Are you suggesting that the funding from gambling that is promised to voters for education would not come through after they vote? How dare you!
What about the Ohio Lottery?
(sarcasm...plain pure sarcasm)
posted by katie82640 at 11:15 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
I'm voting for it. Not because it'll help education or because I want gambling. It really doesn't affect me. Raceway Park already has gambling. What's the difference if they do it from a slot machine or a horse?
posted by MikeyA at 12:49 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
The casinos will get built.
Casino's don't get built. It's just slot machines at existing racetracks. And like MikeyA said, Raceway already has gambling.
I'm voting for it on the basis that I think gambling should be allowed regardless if it helps fund education or not. I don't see it as the devil that will bring death and destruction to Toledo, as we all know that Toledo already has murder, prostitution, and drugs without gambling. I don't think the few slot machines they will add to Raceway is going to add to any of that crime.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 03:01 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
I'm voting for it.
I would like to rid Ohio of the all nannies there are with one trip to the polls.
posted by Musician at 03:41 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
I'm voting against Issue 3 for numerous reasons. I'd also point out that not even Gubernatorial candidate Bill Peirce, who is a Libertarian supports Issue 3:
Question #32: Are there any topics I have not asked about which you wish to address?
Bill Peirce: Make sure you vote against the totally reprehensible "Learn and Earn" Constitutional Amendment. It would give a perpetual monopoly over casino gambling in Ohio to 9 specifically named firms, and would charge only a small percentage of the $4 billion that the licenses would yield if they
were auctioned off.
http://joabsblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/completed-interview-with-bill-peirce.html
posted by psyche777 at 05:32 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
What are your other reasons why your voting against it; I don't care if a candidate supports something or not. And I don't see how that creates a monopoly in Ohio if the gambling is separated amongst 9 different firms. Maybe a monopoly in Toledo with just Raceway allowing gambling, but as it stands Detroit holds that monopoly. Raceway isn't going to keep all gamblers here, since casino gambling is a different experience. But Raceway does have to compete.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 06:57 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
Since when is 9 a monopoly?
I liike Bill Peirce FWIW...but disagree on this one.
posted by Musician at 07:12 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
Vote for it only if you want gambling in Ohio. We can pretty much assume that in time the school monies will be shifted to other areas. I'm not banking my son's college education on it.
posted by swantucky at 07:35 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
I've gone into the many reasons I don't support it before but to briefly rehash - I don't think our Constitution for the State of Ohio should be used to benefit several gambling owners. If gambling is to be allowed in Ohio it should be an open and honest system developed by communties as far as who they want operating these gambling operations. If Toledo wants as an example a casino at the new Marina district that should be up to us as local voters not up to residents of Cleveland to determine that they get future casinos and we get video slot machines at Raceway Park.
I also know the numbers Learn and Earn is promoting are false by their own admission and I don't like the fact that they are using the ploy of providing college funding to get thru this constitutional change.
I also don't believe that adding 3,500 slot machines to Raceway Park is going to keep large numbers of local gamblers from going to Detroit or Windsor for more gaming options.
Then of course the whole social aspect of gambling but that to me is not the larger issue. The largest issue for me is what Bill Peirce stated which is why I quoted him to demonstrate that even Libertarians don't feel this is something to support.
posted by psyche777 at 09:24 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
If you'd like even more reasons why not to vote for Issue 3, a blogger that I know who is near Cleveland has focused a great deal of her attention in writing almost 100 reasons why you should not vote for Issue 3. She is against this for some of the social affects of gambling as well.
Today she had reason number 5:
http://writeslikeshetalks.blogspot.com/2006/11/reason-5-to-vote-no-on-issue-3.html
posted by psyche777 at 09:29 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
I'm voting against it. It isn't a matter of slots. I'm ok with the slots.
I don't like the fact that the people behind the intiative assumed that we are all so stupid that we'd vote for a free college education (and btw - the numbers do NOT add up) for our kids and they'd slide the slot machines in without our knowing.
I'm dumb - on alot of things I am really not that sharp. But I despise having my face rubbed in it.
If you want to bring slots in - say so. But this is assuming we're stupid.
I'm not ok with that.
posted by katie82640 at 09:36 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
psyche777 said:
If gambling is to be allowed in Ohio it should be an open and honest system developed by communties as far as who they want operating these gambling operations. If Toledo wants as an example a casino at the new Marina district that should be up to us as local voters not up to residents of Cleveland to determine that they get future casinos and we get video slot machines at Raceway Park.
katie said:
I don't like the fact that the people behind the intiative assumed that we are all so stupid that we'd vote for a free college education (and btw - the numbers do NOT add up) for our kids and they'd slide the slot machines in without our knowing.
