No on Maryland Slots

Voters should oppose a referendum that would bring the machines -- and a host of maladies -- back to the state.

ON JULY 1, 1968, the last slot machines were wheeled out of the taverns and diners that dotted a stretch of Southern Maryland known as Little Vegas. Maryland banned the machines because they fostered crime and corruption and drained money from the poor. In the 40 years since, the lever on the side of the machine has given way to a button on the front, but the scourges ushered in by slots are the same. Supporters of a Nov. 4 referendum that would restore slots to Maryland paper over these memories with dollar bills. Slots, they promise, will plug Maryland's $430 million budget gap, revive the faltering horse-racing industry and inject needed cash into schools. Marylanders shouldn't fall for this neon mirage. Slots will pump money into the pockets of out-of-state racehorse owners and casino operators; only a fraction of the revenue will trickle to schools.

Advocates claim that slots will raise $600 million, half of which will go to schools. The figures are not credible.The $600 million estimate comes from a report issued last year by Thomas E. Perez, Maryland's secretary of labor, licensing and regulation. Putting aside concerns about the report's objectivity -- Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration supports the referendum -- the projection was made before the economy worsened. Casinos in neighboring states have seen a drop in revenue of 15 to 20 percent in the past year. Mr. Perez admits that he would revise his initial estimate downward, to about $500 million. A recent study by University of Maryland researchers warns that slots revenue could even be lower.

Slots supporters correctly contend that crime didn't rise after states such as West Virginia and Delaware installed slots. But crime isn't the only social cost. University of Maryland researchers estimate that the costs of alcoholism, gambling addiction and bankruptcies resulting from slots could total $228 million to $628 million annually. And, in unsettling economic times, do we want Marylanders diverting dollars from clothes, food and other entertainment -- or savings accounts -- to gambling? Slots won't promote healthy economic growth.

Before Maryland's faltering economy became the referendum's selling point, slots supporters said that the machines were needed to save the state's horse-racing industry. One-sixth of slots revenue would sweeten race purses, an unnecessary subsidy that would mostly benefit out-of-state owners and Maryland's wealthiest breeders. Why should the state spend its dwindling dollars to bolster wealthy breeders rather than, say, Chesapeake Bay watermen?

Maryland had the good sense to rid itself of the machines 40 years ago, and voters should continue to resist the glow of slot machines and the false promise of pain-free revenue they represent.