Discussion:
The gambling lobby is doing it again...
(too old to reply)
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-03 18:10:12 UTC
Permalink
It seems that they never give up. The latest is to have
a popular vote on the casino gambling without being
binding on legislators (HB 76), but at the same time,
have a constitution amendment passed that would make
the popular vote a law (SB 881).

Why not vote on a constitutional ammendment to make
casino gambling illegal in Hawaii? It seems that just
having a law will not stop gambling interests from
trying to legalize it.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-04 04:20:12 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1109873412-***@news.lava.net...
>
> It seems that they never give up. The latest is
> to have
> a popular vote on the casino gambling without
> being
> binding on legislators (HB 76), but at the same
> time,
> have a constitution amendment passed that would
> make
> the popular vote a law (SB 881).

Living in California all of my working career, I
kind of like the idea that the "people" get to
vote on an issue that someone has decided we
should have the opportunity to decide, i.e. the
proposition.
>
> Why not vote on a constitutional ammendment to
> make
> casino gambling illegal in Hawaii? It seems that
> just
> having a law will not stop gambling interests
> from
> trying to legalize it.
>
No problem with that. I am all for letting the
people decide.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-05 16:20:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1109873412-***@news.lava.net...

>> Why not vote on a constitutional ammendment to make
>> casino gambling illegal in Hawaii? It seems that
>> just having a law will not stop gambling interests
>> from trying to legalize it.
>>
> No problem with that. I am all for letting the
> people decide.

And that's what is done with constitutional ammendments
in Hawaii. They need to be started by the legislature.
I guess the assumption is that legislators would not
put out an ammendment that would affect our basic civil
rights. Wrong....they've already done so with the gay
marriage ammendment. Whether they have the courage to
put out an ammendment declaring casino gambling illegal
is another question.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-06 06:05:06 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110039606-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>

> And that's what is done with constitutional
> ammendments
> in Hawaii. They need to be started by the
> legislature.
> I guess the assumption is that legislators would
> not
> put out an ammendment that would affect our
> basic civil
> rights. Wrong....they've already done so with
> the gay
> marriage ammendment. Whether they have the
> courage to
> put out an ammendment declaring casino gambling
> illegal
> is another question.
>
"Your" basic civil rights? Are you gay?
Kay Cee
2005-03-06 06:10:03 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1109873412-***@news.lava.net...
>
> It seems that they never give up. The latest is to have
> a popular vote on the casino gambling without being
> binding on legislators (HB 76), but at the same time,
> have a constitution amendment passed that would make
> the popular vote a law (SB 881).

Gambling in Hawaii is alive and healthy. You can play poker, blackjack,
and
just about any other casino
game online. You can also play the ponies and certainly sports-betting
is at
an all-time high. Problem is, all the
revenue from these gambling activities goes to off-shore companies.
CRIS an
offshore sportsbook based in
Costa Rica took in almost 500 million in sports wagers last year. Most
of
their action came from here in the states
and without a penny going to our government. And, it can't be stopped.
So
why not regulate it, tax it, and make it
legal.

RK
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-06 19:05:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Kay Cee wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1109873412-***@news.lava.net...
>>
>> It seems that they never give up. The latest is to
>> have a popular vote on the casino gambling without
>> being binding on legislators (HB 76), but at the
>> same time, have a constitution amendment passed that
>> would make the popular vote a law (SB 881).
>
> Gambling in Hawaii is alive and healthy. You can play
> poker, blackjack, and just about any other casino
> game online. You can also play the ponies and
> certainly sports-betting is at an all-time high.
> Problem is, all the revenue from these gambling
> activities goes to off-shore companies.

You forgot to mention that social gambling is also
legal here. So that people that want to gamble here in
Hawaii, have no problem finding games offline or on.

However, I'm not so sure about whether an online game
would give you credit so you could bet your house and
all your possessions on a roll of the dice. For that
you have to visit the casinos of Las Vegas. Let's just
keep it that way. Support keeping casinos OUT of
Hawaii.

> can't be stopped. So why not regulate it, tax it, and
> make it legal.

Why not keep it from rearing it's ugly head in Hawaii?

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-07 08:55:04 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110135900-***@news.lava.net...
>

>
> You forgot to mention that social gambling is
> also
> legal here. So that people that want to gamble
> here in
> Hawaii, have no problem finding games offline or
> on.
>
> However, I'm not so sure about whether an online
> game
> would give you credit so you could bet your
> house and
> all your possessions on a roll of the dice. For
> that
> you have to visit the casinos of Las Vegas.
> Let's just
> keep it that way. Support keeping casinos OUT of
> Hawaii.

You cannot do it in Vegas either.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-08 04:55:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1110135900-***@news.lava.net...

>> However, I'm not so sure about whether an online
>> game
>> would give you credit so you could bet your
>> house and
>> all your possessions on a roll of the dice. For
>> that
>> you have to visit the casinos of Las Vegas.
>> Let's just
>> keep it that way. Support keeping casinos OUT of
>> Hawaii.
>
> You cannot do it in Vegas either.

