For the past couple of weeks, the discussion of casinos in Massachusetts has been a hot topic in the news on campus. On Thursday night, the two sides of the issue met head to head in a student debate held in Higgins 300. As a culmination of the events held by the Boisi Center on gambling in Massachusetts, Tim Mooney, A&S '09, and Josh Darr, A&S '09, argued their cases for and against gambling.
While many of the previous events on campus surrounding this issue have been geared toward an older audience, this debate was meant to bring Boston College students into the conversation.
The debate was mediated by Kacey Seawell, LSOE '09, and had Mooney arguing for casinos and Darr against them. At the start of the event, two ballots were handed out to each audience member. Those sitting in the stadium seats of Higgins were then asked the question, "Is gambling good for Massachusetts?" and everyone was to circle "yes" or "no" on their first ballot. The debate then followed with convincing arguments on both sides. The questions addressed the economic benefits of casinos, the social costs to the community, the effect on the Massachusetts and Wampanoag Indian tribes, and lastly, the moral implications and repercussions of gaming. Both Mooney and Darr were well versed on the subject, but Mooney took a more practical approach while Darr, being a lifelong Massachusetts resident, had more personal attachment to the issue.
Mooney said there was no question of the value of casinos in Massachusetts and that "it would be hard to argue that the state wouldn't benefit." It was this economic advantage of gambling that drove most of Mooney's argument. Since the state has elected Deval Patrick as its governor, the state has to find a way to afford the increase in government spending that has been anticipated.
One way would be to raise taxes, but Mooney said in this day and age, that would be "political suicide." "The government is having a hard enough time 'staying in business,'" Mooney said. "The people expect certain things, but don't want to raise the taxes to pay for them." He therefore sees a solution to this with the introduction of casinos. Looking to Massachusetts' neighbor, Connecticut, as an example, Mooney believes that legalizing the building of these larger gaming facilities will significantly increase the annual income to the state. Currently many Massachusetts residents have to make the trek to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun, the two large casinos in Connecticut, to play the slots or a poker game. This is money that the state of Massachusetts is "losing out the back door to their southern neighbor," said Mooney. By introducing casinos, the spending would be kept within the state, he continued.
Darr did not agree that the economic value of the casinos was comparable to the social and moral implications that often go hand in hand with gambling. He calculated that the income from the gaming industry would only be about 2.1 percent of the tax revenue, and that in order to compete with Connecticut, Massachusetts would have to build a larger casino than Foxwoods, which is currently the world's largest casino. These slight economic benefits are not enough to validate the social and moral degradation of the state, Darr said.
Whereas Mooney argued that the casinos may help rebuild cities such as Springfield, Palmer, and Middleborough, the proposed cities to house the new gaming industry, Darr believes that the money made would go straight to the Patrick government spending plan and not to the betterment of these places. He also sees many of the negatives associated with the gaming industry being brought to Massachusetts with the introduction of casinos, such as a higher divorce rate, the destruction of family life, and an increase in compulsive gamblers. Also, Darr pointed out that gamblers are 60 percent more likely to carry a weapon than non-gamblers. It also "puts the youth at risk," added Darr. "If they are growing up in a gaming culture, they will be more likely to become gamblers themselves."
The morality of gambling was a big issue in the debate. Darr argued that the moral implications go against what many Americans hold to be valuable: the concept of work. "The American dream," Darr said, "is that every man can make it if they work hard. Gaming undermines that." He added on a more religious basis that "gambling encourages two of the seven deadly sins: greed and sloth."
Contradicting these concepts, Mooney believes that part of the American culture is the love for entertainment and risk taking, and gaming provides both to the people. If a person is making money, it should be up to him or her how to spend it. As for the religious opposition, Mooney brought up the legendary concept of Catholic bingo nights as fundraisers for many churches and private schools and the game of dreidel in the Jewish community.
Both Darr and Mooney made convincing arguments, although Mooney managed to sway a couple people according to the second voting of the audience after the debate had finished. By the conclusion of the night, these two men and the Boisi Center had at the least given those in attendance the information to think about the problem that is very close at hand for the students at BC.
Be the first to comment on this article!