freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. i don't have any moral issues vs. gambling and galveston could use the shot in the arm. the island has always been a place of unrealized potential.
I didn't say I agreed with them. Someone asked for one good reason to oppose the legislation. Religious belief is a good reason to oppose the legislation. Why have you found the need to be so prickish in this thread?
If Galvie gets gambling I can see it now... People in Houston at the bar, its 2am and closing, oh geez lets drunk drive to Galvie and gamble yipee. Someones gonna die
I don't want to get into an extended debate about the prohibition of drugs in a thread about the prohibition of gambling. How does your philosophy on regulation apply to the gambling question? Will people refrain from gambling for its inherent danger the way they might refrain from cocaine?
What's the difference between investing in stocks vs. gambling in a casino? They are not too different if you ask me...they are both very addictive and can wipe you out if you are stupid/unlucky...IMO, the only thing that's holding it back for years are Lousiana lobbiest.
Someone posted that if they put casino's here, it won't be like Vegas...or that they will be filled with old people. That sounds like the casinos in LA to me, and they get plenty of business. I don't think the goal is to be the casino capital of the world. The goal is to stop having folks take all their money across the border East....
That was an honest question. What was prick about it? The way you said it made it sound like the religious lobby had a *point*, instead of just an opinion. I see where you were going though, and I apologize if it came off rude.
JV, they use that argument because it is the truth. I have a relative who spent decades going to Vegas a couple of times a year with her husband, a terrific guy. They never had a "gambling problem," losing what they considered worth losing, relative to the fun they had, and sometimes coming out ahead. Every so often, my parents went with them, although they were more intersted in the entertainment in Vegas (they saw Sinatra, etc. Where else could they have done that?). As I said earlier, when they were younger, they went to the Balinese Room at Galveston, where the tables were designed to flip over and turn into the "floor" at a moments notice. They danced to live big bands, gambled, ate seafood, and just had a gas. After my relative's husband passed away, my relative was depressed. After a few years, a "friend" hooked her up with a regular poker game, the kind that go non-stop for a weekend. She ended up losing most of the money she intended to leave her children. Tragic? Of course, but my point is that the gambling is there, if people want to gamble, and far better that they do it in a casino, with some regulation, where the state is collecting tax dollars, then the alternative that damned near ruined my relative's life. Any of that sink in? None of this is black and white. Heck, I don't even gamble myself. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I just love Galveston and have been going there since I was old enough to walk. I know several people who have shops that sell antiques and collectables. My sister's shop is one of the only ones open at this time on the Strand. The economy is, for all practical purposes, dead. Galveston needs help. The administration hasn't said a damned word about the the second Great Galveston Disaster, and it ticks me off. Something needs to be done. This looks like the best alternative available.
Thank you, well said. I lot of people WONT "do it anyway" if it's illegal because it's much more of a hassle, riskier, etc. I guarantee if you add casinos here we will have more gamblers, and by extenstion, more gambling addicts who end up destroying their own lives.
What is the difference between a regulated casino and this one? They play non-stop in regulated casinos as well, and people throw away their lives with regulated gambling all the time. At least the alternative casino is harder to find.
I remember this argument before the lottery and parimutuel betting. I thought it was silly then, I think it's completely irrelevant now. It simply doesn't wash. If you think saving a trip to Louisiana is Texas having "less gamblers", you hardly understand the issue to begin with. The gamblers are here, they just don't have a convenient location to play games. Our society won't change if these folks save a road trip.
So then, allow me to understand this. You're concerned about people wasting their lives? Did you know a lot of people consider sports to be a vice? Are you equally concerned about these people "wasting" their lives?
I am talking about people who are not currently gamblers. You open a casino 10 minutes away, now it's a lot more convenient for a lot of people who never considered taking a road trip. To say that opening casinos here won't increase the number of gamblers seems silly to me. If that was true, that there is some fixed number of gamblers that doesn't change, then Louisiana and Vegas should get worried about any state opening casinos.
I am talking about people who become compulsive gambling addicts and LITERALLY destroy their lives. I don't have a problem with gambling per se. I gamble on occasion. I'm just not in favor of making it so available. And I'm certainly not in favor of building casinos for the purpose of government profit.
If a person isn't predisposed to gambling, it won't matter how many casinos are in close proximity. Do you think everyone in Nevada is a gambler?
Gambling will always be available to a gambler. Availability doesn't address the problem you are "concerned" with. Treat the cause, not the symptoms
And if someone is predisposed to having a gambling problem, but doesn't bother with the hassle of taking a road trip or flying across the country, then he may never have a gambling problem.
