Saturday, March 03, 2007

I was somewhat puzzled to read your editorial opposing the introduction of
"gambling machines" to help fund transportation needs. While I assume you
support more funding for transportation, you evidently have a problem with
allowing consenting adults to make the decision on whether they want to
entertain themselves with what are essentially slot machines. You trot out
the old anti-gambling rhetoric about regressive taxation and compulsive
gambling, which is as predictable as it is disingenuous. If the state, this
newspaper or anybody else was that concerned about the impact on the poor,
there would be an outcry to end the state lottery. Not only is it usurious,
taking 50 to 60 percent on the dollar, but it uses tax monies to advertise
itself. It is marvelously ironic that religious groups and other parties can
muster enough outrage to prevent off-track betting in Northern Virginia,
which is a legal extension of the state's horse racing industry and a far
fairer gambling proposition, yet are apparently not bothered by the lottery.
So now the state proposes something in-between the lottery and horse racing,
for a good cause by the way, and you're ready to protect the innocents.
Apparently the lottery is a good idea because it raises money for the state,
but gambling machines aren't. Where is the logic in that? And if gambling in
general is so abhorrent, where have you and the legislators been while the
lottery has been stealing from people for decades?
So pardon me if you're indignation seems a little hollow and hard to take
seriously.