That's not what you said the last time.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-08 22:15:05 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110257704-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1110135900-***@news.lava.net...
>
>>> However, I'm not so sure about whether an
>>> online
>>> game
>>> would give you credit so you could bet your
>>> house and
>>> all your possessions on a roll of the dice.
>>> For
>>> that
>>> you have to visit the casinos of Las Vegas.
>>> Let's just
>>> keep it that way. Support keeping casinos OUT
>>> of
>>> Hawaii.
>>
>> You cannot do it in Vegas either.
>
> That's not what you said the last time.
>

I never said that the casino will take your house
as collateral for a loan.
John W. Bienko
2005-03-09 07:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Hawaiians must be vigilant before allowing casinos on
the most beautiful place on the planet.

To see the future of Hawai`i.. just look at Las Vegas..
and speak to the experts and the victims.

The casino owners and the developers will make huge profits.
The citizens will lose fortunes.. and in many cases will
become addicted to gaming.. often ending in suicide.

The Insider TV program starring Pat O'Brien currently shows
the disasters awaiting the gamblers.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-09 20:05:05 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message news:1110353100-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Hawaiians must be vigilant before allowing
> casinos on
> the most beautiful place on the planet.
>
> To see the future of Hawai`i.. just look at Las
> Vegas..
> and speak to the experts and the victims.

Doesn't that to a large extent depend on what our
local politicians allow to be built and where to
locate these gambling outlets?
>
> The casino owners and the developers will make
> huge profits.
> The citizens will lose fortunes.. and in many
> cases will
> become addicted to gaming.. often ending in
> suicide.

Casino's need a whole lot of "people" who work at
everything from the gambling floor, to the
security personnel, to the people who serve the
gamblers, to restaurants, retail and entertainment
operations, people to maintain the hotel
operation, the grounds keepers, to the maintenance
engineers that need to keep the "plant" operating,
and a whole hose of other people, not to mention
the outside people that is required to "feed the
monster". The only "citizens" who risk losing a
fortune, are those who are foolish enough to lose
everything, and near as I can tell, you cannot
stop people from doing dumb things. As we speak,
there are people who are declaring bankruptcy
because they have run up to high a credit card
debt. And no, "there are not "many cases" of
people getting addicted to gambling, there are
"some" cases of people getting addicted to
gambling. Most people who gamble are more than
capable of restraining themselves from losing more
than they can afford to lose. And no, they do not
"often" end in suicide, a very small number of
people take their own lives as a result of their
gambling.

But let us get back to people who may lose a
fortune. Today, all you need is a computer and
access to the internet to gamble. So, for those
who wish to gamble they need go no further than
their computer. So, the temptation is all around
us.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-10 09:00:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
> in message news:1110353100-***@news.lava.net...
>>
>> Hawaiians must be vigilant before allowing casinos
>> on the most beautiful place on the planet.
>>
>> To see the future of Hawai`i.. just look at Las
>> Vegas.. and speak to the experts and the victims.
>
> Doesn't that to a large extent depend on what our
> local politicians allow to be built and where to
> locate these gambling outlets?

Casinos need not be built next to beaches. For example,
even in areas of the north shore where permits for
eco-tourism had been rejected, where there is not a
good beach, a casino could be built. I mean what
addicted gambler will be on the beach if they can be in
the casino gambling. I guess the casinos might be glad
for the lack of that distration to their gamblers.

>> The casino owners and the developers will make huge
>> profits. The citizens will lose fortunes.. and in
>> many cases will become addicted to gaming.. often
>> ending in suicide.
>
> Casino's need a whole lot of "people" who work at
> everything from the gambling floor, to the security
> personnel, to the people who serve the gamblers, to
> restaurants, retail and entertainment operations,
> people to maintain the hotel operation, the grounds
> keepers, to the maintenance engineers that need to
> keep the "plant" operating, and a whole hose of other
> people, not to mention the outside people that is
> required to "feed the monster". The only "citizens"
> who risk losing a fortune, are those who are foolish
> enough to lose everything, and near as I can tell,
> you cannot stop people from doing dumb things. As we
> speak, there are people who are declaring bankruptcy
> because they have run up to high a credit card debt.
> And no, "there are not "many cases" of people getting
> addicted to gambling, there are "some" cases of
> people getting addicted to gambling. Most people who
> gamble are more than capable of restraining
> themselves from losing more than they can afford to
> lose. And no, they do not "often" end in suicide, a
> very small number of people take their own lives as a
> result of their gambling.