Now those two reasons I can agree with and understand. I don't buy the social ills point, as there are many more alcohol-dependent people than gambling-dependent and no one is suggesting outlawing alcohol. As a centrist (according to wholesaler's quiz ;)), I don't believe that's logical as it's hypocritical. But I can understand those two above points. Why hasn't Raceway proposed gambling in Toledo before? Are there local or state laws prohibiting it?
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 10:44 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
They would have to change our laws to allow gambling, from what I understand. I just don't feel this particular constitutional amendment is the way to do it.
I understand the people who don't support gambling from a social ills point but I think it is something that should be decided by the majority of voters. I'd just prefer that we had local control and that we be allowed to decide what type of gambling and where. It probably will really benefit Cleveland, especially when they get to have two casinos but I don't see the being limited to 3,500 slot machines at Raceway Park being a huge draw for our area.
posted by psyche777 at 11:10 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 03, 2006 #
If this vote was to truly legalize such gambling in Ohio, then after the measure passes, can any establishment put a slot machine in for their patrons? For example, in the 1980s, video games like Joust and Pac-Man were so popular that quickie marts were putting them in for us entertainment-starved teens to use. (Man o man, did we blow through a lot of quarters!) If this measure passes, can the quickie mart down the street put in a slot machine?
If not, then there IS a monopoly. A list of 9 firms is merely a form of cartel. We who oppose monopolies also oppose cartels (and all other exclusive syndicates).
The state has no business illegalizing gambling. This is true since you're perfectly free to feed money into a Dumbass Detector{tm}. (You put the money in, pull the lever, and it automatically goes {ping!} and says "you're a dumbass" ... for wasting your money on gambling.)
Similarly, the state has no business authorizing and enforcing a cartel for the purposes of gambling. The state's only moral role is to inspect and tax.
I gave the matter some thought, and reached my epiphany on it due to the splendid statements of Psyche (which she recounts above in more elegant prose). When I legalize something, I do NOT do it by handing power over it to some monopoly or cartel. If it's legal, then any consenting adult willing to invest in it should be authorized to do it. Even things like being a weapon merchant or medical doctor don't require that you be one of the cartel in order to qualify; instead, you have to undergo a licensing process.
Furthermore, Paddie's comments on this issue have been out-frickin'-standing. He's got his finger on the pulse of it. High taxation DOES lead to desperate acts. Even if you DO believe that the state should authorize a cartel, Paddie's right about where this will all end up, and we should pay close attention to his prediction.
I'm voting NO on this measure, and with great pleasure.
posted by GuestZero at 01:00 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
GuestZero said:
the state has no business authorizing and enforcing a cartel for the purposes of gambling.
The state isn't authorizing it. The voters would be.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 01:37 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
Oh! grow-up and smell the money. How many more ways can one say it's OK to bet on a Horse or Bingo or the Lottery.
posted by Attitude at 01:18 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
An issue approved or banned by the government is different than if it's approved or banned by the people.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 02:34 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
Feel free to vote for or against the measure. I've already said my piece on it.
But if it's voted down and you are on record of saying you wanted it voted down I don't want to hear any further casino talk when it applies to downtown development or any development as a matter of fact.
This is one step closer to getting gambling legalized and by voting it down you're giving the antigambling lobby more fodder from preventing it. At least a Yes vote tells the state politicians that "We want casino gambling." If this isn't passed or very narrowly defeated I doubt we'll see anything close to casino gambling again on our voting rolls for another decade or so.
posted by MikeyA at 03:39 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
I've held my nose and already voted for it. People should be allowed to gamble if they choose to. As others have said, I don't like it being wrapped in a phony education cloak by a few guys who are going to get rich.
posted by holland at 04:39 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
I agree with mikey, and holland. And maybe we're being cynical in thinking the college education is simply a ploy for our vote - maybe, just maybe, the powers that be really intend for that to happen. Whether it does, or doesn't remains to be seen. No, I wouldn't entrust my kids college education on the hope that the state will 'some day' pay for it in full - that's just not smart. You still save, plan, presume you'll be in debt with student loans to get your kid educated. If this works and the cash comes through to educate your kid - great. If not, you're no worse for the wear. Other than those citizens who pin all hopes on the state paying for college in the end for their kids - who's it hurt?
Mikey is right - a yes vote on slots will send a message we DO want casinos. A no vote - can bite us in the ass later on.
Uh,,,,,,,,,MONO - means ONE. Nine is NOT a monopoly. Why is this Liberterian guys attempt to deceive any worse than the campaign that promises college educations? Or, maybe he's just too stupid to know that "mono" means "One" - in that case, he's too stupid for me to take advice from.
posted by starling02 at 06:34 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
A yes vote won't do anything except allow slot gambling at Toledo Raceway Park, the other race tracks and allow Cleveland to have slots and two casinos.
