Two Western Maryland senators, George Edwards and Don Munson, are about to break their word to their caucus colleagues and vote in favor of Governorn O'Malley's slots scheme in this session.

Regardless of your views on slots there are two key facts here. First, these two gentlemen gave their word that they would oppose slots in the special session. Second, without the passage of slots in the special session we will see fewer and smaller tax increases as there will be no cover for either the governor or the majority party.

Drop them a line and tell them not to cooperate in inflicting the largest and most regressive package of tax increases in Maryland history on us.

I'm glad they have finally seen the light and realize the increased income that slots will bring to the state.

I don't see it so much as "breaking their word" as I do with it as adjusting to varying problems.

It's about time that we at least attempt to keep some of the millions of dollars that are leaving the state and going to the WV and PA slots.

Slots, yes. Budget cuts, yes. More taxes, more fees, NO!

Agree, we all adjust, and alter opinions as new information becomes avaliable. That is life.

I also think its a reality check. One can argue a good fight that slots should not come to Maryland. But they are basically here, just the income is going to WVa or Pa. It would be a different issue if slots were not next door to Maryland. Since slots are down the road, it makes sense to keep some of the money in Maryland. The same Maryland citizens going down the road to WVa., would be playing slots in Maryland if they were here. Agree, its not an issue of breaking their word but adjusting to varying financial outlooks or problems, along with new information.

Folks, allow me to play the devil's advocate. Please don't be offended but please do think about these scenarios. Please also keep in mind that I'm not a religious fanatic, or someone you'd typically envision as a radical right-wing nut. I'm just a normal guy who tries to think things out from various angles with a common sense approach before making a decision.

Two Representatives who've vowed to uphold what (appears to be) their constituent's wishes have seemed to flip-flop. Please keep in mind that these men as well as EVERY elected official is sworn to represent their constituent's wishes not their own or their personal opinions. I'm not aware of any great shift in the local opinion or a public outcry for supporting slots since Munson & Edwards took their original stance. Are we advocating turning our elected officials loose without constituent oversight?

The general opinion of most slots supporters I've spoken to is that they do not personally care and do not intend to play but see it as money that's going elsewhere. The "we ought to get our share" philosophy. Keep in mind this is organized gambling. It's one of the things we decided at some point was bad and we didn't want to allow into our society. Yes, attitudes and community standards do change. Allowing the least offensive of a bad behavior also tends to lead to desensitizing one's standards in respect to more offensive behaviors. The "wild west" philosophy that allowed the creation of modern Las Vegas arguably started this trend. It took years but other jurisdictions, most notably Atlantic City NJ decided to capitalize on the cash cow. We also saw the resurrection of "riverboat gambling" supposedly outside the jurisdictions of southern and mid-western states and the progression continued. Then we saw gaming on tribal lands and the influx marched on into mainstream society. The money at stake is HUGE. It is usually justified to the fence sitters by the state's share being used to prop up public programs or projects and being "donated" to charity as with our very own tip jars. However not all of the money goes to these deserving programs. There are still enormous profits going somewhere else. There wouldn't be any incentive to the private companies running the elaborate casinos if not! Now anyone who knows me knows I'm a strong supporter of private business. I begin to get juberous when the riches come from some get rich quick scheme though and after all, isn't that the allure of gambling in any form is, turning a little money into a lot without real effort? And for the curious, no I make no distinction between casinos or the state lotto.

While there are unquestionably many people taking their money out of state to gamble it away, is that really all the justification we need to acquiesce to something just as unquestionably wrong from a moral standpoint? There are also millions of dollars being spent on drugs, dog fighting and all sorts of things we otherwise oppose as a moral society. Are we willing to surrender our principals for cash?

Also keep in mind that there really is only so much gambling revenue to be had. It may seem unlimited at present but then the places it can be engaged are presently limited. Should every state allow slot machines the old argument about money leaving the state will be void, as will the prospect of attracting that from outside the state. Further, with MD's more restrictive laws on things that go hand in hand with gambling - such as smoking while you engage in it - will surely put a damper on attracting such out of state business. Do we now back-peddle on that one to?

Gambling is additive. It's as destructive as alcoholism, or drug addiction. The manna from heaven aspect draws unsavory types. Are we willing to accept this possibility? What's next? Table games as proposed and narrowly defeated in WV. Maybe sports books? OTB like PA? How about marijuana, its not as bad as heroin? We could tax it at twice the rate as cigarettes and pay for all sorts of things. Anyone for prostitution? It'd make a great profession for all those high school drop outs...

