"It's THEIR money to risk. If they want to risk it, let them.
I can't argue with "they will do this" because you don't know and neither do I. Maybe they'll spend it, or maybe this is a measure to decrease the deficit.…"
"Hi David,
I agree that people like you (and me) who are not prone to or interested in gambling will probably not be tempted by expanding the gambling options that already exist. However, the purpose behind expanding gambling is to give those who…"
"Two problems with your logic, Jay.
1) Not more gaming options, just expanding on what they have...if someone wants to gamble, they are going to. I'm not the gambling type, and some people aren't...but putting in more slots isn't…"
"Yes, if people are prone to do dangerous things, there is not a lot we can do to stop them. On the other hand, the state shouldn't be tempting them by putting more gaming options out there, and then justifying it by also adding social services…"
If the facts added up to say more gambling equals more crime, I would say this method of increasing revenue is risky, but the facts just aren't there. NH could use the money, and why not? If we are afraid of social status changed or being the second-most slot saturated state, we need to relax. We can't regulate the lives of people. If they want to do dangerous things, they will do it. Having a few less slot machines is not going to make stupid people smart.