Legalize Gambling

Are you tired of the same old weekend activities? Have you had your fill of Harvard's vibrant social scene replete with its rollicking parties? Have you rented every movie in the Star Wars trilogy--twice? Perhaps you're looking for something new, fun and interesting...

Well, you're in luck. Gov. William F. Weld '66 has got just ht proposal for you: legalized gambling. Weld's plan, now being reviewed before a state legislative committee, would allow Harvard high rollers to visit seven gambling sites throughout Massachusetts: There "floating casinos" and the state's four dog an horse tracks, soon to be stocked with 6,000 electronic gaming devices.

The proposal deserves support for a variety of reasons. One doesn't need to be a fiscal genius to figure out that the new gambling ventures would help revitalize the troubled state economy. But before examining the arguments in favor of this proposal, let's amuse ourselves by taking a look at the arguments against it.

One reason to oppose the proposal is that gambling preys on the poor. Some opponents of gambling go so far as to say it constitutes a tax. But why is this an argument against the proposal? Don't Massachusetts residents, dutiful liberals that they are, enjoy creating new taxes?

The reason they don't like the proposal is because it's a regressive tax, that is it hits poor people disproportionately. Certainly instituting gambling in Massachusetts might drain the pockets of the poor at a rapid rate.

Why this can be called a tax still escapes me, however. Nobody is compelling the Boston Welfare Mommy to plunk her hard-earned quarters into slot machines. If the Massachusetts poor are silly enough not to realize that gambling is generally a losing proposition, we have no duty to save them from themselves, at least not in this particular case.

The more valid arguments against the proposal focus on potential social impacts of gambling. Prominent Massachusetts clergy argue that gambling may breed crime, hurt families and damage the state's quality of life.

The answer to these objections is that the slot machines will be placed only in locations where gambling of one sort or another already exists: the tracks, and the casino boats, which will be placed only in communities that approve them.

The central argument for approval of the proposal is that it will bring significant revenue into state coffers. Estimates suggest that the slot machines alone will generate $5 billion in revenue, of which the state would take $82.1 million, a 1.5 percent cut. Even if the estimates are somewhat off the mark, as some state legislators have suggested legalized gambling will still bring in large amounts of money.

The Weld projections for revenue figures are in line with figures from comparable slot-machine operations in Connecticut, IIIinois and New Jersey. The idea that the proposals are seriously flawed does not merit serious consideration.

Currently, many Massachusetts residents gamble at the Foxwoods Casino in nearby Ledyard, Conn. If state residents are going to gamble, we might as well take their dollars for ourselves, rather than letting them enrich Connecticut Gov. Lowell P. Weicker's fiefdom.

The legalization of a few gambling sites in Massachusetts makes economic sense. Because it limits gambling to specially-approved sites, thus avoiding the Las Vegas spectre of slot machines in laundromats, any negative impact will be limited. Gambling will give brilliant Harvard math majors a chance to practice card-counting skills. Bored Harvard students and post-thesis seniors will have something new to do.

So if you have been to the Crimson Sports Grill so many times that they have named a drink after you, despair no more over a lack of places to go and things to do. It may only be a matter of months before gambling comes to a city near you.