Of all the ideas floating around this legislative session, it’s baffling that a proposal like a state-owned casino is actually being treated as a serious possibility.

Saturday, February 03, 2001

Of all the ideas floating around this legislative session, it’s baffling that a proposal like a state-owned casino is actually being treated as a serious possibility. Running a gambling racket hardly seems to fall among the functions of a responsible government.

To start with, there’s the obvious double standard: Gambling is illegal here, like in 47 other states – unless the government decides to try its hand? If the state wants to make gambling common practice, it should make it legal statewide, not just make an exception for itself. How are other gambling laws supposed to be taken seriously if the state runs its own casino?

A state gambling facility would surely take in some revenue, but at whose expense? Somebody who gambles away his paycheck in the slot machines? Most people can handle gambling without losing control, but many cannot. A progressive government should not encourage damaging habits so it can redistribute money from losing gamblers.

The only argument that advocates appear to be making is that Indian gambling has a monopoly on the gaming industry in Minnesota, and that shouldn’t be. Well, Northwest Airlines has a virtual monopoly on air service here; why isn’t the state starting up its own airline? At least that would help the taxpayers of the state. Even the much-maligned state-owned baseball stadium plan offers more benefit to the area – and baseball is a legal sport.

Whether its located in the Twin Cities, Mankato or anywhere else, a state-owned casino is a bad idea. Legislators ought to dump the idea in a hurry and start worrying about something important.