Gambling goes national -- is that a good thing?

My, have public attitudes toward gambling changed during my lifetime (62 years).

I can remember when New Jersey became the second state to legalize casino gambling, and only in Atlantic City, not a major population center.

Then Indian gaming took off, and other states began legalization. Now, just about every state has some form of legalized gambling. The exceptions are Hawaii (a major source of customers for Las Vegas casinos) and Utah, which borders Nevada.

Gambling was promoted as a way to boost local economies, increase tax revenues and provide relatively well-paying jobs.

Now, the latecomers to the game are playing defense. According to my brother who lives in New York, the industry's argument in that state was not that gambling would provide a huge boost, but that establishing casinos in New York would keep money and jobs in that state that were going to neighborhing states and Canada.

In the 21st century the United States has entered a new era concerning gambling. It is no longer a scarce commodity. Is this a good thing?

I would say yes and no. But mostly no.

First the yes part: Gambling has helped the economies of many states, cities and Indian tribes. The economy of Las Vegas, where I live, is still based almost wholly on gaming and related industries. Tunica, Mississippi, was part of one of the poorest, most backward regions of the country before gambling arrived. Atlantic City never realized the revival it had hoped for, but gambling has provided many good jobs for people living in towns along the Jersey Shore.

But in recent years gambling has become an unstable industry and more jurisdictions allowed it. Atlantic City went into decline as Pennslyvania legalized casinos in the Philadelphia area. Reno has suffered from competition from California.

An industry that traditionally thrived because of scarcity is now operating in an environment of competition and, in some cases, oversupply of its product. At the same time, it is having trouble attracting younger customers -- a combination that can lead only to disaster for some operators. As we have seen with Atlantic City, contraction of gambling centers can and will happen.

I believe the more recent expansion of gambling has been due mostly to one factor: anti-tax sentiment. Gambling is seen as a form of voluntary taxation. Politicians get more money to work with, without rasing taxes and losing votes.

As noted concerning New York, this is no longer likely to work in many areas.

I believe in legalized gambling, just about everywhere. But it seeing it as a cash cow or engine of economic development isn't realistic.

So why should casinos be allowed? For one thing, people will gamble anyway. Legalization offers a degree of protection to gamblers and casino operators.

For those who can gamble responsibly, its a legitimate form of enteratainment. For those with certain disabilities, gambling may be one of the few recreational activities they can participate in fully. For those who work odd schedules, most casinos are open 24 hours a day. And casinos are among the few entertainment venues to which people can feel comfortable going by themselves.

On the negative side, gambling is not a productive activity (except for the miniscule number of professional gamblers). Banging away at a slot machine is not good excercise, physically or mentally. Even though very few gamblers are considered addicted, many spend more time and money in casinos than is good for them or their families.

As someone who as observed gamblers for a decade, I believe most of them would be smarter, healthier and happier if they spent some of their gambling time doing just about anything else.