Thursday, October 30, 2008
The ending of slot-machine gambling in Maryland 40 years ago was based in part on the corrupting influence of gambling on our government. Today, as Marylanders consider the return of slot machines, they ought to examine this threat.
Maryland's senior official responsible for business regulation is Thomas E. Perez, secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, and his cheerleading for the industry he would regulate is disturbing. His Oct. 26 Close to Home commentary, "A Practical Solution to Fiscal Woes," gave no comfort that he would be an independent advocate for the public interest should slot machines return to Maryland.
I am voting no on slot machines.
MIKE LOFTON
Harwood
Slots have been weighing on my mind ["What Would Father McKenna Say?," Outlook, Oct. 26]. My birth state of West Virginia has embraced gambling, and it has claimed as a victim one of my old friends. Because of family circumstances, this college graduate moved back to the state to live with and care for her elderly mother. My friend is not your Las Vegas type at all.
I have learned that she has been recently estranged from her close-knit siblings. The reason? She gambled away her mother's savings.
My old home town is now dotted with small establishments that entice one in to drink and feed the slots.
It's too easy and extremely addicting.
For a quick dose of the blues, visit a Delaware slots venue on a weekday morning. You'll see illuminated in the garish lights mostly faces of the elderly, many in wheelchairs, with green tubing pushing oxygen into their lungs as the one-armed bandits greedily snatch their money within minutes. I'm not sure what Father McKenna would say, but it might be, "There must be a better way." Gambling is a poor answer to our economic woes.
SHARON KLEES
Hyattsville
ยท
Thomas E. Perez's argument for slots gambling in Maryland contained a major flaw. He cheerfully stated that the ballot proposal "sets aside funds for compulsive gambling treatment" that will address this issue. But this is trying to play catch-up against a destructive addiction.
Could he justify a massive government subsidy for another addiction, say heroin, because, hey, we'll offer some funds for treatment? The damage will already have been done.
TIM SIEGEL
Takoma Park
View all comments that have been posted about this article.