Pennsylvania Video Poker Debate

The Philadelphia Inquirer  offered its opinion on Gov. Ed Rendell's proposal to legalize barroom video poker machines the other day. By way of summary, the paper opposes the idea, because:

• "expanding gambling to every nook and cranny in the state will further prey on the poor and elderly" & increase problem gambling
• not appropriate to fund tuition bills "on the backs of gambling's marks"
• the PA Gaming Control Board has not demonstrated competence to run the system
• there would still be illegal machines anyways
• an expensive new enforcement "bureaucracy"

In short, I disagree with the main thrust of the editorial, though I do think it makes some valid points.  I'm much more on the side of the 62% of Pennsylvanians who support the governor's idea, according to this new Qunnipiac poll.  The proposal is logical because people play these games anyways, they aren't going away and I'm guessing that the majority identified by the poll simply recognizes this reality. 

As for the editorial's opposition points noted above, here's my simplified reaction:

• This kind of gambling appears already to be in every "nook and cranny" of the keystone state -- why not reap some benefits from it for college students?
• I don't agree that "poor and elderly" are disproportionately victimized by these operations-- by and large they're not playing these machines in any greater numbers & if this is your logic, then state lotteries should be banned
• Increased problem gambling is a concern on this for sure, but the small percentage of gamblers who are problem gamblers shouldn't be held oppose a recreational outlet for everybody else (& good revenue generator for small businesses, etc.) .  However, I do support the use of some of the new revenue (maybe just 1%) for expanded problem gambling programs, especially those that target young people, the highest-risk demographic category
• The editorial is pretty much on-target with its judgment of the Gaming Control Board, but the governor's proposal calls for the Dept. of Revenue to regulate the system, not the GCB
• An effective regulatory system can be established and paid for with the revenues themselves, thus not costing taxpayers anything
• there may be some proprietors that skirt the system and operate illegally, but I'm guessing that most will opt in, and the revenue-funded enforcement officers will have new means to go after them

Interesting debate setting up in PA:  to me this is really a win-win for the the state and its residents, with the above points taken into account.  However, this is far from a done deal -- will be interesting to see how things go, how the plan may be modified, adapted, etc. in coming months.