• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Indiana's gambling gall

Ah, the Indiana welcome mat is out, and so many people undoubedly have so many wonderful memories of Hoosier hospitality. First, let's consider the case of Bryan Northern, who . . .

. . . had the world at his ?ngertips three years ago as a walk-on guard who won a full scholarship at basketball powerhouse University of Louisville.

He dreamed of deadeye jump shots, March Madness, even a pro career.

But the 6-foot-tall Northern also had a hidden problem: an addiction to gambling. Caesars Indiana, the riverboat casino across the Ohio from Louisville, had been his happy hangout since high school —and his scourge. A run of lousy luck found him short of money and in trouble with the police.

Now 23 and a college dropout, Northern was sentenced on March 6 to ?ve years probation for trying to cash stolen checks in Kentucky to pay for his gambling habit. He still faces burglary charges in Indiana, and a possible prison term.

Then, there is the experience of Jim Chesser, 55, a former Louisville bus driver, who . . .

. . . jokes that he was “born on a card table, raised on a racetrack” because of his parents' love of bingo halls and horses. So when Casino Aztar opened in Evansville, Ind., in 1995, it was only natural he'd be a frequent patron.

“That's when my recreational gambling crossed that invisible line to irresponsible, uncontrolled, compulsive gambling,” Chesser said.

The dependency got so bad, he recalled, that he once stole $50 from his 16-year-old stepdaughter and blamed it on his 14-year-old stepson.

I've had a vice or two in my life, and whatever misery any of them might have caused me was of my own making. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who throw themselves on the mercy of public opinion and expect some state program to bail them out. And I don't even mind if the state makes money on vice -- it's a lot better for the larger society than taxing our virtues. But for the state to not only expolit such vices but actually encourage them, preying on human weakness, is just despicable. The state lottery is the absoulte worst, since that is a state operation top to bottom and puts the government in the position of trying to make bigger gamblers of its citizens. The state-sanctioned casinos are a little better, since the government is only making possible the mechanism of misery that others will run -- but only a little better.

I heard an ad on the radio this morning trying to lure Fort Wayne residents to one of the northwest-area casinos. It featured a woman complaining about new braces for the kids and other money problems, then a male voice talking about a great giveaway drawing the casino had coming up that could really smooth the road for someone. Then, the tag line: If you have a gambling problem, call . . .

And then the state has the gall to go after the illegal Cherry Masters, removing the temptation for a bunch of grizzled military veterans to go down the path of ruin and destruction. The state has squandered its moral authority over gambling, and has no credibility in lecturing us about any issue of law and punishment.

Posted in: Hoosier lore

Comments

Mitchell
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 6:45am

I think you have missed the point about the Cherry Masters. It's not so much the state protecting our morals as getting rid of competition.

Leo Morris
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 6:59am

Oh, no, I get the point. The state is acting like an organized-crime family. Morality is the state's argument. And the disconnect between what they say and what they do is what is breeding so much disrespect for the very concept of law.

mark
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 11:05am

I agree with all your comments about the state and gambling. However, I think your afternnon editorial squandered your own credibility on such issues. This is, after all, the same state government that you urge launch "every little initiative" as "part of an overall assault on bad habits."

Assuming (which I do not) that attacking our neighbors' bad habits is an appropriate (and undoubtedly endless) task for government, what makes you think our present structures, or any that we have had in the last 50 years, will do this job well? The concern the state shows for our welfare with our gambling laws? The success we have had in NOT reducing smoking? Our not-worthy-of acclaim jobs creation programs? Our success in getting our best and brightest young people to flee the state shortly after a subsidized education at our state universities? Our exemplary environmental record?

I think you are just a curmudgeon that wants the state to force people to live their lives the way you think they should.

Leo Morris
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 11:54am

1. The state has a legitimate role to play in public health policy. That doesn't mean it should do all the things it can do or that it will do them well. Education can be most valuable, for example, and "taxing sin" has a long history.

2. That is not incompatible with people deciding how to live their own lives and accepting the consequences. The government gets the word out, even tries to set policies that can influence behavior. That behavior is still up to each individual (and I don't really give a rip what it is as long as you don't pass out on my front porch).

3. What the @#$%^ is wrong with being a curmudgeon?

mark
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 12:39pm

Some of my favorite people are curmudgeons, but not the ones slowly embracing a nanny state so long as it is their kind of nanny. Seriously, you and the NS have really let me down with your uncritical acceptance of some really outrageous assertions, so long as those assertions don't gore your ox.

For example, your editors have, I think, been asleep at the wheel on this "Crawford smoke study." Yesterday you casually reported that nicotine, apparently the only substane tested for in the Crawford boondoggle, is a "carcinogen". Did our world famous oncologist tell you that? Google that proposition and see what you come up with. Lots of carcinogens in tobacco smoke (without consideration of dose and length of exposure), but nicotine ain't one of 'em. Prove me wrong, and I'll treat to an IOB (Indiana Obesity Breakfast) in the carcinogen free Cindy's diner.

Then, in your editorial today, how do you let this pass: "The results found... none [no nicotine] in the city's non-smoking sections" and , quoting the infallible doctor "I hope the study encourages City Council to tighten our existing laws..." I know you're a bright guy so I have to assume you choose not to ask the obvious questions or make the obvious point. Why not?

By the time they come for your vices, I'll be long gone.....

Quantcast