Far fetched? Maybe, maybe not. The naysayers and the "all it's just slots..." crowd will snicker at such ideas but such societal progressions take YEARS but are typically justified but what's already been allowed. The real question isn't whether we're ready to accept organized gambling but whether we're ready to admit that our society has degraded to the point that such vices no are longer offensive. Wouldn't a three story adult book store go nice in the Shindle & Rohrer building across from the MD. Theater?

cliffnotes?



however, i hardly think that slots indicate the degradation of our society to the tune of pornography etc.

i'm not sure how slots are considered a vice?

sure some people gamble way too much, but that puts the vice on THEM.

like alcohol. alcohol is not a "vice". when consumed responsibly, it can be enjoyed by legal adults without incident. when people begin to abuse it, however, that is where the problem lies.

if you're an alcoholic, do not go into a bar. if you're a compulsive gambler, do not go check out the slots.

everyone else, enjoy.

i say if it saves my taxes from going up , then its a good thing.im tired of paying for everything,

How many other states allow drugs and dog fighting?

This state is about as liberal as they come, so if this is wrong from a moral standpoint I guess it would depend on who's morals you're talking about.

Christi (may I call you Christi?) I normally enjoy your posts but I'm a bit mystified here. Liquor isn't a vice? Gambling isn't a vice? Uh, maybe you should check the dictionary. My old Random House describes it as "an immoral habit or practice..." While I agree that liquor or any number of other things can be relatively harmless within reason (yes, I do drink - responsibly) we then leave it to the individual (as it should be) to determine what's reasonable. How often does THAT fail?
The argument for "responsible use" can be made regarding anything potentially dangerous when misused. The real argument though is our collective decision on what we consider to be "immoral."

[EDIT: I do confess to using the term "vice" in a broader sense, as it's used in the legislature in reference to "vice taxes" i.e.; liquor and tobacco.]

As for the funding benefits... yeah, I can see that to. I personally put this one on a par with making a deal with the devil though. Does tapping the potential of slots justify irresponsible spending habits by the State government? Do you really think that averting this crisis will keep them from eventually putting us in another pickle where we're faced with doing something previously un-done to take advantage of the potential revenue? You can bet somewhere in the potential slots parlor owners is a big political contributor. Pessimistic? You bet!

There you go! Udmas got the brass ring, my point exactly. The original post was in regard to the changed positions of two legislators. Two men who made their (original) decisions based on constituent input. That is to say the morals of the people they represent. They have now decided to ignore that input and feed us what THEY have decided is best for us.

Pardon me folks. Personally, I don't care about slots either. I have my own principals and recognize my own limits just as you do. Let's hope more of our fellow citizens can do the same.

Now let's tackle some other controversy before I have to leave again...

Lived in Vegas for years. Worked in probation dept. and in social services. So, I have seen the dark side. There are people with addictive personalities, and those who are not affected. That is true all over. Working in probation I was exposed to the seedier side, but still maintained a good lifestyle for my family. In my case the evils of Vegas did not seep into my familylife. None of us drank, gambled, or smoked and it was right there. The Strip was a lot more visible than the isolated casino in WVa.

Do not really care about slots. Maybe I got satiated. Just can not get excited. Do not see it as an automatic negative. I do believe in individual responsibility and regulation. That is how I roll, taking individual responsibility. And for those that can't, there should be stiff regulations.

As far as the representatives not representing us, I am part of the "us". And I have no problem with slots, so they are representing me. Again, I am just luke warm on the issue. Its exactly like the gun discussion. One is not going to budge on what they think. You are either pro or con. Or perhaps like me, I am not bothered by it, as long as it is legal and regulated.

Maryland legislators take a lot longer than Nevada legislators to discuss and pass anything. Then they appeal or withdraw motions. In Nevada it is more to the point. They do study the issue, then discuss, and vote, but in a timely fashion. Doubt I will be alive by the time Md votes on slots and it sticks.

Not trying to be negative, just not feeling it. Again, I appreciate and value all points to the discussion. I like the input.
Believe me, the problems in Vegas are further reaching than slots. It is a unique culture on many levels. Different from Maryland. I see ups and downs with slots, but I also believe Marylanders are capable of meeting the challenges. Some will play the slots, some won't. It will not be the deciding factor in the decay of Wash Co.

Thanks for the discussion, has got me thinking, appreciate all the views.

no. please do not. i dont know why you would, anyway, as that is not my name.



an object cannot be a vice. liquor cannot be a vice. ABUSE of it can be.. gambling in itself is not a vice, but people can easily turn it into one. again ABUSE. not using it to its intended means, which is for recreational purposes by responsible parties. anything in excess can be a vice.

what about the people who would enjoy slots the way they are intended to be? once in a while, night out, etc... ? i personally would not want to drive to charles town to put some quarters in a machine.

by your logic, if bringing in slots would be a "vice" so you say, then arent bars one too? should we get rid of bars because alcoholics and kids with fake id's may go there?

doesnt make much sense to me...

to reciprocate your respect for me i must say that usually i see [basically] along the same lines as you, and i'm not trying to be obstinate, i just think that since these slots will be a nice addition for those who like that sort of thing. i personally do not, but hey, to each his own, so long as he can be responsible.

i will say that in the same way bar tenders have the right to refuse you service, i would like to see some sort of stipulation where a person could only partake of the glorious slots say, so many times per week? but i suppose that would be impossible.

do we know what sort of regulations WILL be in effect?

so to wrap it up... until i know more, i'm not about to blame the degradation of society on bars and slot machines. instead i will continue to blame it on irresponsible individuals and people who cannot control their impulses enough to behave themselves as adults.

These same people who, in the absence of bars, slot machines, alcohol, tobacco, prostitutes, et al., will find other alternatives to fuel their addictive personalities.

People can find any recreational activity morally wrong. Some say hunting is morally wrong, others say eating meat is morally wrong.

While I recognize the original post as to the two elected representatives changing their views, this happens all the time, usually in regard to public opinion. Perhaps the public opinion they are now hearing, from their constituents (constituents being those that voted for as well as those that voted against these two individuals; after all, a constituent is one whom the representative 'represents') is that now the majority are for slots (or at least the majority that lets the representatives know what they want).

Where does it say this? What oath?

Christine, please forgive the name phopa.

Please refer back to my original post in the thread. I don't necessarily believe the arguments I've stated but did so as "the devil's advocate" to spark discussion. To answer the question on bars being considered a "vice" you may want to pose that question to someone living beside one or better still, someone living beside a location one is proposed for. Perhaps Penny Nigh would be a good candidate for such an inquiry? I mention this tongue-in-cheek. The point being that one's opinion is usually a result of your own perspective. Another's perspective and opinion will undoubtedly differ.

I have no qualms with bars, gaming, liquor or porn for that matter, so long as those indulging are doing so in said "responsible" manner. If we could depend on everyone to recognize and observe such limits there'd be no debate but people being people I hope we can agree that such is not the case.

In the end, this whole argument is almost surely moot as it applies to the local situation anyway. It's unlikely one of the casinos will be located in WashCo. Gotta run.

It's all going to come down to public opinion anyhow. True democracy. The issue will be placed on the 2008 ballot. The voting public will ultimately decide whether slots or not.

BTW, it's "faux pas" (literally, French for "false step"). Not "phopa" (unless you meant something else).

Me personally I don't and won't go into the gambling field so as for me I could care less if we get a slot bill passed or not. Having said that, I do see where it may benifit us all on our tax dollar's. Here in Washington Co. we're seeing more and more immigrant's coming into our town. When my Uncle came in to visit a year back he ask us to take him to Charlestown Races and slot's, We did take him and I have to admit I had a field day watching the horse's run. I don't think I've ever seen as many spanish people in my life as what I saw while there.
These people was throwing money into slot machines like a mad inshane person. And Me I spent the whole to $20.00 and it made me sick to do that. Yes I won and got my $20.00 back along with $40.00 more but then I stopped right away and was ready to leave. Was it fun? Yes, but my point here is if these (illegals) are going to go to Charlestown and blow money and give it to WV, why not let them blow it here and help to put some money back into the commuinity there stealing from.? They live off us anyhow so why not get something back from them in return,? Other then picking fruit. I'm all for letting slot's here, I don't have to go in them and I know I may check it out 1 time but that's it. My vote goes to letting them build and then let the Mexican's put their fair share back into our tax budjet. Or we can alway's force them back out of town. Has anyone noticed the amount of new Mexican resturant's here in Washington Co.? Our tax dollar's helped them to start. Well, make them pay it back.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arguing with ignorance isn't like you, Ud. That's my job.

I know, but for some reason I just couldn't let it pass.