Close Look At The National Gambling Impact Study Commission

The “No gamble in this move” editorial of May 11 in the Santa Maria Times generated negative comments from our local anti-casino factions. The editorial commented that the recent $1 million to the Cottage Hospital in SantaYnez was a generous gift by the Chumash and a good thing for the people of our valley. But this small minority saw the donation as ‘buying off” the community and claiming that the money didn’t come from the Chumash but from “the tax payers” and low income people who are “barely scraping by” It seems now that their 5000 slot non-issue has been exposed as just that, a non-issue, they are desperate enough in their campaign against the Chumash to now start attacking the Tribes charitable donations. These attacks, along with Terri Harmon’s recent commentary in the Valley News asking that groups and organizations stop taking donations from the Chumash, really shines a light into their true motives and shows how far removed they are from “trying to help the valley”, as these groups claim to be doing. The comments were extremely negative and emotional and it reveals the intense animosity these people feel towards the Tribe and the casino and again begin to cross that “being about the people” line. They are sinking lower and lower.

A few of the commenter’s referred to “findings” in the National Gambling Impact Commission report. I knew about this report but had yet to look through it and I thank these people for using it as a source and thus motivating me to review it. Although I couldn’t find the data to verify what these people claimed the study found I did find some other very interesting results from the study… results that these people probably do not want the community to be aware of because the results basically shoot holes in everything they say about gambling and the casino and the supposed negative impact they incur on the state, community and society as a whole.

Congress authorized The National Gambling Impact Study Commission on June 3, 1996. The report was extensive and took 2 years to complete. The Commission was an independent commission which was not under the auspices of any executive agency, nor specifically controlled by the legislative or judicial branches of government. The purpose and function of the Commission was to conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of the social and economic impacts of 1) gambling on federal, state, local, and Native American tribal governments and 2) communities and social institutions including the individuals, families, and businesses which compose them. The study included the following:

1. A review of existing government policies and practices regarding legalizing and prohibiting gambling, including the costs of such policies and practices.

2. An assessment of the relationship between gambling and levels of crime, including existing enforcement and regulatory practices that address such relationship.

3. An assessment of pathological or problem gambling, including its impact on individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and the economy.

4. An assessment of gambling's impact on individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and the economy generally, including advertising's role in promoting gambling and gambling's impact on depressed economic areas.

5. An assessment of the extent to which gambling provides revenue to State, local, and Native American tribal governments and the extent to which possible alternative revenue sources may exist for such governments.

6. An assessment of the interstate and international effects of electronic gambling, including the use of interactive technologies and the Internet.

I’m so glad these folks from the extreme minority used the National Gambling Impact Commission to state their case. Let’s see what the final results were.

Gaming opponents were very excited about this study predicting that the outcome would lead to the end of legalized gaming in the U.S. However, even though a majority of the commission members opposed any form of gaming, the final report recognized the tremendous contribution that casino gaming has brought by way of jobs, capital investment and economic development to new casino jurisdictions. The study revealed that "a new casino of even limited attractiveness, placed in a market that is not already saturated, will yield positive economic benefits on net to its host economy" and that communities closest to casinos experienced a 12% to 17% drop in welfare payments, unemployment rates and unemployment insurance. In its final report, the NGISC summarized the testimony heard from more than 20 elected officials from jurisdictions with casino gaming: "... Without exception they expressed support for gambling and recited instances of increased revenues for their cities. They also discussed community improvements made possible since the advent of gambling in their communities and reviewed the general betterment of life for the citizenry in their cities and towns."

One of the most common issues that opponents of gambling perpetually focus on is pathological or “problem” gambling. The anti-casino groups in our valley have always said that this is a huge problem and that it should be addressed. While gaming opponents have claimed that approximately 10% of players are pathological gamblers, actual studies indicate a much lower number. In 1997, the Harvard Medical School put the number at 1.3%. A study conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences for the NGISC re-analyzed the data from the Harvard Medical School analysis in order to isolate the estimates for the United States and found a pathological gambling prevalence rate of 0.9% – 1.5% A study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 2005 estimated the lifetime prevalence rate of pathological gambling at .42% based upon data derived from a sample of more than 43,000 U.S. residents aged 18 and older.

As the NGISC pointed out "the vast majority of Americans gamble recreationally and experience no measurable side effects related to their gambling, or they choose not to gamble at all." In other words, approximately 99% or more of the people going into the casino are perfectly normal happy citizens who go, by their own free will, to enjoy and entertain themselves by gambling, or to see a show or perhaps have dinner or perhaps all three. Anti-casino groups paint a picture of a building full of sick people gambling away their houses and families and the Tribe laughing all the way to the bank. The fact is, according to the report, that only about 5% of the of the gaming industry’s revenue is generated by individuals with a gambling disorder. Overall, casino patrons spend their money wisely. According to a 2002 poll conducted for the AGA by Peter D. Hart Research Associates and The Luntz Research Companies, 80 percent of customers always or usually set a budget before they gamble.

