Sweepstakes parlors aren't leaving, so heavily tax and regulate them
Published January 4, 2014
Editorial by Winston-Salem Journal, January 2, 2014.
North Carolina must accept that electronic sweepstakes parlors are such an ailment. No matter how many new laws legislators pass trying to eradicate the mesmerizing and potentially addictive form of gambling, the industry keeps coming back, finding loopholes.
A year ago, the state Supreme Court upheld the state’s latest anti-sweepstakes law, the one that was supposed to kill the industry. While it has reduced the number of gambling sites, it has proven inadequate. Some sweepstakes parlors are still active and, according to an Associated Press report, the industry has won some of the court cases brought against it.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, who has tried repeatedly to enforce the anti-sweepstakes laws, continues to sound upbeat, saying it will take time to defeat what he calls his “whack-a-mole” opponent. But we think there is a better way, one that would settle the question and avoid the significant legal costs incurred trying to enforce the law.
The Journal long has opposed video poker in North Carolina, arguing that it preys on the poor and is a particularly addictive form of gambling. But just as the doctor who realizes there is no known cure for a disease, we suggest a control therapy.
Sweepstakes parlors should be legalized under a rigidly controlled state authority. Regulations should prohibit minors from the parlors and keep heavy concentrations of parlors from residential areas. Any new law should clearly distinguish between these small parlors and larger resort casinos, where on-site regulation is available.
Once legalized, gaming should be taxed heavily, but not punitively so. The state should reach an agreement with the industry that will permit it to operate in a controlled and safe manner. Any regulatory body should include representatives of the industry, in a minority role, to assure that the industry feels that it has a stake in the regulation.
We wish that sweepstakes parlors would go away. But they won’t. The next best recourse is to control them.
January 4, 2014 at 9:44 am
Norm Kelly says:
Gosh darn it! There oughta be a law! Gambling is bad and should be banned in it's entirety. Everyone knows that gambling preys on the poor. For some reason, poor people do not have the ability to stop themselves from gambling. There oughta be a law to ban all gambling in order to protect the poor from themselves. Just like there oughta be a law that prevents people from identifying themselves at the polling place. The law needs to be in place to protect black people who can't protect themselves. (now before you libs have a cow calling me a racist, it's not me saying that blacks are incapable of getting a photo id. it's you good, kind-hearted libs that claim blacks can't take care of themselves and need you kindly white, smart folks to take care of those helpless black people. don't believe me? go back and listen to how good libs, 'color blind' libs, talk about black people not being able to get photo id, that it was implemented by racists for the sole purpose of preventing hapless black people from voting - for demons, of course. someone is being a racist but it aint' me!)
Now, back to gambling and time to leave cry baby libs behind.
It seems that state sponsored gambling, gambling that benefits the state and not some low-life, profit making, private business, is and should be acceptable. The state hates competition. No one should be allowed to compete with ANY government agency. Whenever a government takes over an industry, they make laws to squash any private business that might want to think about competing with the state for money. The state WILL take over, no matter how many hoops they have to jump through. And the willing accomplices in the media, the media arm of the Demoncrat party, will jump right in to claim that private business gambling is 'mesmerizing and potentially addictive', while state sponsored gambling is a good thing. You see, it depends on who the beneficiary of the gambling is that determines whether it should be allowed or prevented.
If, and only if, the state were to allow private businesses to participate in/compete in gambling activity, the writer proposes 'gaming should be taxed heavily, but not punitively so'. What defines or who defines the difference between 'heavily' and 'punitive'? It can't be DemocRAT politicians. They have proven they do NOT understand the difference. To them, no level of taxation on those they despise is considered 'punitive'. To good libs, it's simply doing the right thing. Libs use tax laws to 'control' people's behavior. And when it's something libs don't like, they are even willing to tell us that they are taxing the activity/item at an outrageous rate for the intent to control/influence individual behavior.
Why shouldn't private gambling establishments be controlled/regulated and taxed like any other business in the state? Why should special laws be set up specifically for this one industry? Is video poker that much worse than state-sponsored lottery gambling? Do 'poor helpless' people waste more money on video poker than they do on lottery tickets? If you think so, try spending some time at your local lottery sales location. You will see your fair share of poor people spending too much of their scarce resources on stupid lottery tickets. So why should private gambling be treated worse than any other business? Other than it competes with state 'business', what's so darn bad about video poker? Can you libs define for the rest of us, those with the ability to think, those that believe adults can be adults if you just let them, why it is that SOME gambling (read that 'state sponsored gambling') is not just fine, but should be promoted by the state while other gambling (read that 'competition to state gambling') should be so vilified? Is this just another lib distraction tactic? What else are you libs doing on the side that distracts us from your plan but this helps to move your more hideous plan forward? There's always ulterior motives when libs do things. Some of us just have not figured out what's in the background on this private business gambling deal.
