Thursday, March 06, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: The hardest part is admitting we have a problem

A UNLV study of the social costs of compulsive gambling is surprising not for what it reveals but for its honesty.

After all, Nevada has a history of ignoring the havoc of compulsive gambling. Since gambling is our main industry--you might say we're dependent on it--we have been reluctant to admit it has negative side effects.

As a result, we have argued for years about how prevalent compulsive gambling really is. The casino industry, of course, low-balls the stats, suggesting that no more than 1 percent of the public has a problem. Social scientists put the figure as high as 6 percent. Meanwhile, homeless shelters and social service agencies say compulsive gambling is a huge issue for Nevada's destitute.

The new study looked at how much gambling addicts are costing society in debts, bankruptcies and missed work. The final tally: $19,000 per addict per year. Multiply that by the number of compulsive gamblers and the social costs are between $301 millon and $469 million a year. The study also found that half of compulsive gamblers have stolen money to pay debts or to gamble, 63 percent have written bad checks and 45 percent have declared bankruptcy.

And yet, the state of Nevada does not fund problem gambling treatment, and it does not require the casino industry to fund it. The issue is getting some attention in the Legislature this year--despite more industry pooh-poohing--but that's no guarantee that anything will be done. The 2001 Legislature had the same discussion without passing a bill to fund a treatment program.

What really needs to happen is the Legislature should tax the gaming industry sufficiently to fund a high-quality, statewide compulsive gambling treatment program. UNLV business professor Bill Thompson, who co-authored the study, suggests that $10 million would be a good start.

At long last, Nevada should join the ranks of serious, mature states that realize they have a problem and react responsibly to the negative effects of legal gambling.

Downtown's gamble

This almost never happens, so it's worth noting: A Review-Journal editorial is right.

On Sunday, the R-J commented on a report that tenants in Neonopolis, the downtown redevelopment project, want to install slot machines. Mayor Oscar Goodman says he supports the move as a way to improve revenues in the struggling three-story shopping mall. But Fremont Street casino operators don't want the competition, and thanks to the fine print of the center's development agreement, they may have veto power over any plan to let Neonopolis customers gamble. The R-J laments this "stifling, enervating, straitjacket of protectionism," noting that the "free-wheeling spirit of innovation" is what makes the Strip so vibrant and successful.

For once, the R-J's libertarian viewpoint does not fall into the wacko category. It is absolutely true that one reason for the painstakingly slow progress on downtown redevelopment is that the Fremont Street casinos aren't doing much to make it happen. In addition to opposing gambling at Neonopolis, they don't want gambling to occur in a proposed new nightclub district along Fremont east of Las Vegas Boulevard. And the lighted canopy aside, most of the downtown casinos look and feel much the same as they did 15 or 20 years ago.

Slot machines aren't going to suddenly turn Neonopolis into a thriving must-see attraction. But they just might keep a couple of pretty decent restaurants in business long enough for them to benefit from future downtown revitalization.

UMC's cynical ploy

Dr. Mark McKenzie, writing in Sunday's R-J, condemns University Medical Center's Quick Care clinics for competing with the private sector. "I am forced to subsidize with my tax dollars a business that directly competes with me for patients," McKenzie writes.

Well, I hate to once again side with the conservative caucus, but McKenzie is right on this one. It is patently unfair for UMC, the county government hospital, to open clinics in suburban areas of the valley and compete directly with private clinics and doctors. But there's a more important nuance to consider. I seriously doubt that UMC's Quick Care system would have any detractors whatsoever if the clinics were located in the valley's low-income neighborhoods.

The county hospital's primary role is to care for those who don't have insurance and can't afford private medical care. UMC would be serving its mission if it were to open clinics in low-income neighborhoods. All it's doing by operating clinics in middle-class suburbs is competing for paying customers. And, as McKenzie notes, it's not even very good at it. The Quick Cares are losing money.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER