congress to green-light use of force—even though he (rightly) insisted he didn’t need their approval. Tonight’s speech was slated with the intent of winning over Congress and the American public to his intervention plan.
But before that speech could be delivered, Russia unexpectedly stepped in and offered a "diplomatic" solution that made a unilateral strike—no matter how down-sized from the Libyan adventure—appear untenable.
And so Obama found himself making a very different televised address—one that pretty much admitted that he had no choice but to follow Russia's lead.
The 16-minute speech failed on every level. Mr. Obama didn't explain why he is now endorsing a “solution” that actually makes Syrian strongman Bashar Assad even stronger.  What keeps Assad in power is not his chemical weapons but the support he gets from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.  And Russia’s diplomatic ploy strengthens Moscow's ability to support the regime.
In addition, it gives Damascus completely unearned respectability. Assad can claim he is cooperating with the international community. In many ways, this may be a worse outcome than a meaningless military strike. An approach that strengthens Assad may lengthen the bloody civil war that has already claimed 100,000 lives and created 2 million refugees.
The speech also failed to give Congress any reason to endorse an attack if diplomacy fails. The president asked Congress to postpone the vote because he doesn't have the votes. If the Syrian situation deteriorates further, Congress will be even less likely to give the President a formal authorization to use military force.
The speech was, however, historically significant, as it marked the collapse of the Obama Doctrine.  As a candidate and as a president, Barack Obama approached foreign relations with one key belief:  If he made nice with the world, the world would make nice with him.
That naïve view has now been trampled by harsh reality. America's enemies have found they can play our president.  Moscow may be the first capital to recognize that Mr. Obama is off his game, but it will not be the last.
And so, like Major Winchester, Mr. Obama now finds himself doing what he wanted least to do: meatball surgery. In the case of Syria policy, put a fork in the meatball. Its done.

Read More