IIRC, recently the governor of Nevada allocated a
couple hundred thousand to start some program for
addicted gamblers. IIRC in Las Vegas, it is some
horrendous number like about 5% or about one in twenty
that are addicted. It's much higher than in other parts
of the country. I'd guess we have about that much in
the islands. That is really a very high number. And
IIRC something like 30% of the addicted gamblers tried
to kill themselves-- that's the reason for the Las
Vegas program. I don't consider 30% to be a "small"
number.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-10 22:30:13 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110445206-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>

>
> Casinos need not be built next to beaches. For
> example,
> even in areas of the north shore where permits
> for
> eco-tourism had been rejected, where there is
> not a
> good beach, a casino could be built. I mean what
> addicted gambler will be on the beach if they
> can be in
> the casino gambling. I guess the casinos might
> be glad
> for the lack of that distration to their
> gamblers.

That is right. After all, Las Vegas is in a
desert.
>
>
> IIRC, recently the governor of Nevada allocated
> a
> couple hundred thousand to start some program
> for
> addicted gamblers. IIRC in Las Vegas, it is some
> horrendous number like about 5% or about one in
> twenty
> that are addicted. It's much higher than in
> other parts
> of the country. I'd guess we have about that
> much in
> the islands. That is really a very high number.
> And
> IIRC something like 30% of the addicted gamblers
> tried
> to kill themselves-- that's the reason for the
> Las
> Vegas program. I don't consider 30% to be a
> "small"
> number.
>
It is not a small number if it is true. But that
also depends on what the definition of "addiction"
is. And since the definition of "addiction" has
changed over the years I have been on this earth,
I no longer understand what the term means. But
to put that number in some context, what is the
"addiction" rate of something like meth, or some
other popular drug?
MTI
2005-03-09 20:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Like the scene in the movie "Casablanca" when the police inspector declares
"I'm shocked to discover there's gambling in this cafe . . " and then the
croupier hands him his winnings . . . gambling is as much a part of local
culture as chicken fund raising sales and political sign waving. I believe
that only Hawaii and Utah are the only remaing states in the union that
doesn't have some form of legalized gambling and just look how well we're
doing. Isn't it time we just stop pretending that the islands should be
kept gambling free? While we're at it, shouldn't we get rid of alchohol,
cigarettes, fatty plate lunches and 90% of the Starbuck's on the island
first?
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-10 09:00:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> Like the scene in the movie "Casablanca" when the
> police inspector declares "I'm shocked to discover
> there's gambling in this cafe . . " and then the
> croupier hands him his winnings . . . gambling is as
> much a part of local culture as chicken fund raising
> sales and political sign waving. I believe that only
> Hawaii and Utah are the only remaing states in the
> union that doesn't have some form of legalized
> gambling and just look how well we're doing. Isn't
> it time we just stop pretending that the islands
> should be kept gambling free? While we're at it,
> shouldn't we get rid of alchohol, cigarettes, fatty
> plate lunches and 90% of the Starbuck's on the island
> first?

Brothels used to bring in a lot of money too, into
Hawaii. Are you suggesting we go back to that also? Or
maybe like in Las Vegas-- have the brothels in the
outer islands while the casinos stay in Waikiki. While
the old tourist industry like tours will be going, a
whole new service industry to gamblers will be starting
up with the appearance of casinos.

--alvin
MTI
2005-03-10 22:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Alvin, now you're talking. Can you think of a better way to control the
criminal aspect of prostitution than to legalize consensual sex between
adults? It will potentially increase the tax base. No pimps, no teenage
runaways, and certainly the involvement of the health department and a sex
industry worker's union would be a vast improvement over the current
"system." What say you about that?
Maren Purves
2005-03-10 22:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
>
> Brothels used to bring in a lot of money too, into
> Hawaii. Are you suggesting we go back to that also?

Think about this ...

Prostitution exists here and now. It's been illegal for
a long time, but that didn't make it go away.

Making it legal (again) would make it safer (think
registration, medical exams, etc.) - and bring in
some probably fairly large amount of taxes ...

> Or
> maybe like in Las Vegas-- have the brothels in the
> outer islands while the casinos stay in Waikiki.

Nah, distribute that evenly between the two.

> While
> the old tourist industry like tours will be going, a
> whole new service industry to gamblers will be starting
> up with the appearance of casinos.

they need to eat and stay somewhere too.
and while they may not go on hikes, bus or helicopter tours,
I have seen these things in areas that do have gambling
as well (like New Mexico, where I spent a week once. Only
drove through northern Nevada once, and while it was fairly
flooded too. Don't remember whether they had tour-like things
there.)

Maren
al Guacamole
2005-03-11 08:05:01 UTC
Permalink
I just want to point out that hikes, bus etc tours will probably suffer
because the casinos don't want the gamblers to spend their money in
those activities. What gamblers do want when they win big is often to
indulge themselves with prostitutes and illegal drugs.

While I don't think prostitution is an evil thing, I do object to the
basis of attracting tourists not on the basis of our natural
environment, but on the basis of gambling.