Let’s look at Alcohol/Drug abuse compared to pathological gambling. The national prevalence rate is about 1% for lifetime pathological gambling. Lifetime alcohol dependence is 13.8 % while drug dependence is 6.2 % So why is saving the 1% of problem gamblers more of a priority than being concerned with the 20% who have a much more devastating and lethal disease? Murder comes into play when you talk about alcohol and drug abuse. I would bet (pun intended) that these anti-casino factions like to go home and have a drink after work or have a glass of wine with their dinner or a cold beer with their buddies. How would these anti-casino groups view a group of people who don’t drink and campaign to make alcohol illegal so they can try and save the 13% of the problem drinkers at the expense of the 87% of the population who drink responsibly? Surely this would be a better case than them trying to save the 1% of problem gamblers at the expense of the 99% who gamble responsibly. I imagine they would fight pretty hard against that campaign. But, by God, they are determined to save that 1% of problem gamblers. How hypocritical can you get and how obvious is it that their motives go way beyond anti-gambling.

Opponents of gaming have made outlandish allegations about social costs of $200 billion annually, the commission-funded research conducted by NORC (the National Opinion Research Center at theUniversity of Chicago) placed the annual cost to society of all forms of gaming — casinos, lotteries, pari-mutuel wagering and charitable gaming, as well as illegal gambling — at about $5 billion. $5 billion is not a small number, but when compared to the annual cost of alcohol abuse which is $166 billion, and heart disease which is $125 billion it seems rather insignificant. What’s the priority here, especially when we talk about our children? On March 6, 2007, the U.S. Surgeon General's Office appealed to Americans to do more to stop America's 11 million current underage drinkers from using alcohol, and to keep other young people from starting. THIS is the priority! I ask these groups to ask their children where they believe they should be focusing their concern. It’s all about perspective which these extreme minority groups seem to have none of.

Gaming opponents also are fond of maintaining that gaming will contribute to an increase in crime — despite the fact that the federal commission found no link between the two. The commission’s final report also cited a study that found no documentation of a causal relationship between gaming and crime. In their reports to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), neither the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences nor the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) was able to confirm a relationship between crime and legalized gaming. The casino effect was "not statistically significant" for any of the crime outcome measures, according to the NORC report. In 2000, the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission reached similar conclusions, finding "no link between gambling, particularly casino-style gambling, and crime." In fact, the 2000 report recognized that casinos are more of a crime deterrent than an instigator. According to the report, "The security on the premises of gambling facilities, the multiple layers of regulatory control, and the economic and social benefits that gambling seems to offer to communities are effective deterrents to criminal activity." Twenty-four sheriffs and chiefs of police submitted their findings to the NGISC, stating there was no connection between gaming and crime in their jurisdictions. Other law enforcement officials from gaming jurisdictions who testified before the commission agreed with those submissions, and some pointed to a decrease in street crime in their areas.


Another fabrication that these groups perpetuate in their circle of misinformation is that the casino is actually run by organized crime. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission put to rest decades-old assumptions about organized crime and its involvement in the gaming industry. As it stated in its 1999 report: "All of the evidence presented to the commission indicates that effective state regulation, coupled with the corporate takeover of much of the industry, has eliminated organized crime from the ownership and operation of casinos."

These groups also see the Chumash as “taking over the valley.” I think the casino expands the overall economy of and benefits the existing tourist industry in our valley. An economic analysis prepared for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission by Penn State University economist Adam Rose found little evidence of economic “substitution after the introduction of new casinos”. The analysis revealed: "The preponderance of empirical studies indicate claims of the complete 'cannibalization' of pre-existing local restaurants and entertainment facilities by a mere shift in resident spending is grossly exaggerated."

Again, I want to thank those individuals that "quoted" the study which led me to thoroughly research the results. The above is not fabricated by a few people. The above is not generated by pro-gaming factions. The above was in fact gathered by opponents to all forms of gaming and what they found surprised the hell out of them. It’s not what they wanted to hear but legally they had to report their findings. What will our local extreme minority do in the future? Will they keep their hypocritical blinders on and earplugs in and continue to submit to the public their little circle of continuous misinformation and myths about gambling and the casino? Will they continue to use selective tidbits of information to disguise the truth and in some cases fabricate out right lies? Frankly I am embarrassed for them. Continuing down their current path will only expose to the rest of us what is truly motivating them and it’s not pretty.

My hope is that the Chumash, despite the ignorant actions of these small wealthy groups, will with the support of the majority of the rest of us folk in the valley that actually think rationally, will find a way to re-open dialog with the county and local city governments and get back to where we were. A lot of us, including the Chumash who have always been here, have lived and worked here peacefully for a long, long time. It has been a great place to work and raise families and it still is. Let’s not let a small group of individuals with an increasingly visible hidden agenda divide us.

Sources:
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/05/11/opinion/051107b.txt
http://www.americangaming.org/industry/factsheets/issues_detail.cfv?id=29
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/index.html
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2007pres/20070306.html
http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/FactSheets/FactshtAlcoholOther%20Drugs2-07.pdf
http://www.americangaming.org/Industry/factsheets/issues_detail.cfv?id=22
http://policycouncil.nationaljournal.com/EN/Forums/American+Gaming+Association/b03c2c54-665b-47ec-b568-0867070eadcc.htm