“Can a VLT ban actually work?”
Peter McKenna, For The Calgary Herald, Saturday, July 07, 2007
Gambling proponents and video lottery stakeholders maintain that a VLT ban will never work. For them, there is no sense thinking about it because it can’t be properly structured or effectively enforced, and addicts will always want their fix.
This sentiment was captured by the president and CEO of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, Michelle Carinci, when she spoke before the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Accounts Committee in January 2006. “Prohibition has never proven to have worked in any jurisdiction that we have looked at. . . . What prohibition does is it drives the activity underground. The activity will happen,” she declared.
South Carolina’s abolition of some 34,000 video poker machines in 2000 undermines Carinci’s claims. The tipping point for that state was the death of a newborn in a car on a sweltering summer day as the child’s mother played the VLTs for hours at a roadside casino.
The governor of North Carolina moved to ban an estimated 10,000 VLTs from his state as of July 1. He did so in part because of a flood of illegal machines that entered the state after being outlawed in South Carolina.
The real argument against a VLT ban is that it will work too well.
A ban will cut into the revenue stream of governments (and interested parties) and force them to look for monies elsewhere. It could also have a marginal impact in terms of job losses.
This expected financial hit is what really terrifies opponents. North Carolina’s revenue department is projecting a forfeiture of some $100 million annually and the potential loss of more than 1,700 jobs.
In North Carolina, law enforcement agencies joined church groups, the mental health community and citizens in calling for a ban.
The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association maintained they didn’t have enough resources to regulate the machines, which were supposed to pay out prizes worth no more than $10 in merchandise or store credit (when they were paying out significantly larger sums). With the ban, not only did they have one less thing to worry about from a policing standpoint, but they wouldn’t have to involve themselves in time-consuming and costly investigations of illegal payouts.
The sheriffs said illegal activities often accompanied improper operations, including increased political corruption and crime. They viewed the ban as a critical step in reducing petty theft, fraud, embezzlement and even domestic violence.
Clearly, the argument of those who say a ban is unenforceable is severely weakened when the ones who would be responsible for implementing it endorse it.
South Carolina police have had no problem enforcing their ban as long as they have in place guidelines, penalties, sufficient staff and the requisite political backing of legislators.
The real problem with a ban is politicians’ utter lack of will and commitment.
The Alberta government should stop listening to the Gaming and Liquor Commission and do what is best for Albertans. Politicians need to stop fiddling with prevalence studies, responsible gambling gimmicks and marginal reductions in the numbers of machines, and put out the VLT fire with a ban on these insidious machines.
Peter McKenna is an associate professor of political studies at the University of Prince Edward Island. he is completing a book on the politics of VLTs in Atlantic Canada.
