Allowing casino gambling is becoming an increasingly pressing political issue in Massachusetts. A study found that casinos make money. Gov. Mitt Romney, new Senate Ways and Means chairwoman Therese Murray and others want Connecticut and Rhode Island to pay Massachusetts $75 million to NOT have casinos - economically correct, politically impossible. In April 2003, the House killed bills to let tracks have slots. A bill for a full casino for Suffolk Downs near Boston or Holyoke, which voted 59% - 41% pro-casino in a non-binding referendum, won't pass1. However, whenever and wherever gaming legislation was introduced and discussed, heated arguments arose between proponents and opponents of gambling. The reason it is such a hot topic is because of the political, economical, moral, religious and social issue surrounding casino gambling. Many opponents likened it to ?war on drugs? calling it ?war on gambling?2. The major underlying reason for casino legalization in most states was economic and tourism development.
Although gambling has definitely helped boost some areas, most others have failed miserably. In the 1990s, the gaming legislation passage slowed down dramatically. Since 1994, Michigan is the only state that has legalized casino gambling. There are various negative aspects of the gaming industry that have facilitated the slowdown of the casino gambling legalization. In the following paragraphs, we will apply a cost benefit analysis to the initiative to bring casinos to Massachusetts, and examine the societal and environmental effects that a casino would cause. Through this critique, we will prove that Massachusetts would not benefit from legalized casino gambling.
ETHICAL ISSUES ? A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
It may seem that there are many obvious benefits of introducing casinos to Massachusetts: increased government revenue for charities and recreational programs, more job opportunities, and increased tourism. Identifying the costs associated with casinos involves...