There's nothing quite like cresting the mountains on the way north and seeing Vegas, with all of its color, style and architectural majesty. Eventually, though, you leave, and at the same time leave behind all of the pros and cons that come with being in a state of legalized gambling. Drive back through Arizona and all the glitter and glamour associated with gambling is gone — at least for now.
With the emergence of propositions 200, 201 and 202, however, we will have the opportunity to change the appearance of our state and the way in which gambling affects our lives. Propositions 200 and 202, propound by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, have to do with gambling on the reservation.
Specifically, there is talk of allowing the Indian casinos to have more slot machines and fewer limitations on what styles of gambling are allowed, as well as the number of casinos that can operate at a given time (22 are currently operating, the propositions would allow 63). These would allot the state up to $134 million annually as opposed to $0 right now.
Proposition 201, put forth by the Arizona Racetrack Alliance, conversely suggests that the state's racetracks should have the option of slot machines within their facilities, and not have gambling be the right solely of the Indian tribes. If this one passes, it could allot up to $332 million annually.
If any one of these propositions go through, we will inevitably see more spinning fruits, little black bars and the incessant "ding ding ding" noise and will likely cause the sale of BC Powder to rise. But the possible effect on anyone who isn't a patron of the tracks or the casinos is minimal — for now.
It is more than probable, though, that businesses and entrepreneurs will sue the state for the right to open casino gambling outside of the tracks, since, after it leaves the reservation, it might as well be statewide. I would hate to see a re-enactment of what happened to Montana, where the state raised the price of the beer/liquor license so high that the only way to run a bar and make ends meet was to have a wall lined with dinging slot machines waiting for quarters to eat.
There are moral issues at play as well. Similarly, Tennessee is fighting with whether or not to allow the lottery. (They have no state tax, yet boast the highest sales tax in all of America; they have comparable financial issues to worry about.) There, the Rev. Donald McCulley wants to defeat the appeal on the grounds that such an institution is morally and ethically unsound.
In Arizona, you can visit the www.itsabaddeal.com and see how some people want to have all three propositions voted down on similar grounds. They share the financial statistics and give some reasons why they're a bad idea (pointing to gambling's ties to depression, social problems and suicide). The main argument seems to be religious, though, and that's where they lose people. The church saying gambling is corrupt and simply money-hungry is a bit like Enron saying Martha Stewart has poor financial practices.
The fundamental problem is that in any argument you must propose a solution, and the groups opposed to these propositions have failed to do so. People like Rev. McCulley can hope to play catcher in the rye all they want, but unless they make evident some other means of generating our needed revenue, they do nothing but voice their opinion.
We are in debt, mind you, and money from casinos is just as good as from anywhere else. Regarding these propositions, unfortunately, we will not receive our fair share. Other states, such as New York, apportion as much as 25 percent of revenue back to the state for programs that aid education and the state's deficit. Prop 200 and 202, however, offer as little as 1percent, and that is not considering the fact that Indian casino revenue would not be public domain.
Prop 201 gives more money and offers daily reports but entails the "ding ding ding" on the dance floor. These propositions are not going to be implemented for a measly five years (as with other states), but the legislation is supposed to stay on the books for as long as 40 years.
So, in the spirit of presenting a good argument, I propose a solution — shoot them all down like the line of ducks at a carnie's scam stand. By voting them down, Arizonans can force the Indian Tribes and the Racing Alliance to come up with something better than 1 percent for 40 years. The one that will give us the most money, 201, will be passed by the Arizona Legislature even if it's defeated by the vote anyway. It's kind of nice to see the gamers drop a dime or two for once, maybe they'll come up with something better for us in the meantime.
Darren Todd is an English literature junior. Reach him at lawrence.todd@asu.edu.