This is a constitutional amendment to allow that not other gambling nor to let Toledo decide what it wants. For that the whole process would have to be done all over again.
A yes vote will allow those nine operations to gamble no one else. So, anyone who believes that this is some "starter step"? Must not have read the constitutional amendment in full.
As to Bill Peirce being "stupid"? I'd suggest taking a look at the definition of the word "Monopoly":
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
posted by psyche777 at 08:23 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 04, 2006 #
T++ said: “The state isn't authorizing it. The voters would be.”
Oh, really? So, if the issue passes, and I put a slot machine in my quickie mart, I can expect the voters to stop me -- and NOT a policeman or other government enforcement official?
Don't waffle this issue with semantics. When I say "the state has no business banning or authorizing" something or another, then it only stands to reason that We The People lack the same rights to ban or authorize something through electoral action. Under the cultural heritage of the United States of America, we (citizens and states) have no rights whatsoever to ban or authorize cartels for what we have always had the natural rights to do. We have the rights to keep and bear arms since we've always had the natural right to self-defense. Similarly, we have the right to gamble since we have the the natural right to do with our money as we choose. The right to gamble is also present from the natural right to form contracts with other citizens as we please.
Ohio is merely playing the faux-moral game that continues to operate under the assumption that gambling is a sin that we have the right and/or obligation to ban. We are at liberty to sin -- that's the heart of what it means to be free! Under our natural rights, gambling should be legal, PERIOD. You don't take baby steps or otherwise negotiate to have your fucking rights -- YOU TAKE AND HOLD THEM BY FORCE.
posted by GuestZero at 04:48 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
I'm voting no on this. The campaign barely manages to disclose that this is a gambling initiative.
They made it about higher education for our kids and if you research this issue the math that they're offering up doesn't hold water.
I fell for this with the State Lotto which turned out to be one of the biggest - no scratch that - the BIGGEST con I have ever observed. Same thing - it's for the kids, it'll generate this great amount of money.
Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
If these folks want to have a legitimate conversation about bringing slots into Ohio - they should have done that. I'd be willing to have that discussion. But this was sleight of hand and outright lying at times.
I say vote no and don't reward that kind of behavior. Make 'em come back later, try again and talk to us like we are smart enough to see through cheap tricks. 'Cause we are.
posted by katie82640 at 06:09 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 05, 2006 #
GZ if you are so passionate about local quickie marts having slot machines you are most certainly free to try to rally the quickie mart owners and raise the signatures to get it on the next ballot just as this group did. Maybe if this passes your measure would be just as inclined to pass.
I doubt you're that passionate about it and rather than using your freedom to gain even more freedom you seem inclined to just complain about those who do.
I mean say what I do about the smoking ban people we on here all called for them to put up something that the voters could vote on. They did. I at least can respect them for that.
posted by MikeyA at 08:11 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
I have one main reason for voting no on this Issue, and a handful of others: This is not the type of issue that should be placed in the CONSTITUTION. It drives me insane to think that slot machines, smoking, and minimum wage would be given the same importance as free speech and the right to vote.
The Constitution (whether it is state or federal) should not be used as a catch-all for stupid ballot initiatives of any type. I am not saying that the Issues are wrong, in general, but they should have been run as plain-old, vanilla statutes, not amendments to the Constitution.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 01:45 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
Also, keep in mind that, once in the Constitution, the legislature cannot write any law that disagrees. So, if you wanted to expand the gambling to more than just the horse tracks, you would have to repeal and amend the Constitution again.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 01:48 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
Mikey, the quickie mart owners (as with any establishment) should not have to rally to defend their natural right to emplace gambling devices to be used by consenting adults. Get a clue. A moral society would not allow the base of law to be under constant attack from special interests looking to deny a few more natural rights.
My passion is in the defense of natural liberty and I speak to re-infect the American Mind with the viewpoint. Dismiss that, Sir!
posted by GuestZero at 02:08 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
MoreThanRhetoric said: "This is not the type of issue that should be placed in the CONSTITUTION."
But that's how we got the Ohio Lottery.
"The Ohio Lottery Commission was created in May 1973 by a voter-approved constitutional amendment."
And just like Learn and Earn, the Ohio Lottery is all about the kids.
"Since 1974, the Lottery has provided more than $14.5 billion to public education. Annually, we provide about 4.5 percent of the funding needed for public education."
psyche777 said: "I don't think our Constitution for the State of Ohio should be used to benefit several gambling owners."
Do Ohio Lottery ticket sales directly or indirectly benefit the businesses that sell those tickets?
