Sometimes Bob Frantz is nuts. Most of the time, he's a pretty smart guy, preaching "CS, not BS." (Common Sense). This morning he made mincemeat of Senator Voinovich in an interview about Ohio Issue 3. (The link is the first hour podcast of the show. Scroll to the middle of the podcast for the start of the interview.)
One thing I found particularly laughable, was that Sen. Voinovich said that the casino operators would keep 61% of the money. He said it incredulously, too. Hello!! It's a BUSINESS. I'm surprised they're giving up 39%. Ask any other business owner about keeping only 61% of the money. They'll probably ask you if you used to live in the USSR, comrade. Aside from that, the main argument against this proposal is that it will create (supposedly) 109,000 new addicts in the State of Ohio. I'm gonna tell you why that's quite a specious argument. Let me first say that I personally will not vote in favor of Issue 3. I think it's poorly written, and the campaign was so shady, that I'm not sure people like that should be running casinos. Now, here's why the "addict" card doesn't play.
1)109,000 new addicts are predicted. Assuming the normal governmental margin of error, this actually means anywhere from 10 addicts - 86 billion addicts. For simplicity's sake, let's use 109,000. This is just a shade under 1% of the population. It makes no sense to prevent something because it affects 1% of the population. Nationwide, 5.7% of the population 12 and older are considered alcoholics. So should we ban alcohol? No! Why not? Well, besides the fact that I'm UAC Lutheran, it's very simple. Alcohol, like almost anything else is something responsible people can enjoy in moderation. The same is true of gambling. If someone has disposable income, they're free to spend it how they want to. What's the difference between spending $600 for a new TV, and spending $600 in a casino on a day trip?
2)Addicts destroy families. That's true. So can dads who ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Or drive without a seatbelt. (See my post on that here, if you haven't already -- it's the second one down) Regardless, the government is NOT the head of the family. It's not their job. The same points I made regarding seatbelt laws generally apply here. I'm too lazy to retype them. :-)
3)New addicts will be created with 'x' miles of the casino. This probably isn't even likely. If someone is addicted to gambling, they'll find a way to do it. If you don't put a casino in their backyard, they'll build one. Or they'll go on the internet. Or they'll drive 3 hours in (just about) any direction to get to one. If you have time, I highly recommend you listen to the podcast above. Bob Frantz does a good job tearing up the opposition. I'd also like it duly noted that I think Sen. Voinovich has generally done a pretty good job in the Senate. It's just this issue he's wrong on.