"Today, the Ohio Lottery Commission offers customers a wide variety of instant games and on-line games to play at about 8,900 licensed retailer locations across the state."
Taft and Voinvoich are campaigning against Learn and Earn because they know they have failed miserably to address the issue of college funding. If they and other orgs were proposing the elimination of the Ohio Lottery in addition to campaigning against Learn and Earn, then I'd give the Issue 3 opposition more relevance.
Ohio's failure to tackle college funding has given birth to the Learn and Earn crowd. Sadly, Issue 3 is the best idea to make it to the voters. But don't blame the creators of Learn and Earn. Blame the politicians and the public for not doing anything about college funding over the past 10 to 15 years.
If gambling addiction problems or the "social ills" are reasons for not supporting Issue 3, then, once again, the Ohio Lottery needs to be eliminated. Where are the people demanding the Ohio Lottery be trashed?
July 19, 2006 Toledo Free Press story titled Ohio Lottery rides record-setting sales growth.
"With increasing popularity comes a concern of increased gambling addiction. Speed of play factors into gambling addiction, and instant tickets, like slot machines, offer a quick play."
"Gambling awareness groups have worked with lotteries to raise awareness. The Ohio Lottery Web site links to counseling services."
"Whyte also identified underage gambling as a developing concern. According to a 1999 Harvard Medical School survey, 30 percent of teens under 18 reported playing the lottery in the past year. Whyte agrees with the Ohio Lottery Web site statement that the earlier someone begins gambling, the more likely a problem develops."
"Whyte called it “utterly irresponsible” for instant tickets to be provided through unsupervised vending machines, which could occur in Ohio stores. Unlike the disappearance of cigarette vending machines, lottery ticket machines persist."
Slot machines, instant tickets, what's the difference, besides the fact that instant tickets are available in more locations and are easier for anyone to play and get addicted to? Gamblers who live a long distance from one of the Learn and Earn slot machine sites will still find it easier to travel to their local convenience store or bar for some scratch off tickets.
When speaking about gambling problems, instant lottery tickets are probably worse for the public than slot machines.
posted by jr at 03:11 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
jr:
I would not have voted for the Lottery had I been eligible at the time. Unfortunately, I was 3 yrs old.
And, strangely, your rationale doesn't sway me. Just because we made a mistake back then doesn't mean we should repeat it. Lotteries, slot machines, smoking are not Constitutional issues. The underlying principle might be correct, but the Issue should have been written as a regular statute, not an amendment.
Putting this kind of garbage on the Constitution only serves to lessen its importance.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 07:39 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
"Just because we made a mistake back then doesn't mean we should repeat it."
Ohioans have already repeated this garbage. Two years ago, remember? In 2004, Ohioans voted to ammend the state constitution to define marriage. Defining marriage, is that a good use for the state constitution? Of course not. So the silly games continue.
posted by jr at 09:44 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 06, 2006 #
So politicians don't make laws that specific groups want - so these groups turn to ballot initiatives/constitutional amendments as the way to accomplish a goal that can't be achieved (or achieved quickly) through their representatives.
Some special interest groups turn to courts, as well...
I expect that we'll have more of this in the future.
And I don't think that such things should be done as constitutional amendments, either.
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:03 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 07, 2006 #
Mikey, the quickie mart owners (as with any establishment) should not have to rally to defend their natural right to emplace gambling devices to be used by consenting adults. Get a clue. A moral society would not allow the base of law to be under constant attack from special interests looking to deny a few more natural rights.
My passion is in the defense of natural liberty and I speak to re-infect the American Mind with the viewpoint. Dismiss that, Sir!
GZ, while as a whole I do support gambling in our state I don't feel EVERYONE should be allowed to hold an institution of gaming. This opens the door for the maffia and criminals to take over the franchise and skewer the odds in their favor.
Now if any group wants to open a gambling institution then put it on a ballot and let the people decide. This is what the supports of Issue 3 are doing. I'm not going to vote it down because it doesn't open up gambling as a free enterprise to everyone. Instead I want that regulated by us the voters. We should be able to decide who can benefit from legallized gambling.
We need to keep this decision in the voters hands and away from the politicians.
posted by MikeyA at 11:55 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 07, 2006 #
The voters didn't like this one. I suspect it had alot more to do with the initiative itself vs. the gambling issue. They should have been honest about wanting to bring slots in rather than appealing to our concern over our childrens' academic opportunities.
A really dirty trick - I'm glad it didn't pay off for them.
posted by katie82640 at 09:45 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Well, Mikey, that's about a sound explanation of a rational position that I've heard recently. It's not my position, alas. :^)
posted by GuestZero at 07:09 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