I caught a ride to the hotel here in Tucson with the shuttle, and the
guy who drove, says that Indians here have casinos on the reservations.
But the money that they are supposed to be heavy in their pockets is
not there. Someone else is pocketing all the loses from gamblers at the
casinos. Says that he prefers to vacation near Nogales where it's a lot
cheaper. Isn't this supposed to be the main argument for gambling? I
don't like the argument that it just makes it easier for our addicted
gamblers to lose their money at home.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-10 22:30:15 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110445204-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:
>
>
> Brothels used to bring in a lot of money too,
> into
> Hawaii. Are you suggesting we go back to that
> also? Or
> maybe like in Las Vegas-- have the brothels in
> the
> outer islands while the casinos stay in Waikiki.
> While
> the old tourist industry like tours will be
> going, a
> whole new service industry to gamblers will be
> starting
> up with the appearance of casinos.
>
Interesting point. Are you saying that there is
no prostitution in Hawaii? Or that there simply
isn't any large scale organized prostitution in
Hawaii?
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-10 22:30:11 UTC
Permalink
"MTI" <***@mc-carter.com> wrote in message
news:1110398712-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Like the scene in the movie "Casablanca" when
> the police inspector declares
> "I'm shocked to discover there's gambling in
> this cafe . . " and then the
> croupier hands him his winnings . . . gambling
> is as much a part of local
> culture as chicken fund raising sales and
> political sign waving. I believe
> that only Hawaii and Utah are the only remaing
> states in the union that
> doesn't have some form of legalized gambling and
> just look how well we're
> doing. Isn't it time we just stop pretending
> that the islands should be
> kept gambling free? While we're at it,
> shouldn't we get rid of alchohol,
> cigarettes, fatty plate lunches and 90% of the
> Starbuck's on the island
> first?

The country tried the alcohol thing...it was
called prohibition, which failed miserably. The
lesson that should have been learned, which it
obviously has not been, is you cannot stop people
from doing things that they think they "like".
You can make it harder for them to pursue what
they think they "like", but you cannot stop them
from doing what they think they "like". And if
there is enough people that want the item, then
someone is going to fill that need.
Aka
2005-03-11 04:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Jerry Okamura wrote:

> The country tried the alcohol thing...it was
> called prohibition, which failed miserably.

Prohibition is still being tried in this country, and it's still
failing miserably. The only thing that has changed is the targeted
drug(s).

--- Aka
John W. Bienko
2005-03-10 01:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Gambling.. and Hawai`i are like water and fire.
I have visited casinos.. to observe the action and the people.
The high rollers were at the Baccarat.. Poker.. tables..
being wined and dined by beautiful waitresses.
The middle class gamblers were at the slot machines..
feeding the monsters.
Many poor folk were there too..
Ca ching.. Ca ching.. sounds everywhere.
INtense concentration.. sad faces.. no happy faces.
THere is a background sound that subconsciously sets
up the gambler's psyche.
Experts report that 15% of the gambling population
have a problem.. an addiction.. and 1% lose their
fortunes/homes.
Many suicides happen in the bathrooms of the casinos.
..estimated as .1% of the gambling population.
Notwithstanding the employment opportunities..
the negative impact on the general lifestyle
of the population is not worth it.. it creates a
something for nothing attitude.. leading to disaster.
--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-10 09:00:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John W. Bienko wrote:

> Gambling.. and Hawai`i are like water and fire. I
> have visited casinos.. to observe the action and the
> people. The high rollers were at the Baccarat..
> Poker.. tables.. being wined and dined by beautiful
> waitresses. The middle class gamblers were at the
> slot machines.. feeding the monsters. Many poor folk
> were there too.. Ca ching.. Ca ching.. sounds
> everywhere. INtense concentration.. sad faces.. no
> happy faces. THere is a background sound that
> subconsciously sets up the gambler's psyche. Experts
> report that 15% of the gambling population have a
> problem.. an addiction.. and 1% lose their
> fortunes/homes. Many suicides happen in the bathrooms
> of the casinos. ..estimated as .1% of the gambling
> population. Notwithstanding the employment
> opportunities.. the negative impact on the general
> lifestyle of the population is not worth it.. it
> creates a something for nothing attitude.. leading to
> disaster.

It's probably true that almost every family in the
islands has a relative that is adicted to gambling.
Yet the gambling lobby here keeps trying to bring the
casinos in here. Let's hope that the legislators can
hold off this legislation this year.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-10 22:30:17 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote
in message news:1110419400-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Gambling.. and Hawai`i are like water and fire.
> I have visited casinos.. to observe the action
> and the people.
> The high rollers were at the Baccarat.. Poker..
> tables..
> being wined and dined by beautiful waitresses.
> The middle class gamblers were at the slot
> machines..
> feeding the monsters.
> Many poor folk were there too..
> Ca ching.. Ca ching.. sounds everywhere.
> INtense concentration.. sad faces.. no happy
> faces.

No happy faces? Every been around a crap table
when someone has a hot roll? Every listen to the
folks around a crap table cheer on the roller?

> THere is a background sound that subconsciously
> sets
> up the gambler's psyche.
> Experts report that 15% of the gambling
> population
> have a problem.. an addiction.. and 1% lose
> their
> fortunes/homes.

I have heard that number before, i.e. that 1% lose
their homes gambling. What is the statistics on
everyone who has owned a home...hou many of them
have lost their home, as a percentage of the
homeowner population. There are more ways to lose
ones home, other than gambling.


> Many suicides happen in the bathrooms of the
> casinos.
> ..estimated as .1% of the gambling population.
> Notwithstanding the employment opportunities..
> the negative impact on the general lifestyle
> of the population is not worth it.. it creates a
> something for nothing attitude.. leading to
> disaster.

That is an interesting number, but again some
context please. What is the suicide rate among
all people. It has been a long time, but I seem
to distinctly recall that the suicide rate among
teenagers is quite high. And teenagers are not
allowed to gamble at the casinos.
al Guacamole
2005-03-12 04:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Doesn't take too many disasters to make it a bad law. How many is too
much? How about one?

--alvin
MTI
2005-03-11 08:05:07 UTC
Permalink
As a kamaaina with relatives in NJ, I can tell you that there are plenty of
happy senior citizens populating the casinos in Atlantic City during the
day, manning the slots, socializing, having a good time and then heading
home on the caravan of buses and tour groups. I didn't see a single sour
puss in the lot and during the day, the casinos treat them like royalty.
Perhaps it's because they're mature and aren't gambling to "strike it rich"
but go there to break up the monotony of a retired life.

As for "losing the farm" . . . isn't that already happening every week on
sport betting? Even Mel Cabang had to take a little federally sponsored
vacation because of his sports book.
al Guacamole
2005-03-12 01:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Has it cured Mel Cabang? How about Secretary Bennett? How is the fact
that there is a problem make it OK? Grow up....

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-12 04:35:07 UTC
Permalink
"MTI" <***@mc-carter.com> wrote in message
news:1110528305-***@news.lava.net...
>
> As a kamaaina with relatives in NJ, I can tell
> you that there are plenty of
> happy senior citizens populating the casinos in
> Atlantic City during the
> day, manning the slots, socializing, having a
> good time and then heading
> home on the caravan of buses and tour groups. I
> didn't see a single sour
> puss in the lot and during the day, the casinos
> treat them like royalty.
> Perhaps it's because they're mature and aren't
> gambling to "strike it rich"
> but go there to break up the monotony of a
> retired life.
>
You reminded me of something else. My brother in
law and his wife live in Las Vegas (he loves to
gamble). But when my wife goes to visit them,
they take her around town to all the cheap and
good eating establishments that dot the town.
There certainly ain't a whole lot of them in this
State.
Kay Cee
2005-03-16 16:40:04 UTC
Permalink
"MTI" <***@mc-carter.com> wrote in message
news:1110528305-***@news.lava.net...

> As for "losing the farm" . . . isn't that already happening every
> week on
> sport betting?

Yes, and the bad part is that local Hawaii bookies charge a 20% vig on
their
bets, as opposed to the 10% everywhere else in the world. Now, Hawaii
residents can simply go online and get the normal vig. Simple fact is,
millions of dollars leave Hawaii every year to offshore bookies, and
not one
cent goes into the local economy. BTW, you can loose your house online,
Alvin. Not only do these offshore books take credit cards, they accept
ATM's. So, with the millions of dollars leaving Hawaii each year via
both
the internet and chartered flights into Vegas, wouldn't it be wise to
provide a venue (casinos) to keep that money in state?
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-17 03:40:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Kay Cee wrote:

> [Losing the farm] Yes, and the bad part is that local
> Hawaii bookies charge a 20% vig on their bets, as
> opposed to the 10% everywhere else in the world. Now,
> Hawaii residents can simply go online and get the
> normal vig. Simple fact is, millions of dollars leave
> Hawaii every year to offshore bookies, and not one
> cent goes into the local economy. BTW, you can loose
> your house online, Alvin. Not only do these offshore
> books take credit cards, they accept ATM's.

Credit cards have credit limits and casinos get their
money and leave it up to credit card companies to
collect from the gambler. Merchants like customers with
credit cards because it allows them to buy more than
they can afford. ATM is just cash. No I'm talking real
credit. Say a casino gives you a one million dollar
account to play with, if you promise to give them your
house and lot-- which may turn out to be some vacant
land on the Big Island-- if you lose. You just pay the
difference. Gamblers are pretty resourceful that way.

> So, with the millions of dollars leaving Hawaii each
> year via both the internet and chartered flights into
> Vegas, wouldn't it be wise to provide a venue
> (casinos) to keep that money in state?

Wouldn't it still wind up in other people's pockets--
the casino owners-- if the casinos were located here?
Sounds like a pretty chrummy ROI to me.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-12 04:35:05 UTC
Permalink
"al Guacamole" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110528300-***@news.lava.net...
>
> I just want to point out that hikes, bus etc
> tours will probably suffer
> because the casinos don't want the gamblers to
> spend their money in
> those activities. What gamblers do want when
> they win big is often to
> indulge themselves with prostitutes and illegal
> drugs.

Are you saying that the "casinos" are going to
tell their customers what to do, and what not to
do, and that their customers are going to act like
sheep and follow their orders? But it is true
that casinos would prefer their customers to
gamble. Generally speaking it is men that engage
most with prostitutes, are you saying that all
gamblers are men? As for illegal drugs, those who
use drugs are inclined to use drugs whether they
are gambling or not gambling. Besides, where are
they going to get the drugs from?
>
> While I don't think prostitution is an evil
> thing, I do object to the
> basis of attracting tourists not on the basis of
> our natural
> environment, but on the basis of gambling.

You are living in some sort of dream world.
Gamblin is alive and well in Hawaii, it is just
that it is not legal. The California Hotel in Las
Vegas is set up to attract customers from Hawaii.
Think about that. Are there any gambling
operations in Las Vegas that primarity targets
customers from a specific state?
>
> I caught a ride to the hotel here in Tucson with
> the shuttle, and the
> guy who drove, says that Indians here have
> casinos on the reservations.
> But the money that they are supposed to be heavy
> in their pockets is
> not there. Someone else is pocketing all the
> loses from gamblers at the
> casinos. Says that he prefers to vacation near
> Nogales where it's a lot
> cheaper. Isn't this supposed to be the main
> argument for gambling? I
> don't like the argument that it just makes it
> easier for our addicted
> gamblers to lose their money at home.
>
If the money is not being made by the Indians, and
since the tribal leaders are the ones who made the
decision to build and have a casino(s) operate on
their territory, whose fault is it, if the "tribe"
is not getting the full benefit of the revenue
from the operation.
John W. Bienko
2005-03-12 20:00:05 UTC
Permalink
The introduction of gambling in Hawai`i is..
like mixing fire with water.
The gambling operations will add ZERO to the economy..
and in fact take away more than apparent from the
totality of the living standards currently being enjoyed
by the very lucky resisdents of Hawai`i.
What does occurr is a transfer of wealth form the
middle and poor classes to the operators of the
casinos and to the government which takes a percentage
of the betting dollars. Then the casino operators take
the operator's percentage.
The remaining pot .. about 25% of the total amount bet
is shared by the gamblers. Not a very attractive return
on the amount of one's bet.
The attraction is the Jackpot .. a one in a million chance..
and the adrenalin rush..
For the majority of the gamblers the experience will end
in substantial monetary losses.. and resulting mental
and physical deterioration.
Gamblers can never be winners.. the odds are stacked
against them by the gambling system and government rake-offs.
There ar emany better ways to spend one's hard earned
money... health.. education.. living standards.. the arts..
public works.. donations to the underprivileged..

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-13 00:45:01 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message news:1110657604-***@news.lava.net...
>
> The introduction of gambling in Hawai`i is..
> like mixing fire with water.

Let us try to once again, as we speak there IS
gambling in Hawaii. So, if it is "mixing fire
with water" that "mixing" has been going on for as
long as I have been alive.

> The gambling operations will add ZERO to the
> economy..

Last time I was in Las Vegas, I remarked to my
wife as we were driving out of town, do you know
of anyplace in the world, were they take perfectly
good multi-million dollar hotels, destroy it, only
to put in its place billion dollar hotels in its
place? Let me see, the demolition team certainly
made money, albiet they were probably all out of
staters. Those in the construction industry, who
had to build those new hotels certainly made
money. Those who had to work in those billion
dollar hotels, certainly made money, being
employed in those hotels, and since the hotels
were bigger, that meant they needed even more
employees, than they previously had. All those
companies and individuals who cater to the needs
of the hotel certainly made money. It would be
interesting to know who has the more vibrant
economy, Neveda, or Hawaii....anyone know the
answer?

> and in fact take away more than apparent from
> the
> totality of the living standards currently being
> enjoyed
> by the very lucky resisdents of Hawai`i.

Those of us who live in Hawaii, live in a relative
environmental heaven. Las egas is a desert, gets
really hot during the summer, and quite cold
during the winter. But that has more to do with
location, then anything else. As for the totality
of living standards, I suppose that depends on
what that "totality" includes.

> What does occurr is a transfer of wealth form
> the
> middle and poor classes to the operators of the
> casinos and to the government which takes a
> percentage
> of the betting dollars. Then the casino
> operators take
> the operator's percentage.

Again, casinos and their hotel operations require
a whole lot of people to keep that operation
humming. Those people earn a pretty good living,
at least in Las Vegas. And I would suspect, you
will not hear any complaints from those who have a
job because of the needs of those hotels and
casino operations.

> The remaining pot .. about 25% of the total
> amount bet
> is shared by the gamblers. Not a very attractive
> return
> on the amount of one's bet.

Someone once made a very interesting observation.
That was, gamblers do not expect to win, but
really expect to lose. I would imagine, very few
gamblers expect to win when they go to places like
Las Vegas. They "hope" they will win, but they do
not "expect to win". If that is the case, then
gamblers do not "expect" any return for their bet,
they only "hope" to get some return on their bet.
Besides, like a race car driver, or a sky diver,
it is the "thrill" of the sport that drives people
to enjoy an activity. Those rare occassions when
I am riding a "hot" crap table is one of the great
joys of my life. And it probably is even a more
enjoyable event, because it happens so rarely.


> The attraction is the Jackpot .. a one in a
> million chance..
> and the adrenalin rush..
> For the majority of the gamblers the experience
> will end
> in substantial monetary losses.. and resulting
> mental
> and physical deterioration.

Anyone who goes to a casino to "win" is a damn
fool, because the odds are against you.

> Gamblers can never be winners.. the odds are
> stacked
> against them by the gambling system and
> government rake-offs.
> There ar emany better ways to spend one's hard
> earned
> money... health.. education.. living standards..
> the arts..
> public works.. donations to the
> underprivileged..
>
In the long run that is a true statement, but it
sure is a kick in the pants, when you are a
winner, especially when you win a whole lot more
than you thought you would win. As for how one
spends their money, and what enjoyment they get
from their spending, that sort of depends on our
own personal priorities, and what we consider
important. Obviously, you think the priorities
you believe are important are important to you,
that does not mean it is importrant to others.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-14 15:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Back in Hawaii again... too bad, it seems that google
has stopped updating this ng since the 11th. Don't know
if my other responses will ever even get out.


On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
> in message news:1110657604-***@news.lava.net...

>> The introduction of gambling in Hawai`i is.. like
>> mixing fire with water.
>
> Let us try to once again, as we speak there IS
> gambling in Hawaii. So, if it is "mixing fire with
> water" that "mixing" has been going on for as long as
> I have been alive.

Jerry, the topic of this thread is casino gambling.
That's something that only exists illegally in Hawaii.
Most addicted gamblers would rather go to Las Vegas to
lose their homes, then get messed up with the local
syndicate.

>> The gambling operations will add ZERO to the
>> economy..
>
> Last time I was in Las Vegas, I remarked to my wife
> as we were driving out of town, do you know of
> anyplace in the world, were they take perfectly good
> multi-million dollar hotels, destroy it, only to put
> in its place billion dollar hotels in its place?

You mean casinos. They build a better casino so the
gambler wont be tempted to sight-see and stop gambling.
What would that say about the many things that tourists
now do in Hawaii? What would happen to our golf courses
for example, if tourists stoped playing golf and just
played the roulette wheel?

>> What does occurr is a transfer of wealth form the
>> middle and poor classes to the operators of the
>> casinos and to the government which takes a
>> percentage of the betting dollars. Then the casino
>> operators take the operator's percentage.
>
> Again, casinos and their hotel operations require a
> whole lot of people to keep that operation humming.
> Those people earn a pretty good living, at least in
> Las Vegas. And I would suspect, you will not hear
> any complaints from those who have a job because of
> the needs of those hotels and casino operations.

Costs in Las Vegas are probably better than in
Honolulu, so a "good" living is probably easier there.
That's the price of living in Hawaii-- higher costs of
living. What John is saying is what some of the
indians on reservations with casinos are saying: for
all the tons of money being droped by gamblers only a
fraction is being earned by the indians. The good
artists and craftsmen of them earn more from selling
their art to tourists, than they would ever earn as a
card dealer in a casino.

>> The remaining pot .. about 25% of the total amount
>> bet is shared by the gamblers. Not a very attractive
>> return on the amount of one's bet.
>
> Someone once made a very interesting observation.
> That was, gamblers do not expect to win, but really
> expect to lose. I would imagine, very few gamblers
> expect to win when they go to places like Las Vegas.

Baloney, addicted gamblers would never bet if they
thought that they might lose. They fear losing, but
they expect to win every time they gamble. For them
risking all is a very special thrill.

>> The attraction is the Jackpot .. a one in a million
>> chance.. and the adrenalin rush.. For the majority
>> of the gamblers the experience will end in
>> substantial monetary losses.. and resulting mental
>> and physical deterioration.
>
> Anyone who goes to a casino to "win" is a damn fool,
> because the odds are against you.

That's only your own opinion. I'm their opinion is that
it's an "investment".

>> Gamblers can never be winners.. the odds are stacked
>> against them by the gambling system and government
>> rake-offs. There ar emany better ways to spend one's
>> hard earned money... health.. education.. living
>> standards.. the arts.. public works.. donations to
>> the underprivileged..

This is also a similar criticism of lotteries. I was in
California when lotteries got started. Some many poor
won that it became obvious that they were buying a
large portion of the tickets. The criticism was that
much of the money they spent on buying tickets was
state money from welfare. Politicians thought to
prohibit the people on welfare from winning when they
realised that few other people buy the lottery tickets.

The lottery has failed to live up to it's purpose of
raising money for education since a lot of its revenue
goes to prises and administration. There is a recent
report to promote lottery tickets to the middle class
by selling it on the web. Time will tell. Maybe the
promise will be fullfilled by the thousands of new
middle class buyers who will support the lottery by
losing more than ever before.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-14 22:45:06 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110814202-***@news.lava.net...
>

>
> Jerry, the topic of this thread is casino
> gambling.
> That's something that only exists illegally in
> Hawaii.
> Most addicted gamblers would rather go to Las
> Vegas to
> lose their homes, then get messed up with the
> local
> syndicate.

Casino gambling is just an large scale opertion,
it is still gambling.
>
>>> The gambling operations will add ZERO to the
>>> economy..
>>
>> Last time I was in Las Vegas, I remarked to my
>> wife
>> as we were driving out of town, do you know of
>> anyplace in the world, were they take
>> perfectly good
>> multi-million dollar hotels, destroy it, only
>> to put
>> in its place billion dollar hotels in its
>> place?
>
> You mean casinos. They build a better casino so
> the
> gambler wont be tempted to sight-see and stop
> gambling.
> What would that say about the many things that
> tourists
> now do in Hawaii? What would happen to our golf
> courses
> for example, if tourists stoped playing golf and
> just
> played the roulette wheel?

That depends on whether a large casino operation
will attract "new" customers or "old" customers,
don't you think? I would imagine that a regular
visitor to these islands would not be
"sightseeing" either, since they have already done
the "sightseeing" part. And Las Vegas also has an
awful lot of golf courses. Every been there?
Ever try to golf in a desert environment like
Vegas? It is very very hot, during the summer
times, yet the golf courses seem to do a thriving
business.
>
>>> What does occurr is a transfer of wealth form
>>> the
>>> middle and poor classes to the operators of
>>> the
>>> casinos and to the government which takes a
>>> percentage of the betting dollars. Then the
>>> casino
>>> operators take the operator's percentage.
>>
>> Again, casinos and their hotel operations
>> require a
>> whole lot of people to keep that operation
>> humming.
>> Those people earn a pretty good living, at
>> least in
>> Las Vegas. And I would suspect, you will not
>> hear
>> any complaints from those who have a job
>> because of
>> the needs of those hotels and casino
>> operations.
>
> Costs in Las Vegas are probably better than in
> Honolulu, so a "good" living is probably easier
> there.
> That's the price of living in Hawaii-- higher
> costs of
> living. What John is saying is what some of the
> indians on reservations with casinos are saying:
> for
> all the tons of money being droped by gamblers
> only a
> fraction is being earned by the indians. The
> good
> artists and craftsmen of them earn more from
> selling
> their art to tourists, than they would ever earn
> as a
> card dealer in a casino.

And I have said, whose fault is that. The leaders
of that Indian land, or the person who runs the
casino operations. A Casino cannot operate on
Indian land, without the permission of the leaders
of that Indian tribe.
>
>>> The remaining pot .. about 25% of the total
>>> amount
>>> bet is shared by the gamblers. Not a very
>>> attractive
>>> return on the amount of one's bet.
>>
>> Someone once made a very interesting
>> observation.
>> That was, gamblers do not expect to win, but
>> really
>> expect to lose. I would imagine, very few
>> gamblers
>> expect to win when they go to places like Las
>> Vegas.
>
> Baloney, addicted gamblers would never bet if
> they
> thought that they might lose. They fear losing,
> but
> they expect to win every time they gamble. For
> them
> risking all is a very special thrill.

Of course they do. This is not rocket science.
Any gambler knows that odds are with the house.
Because the odds are with the house, it does not
take a rocket scientist to figure out that your
chances of winning are slim to none. There are
only two games now, (use to be three) that a
"good" gambler can win consistently, that is poker
and blackjack (though they have made the chances
of winning at blackjack a whole lot harder today).

>
>>> The attraction is the Jackpot .. a one in a
>>> million
>>> chance.. and the adrenalin rush.. For the
>>> majority
>>> of the gamblers the experience will end in
>>> substantial monetary losses.. and resulting
>>> mental
>>> and physical deterioration.
>>
>> Anyone who goes to a casino to "win" is a damn
>> fool,
>> because the odds are against you.
>
> That's only your own opinion. I'm their opinion
> is that
> it's an "investment".

Then they are a fool.
Dan Birchall
2005-03-14 22:50:02 UTC
Permalink
***@lava.net (Alvin E. Toda) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >> Gamblers can never be winners.. the odds are stacked
> >> against them by the gambling system and government
> >> rake-offs. There ar emany better ways to spend one's
> >> hard earned money... health.. education.. living
> >> standards.. the arts.. public works.. donations to
> >> the underprivileged..
>
> This is also a similar criticism of lotteries. I was in
> California when lotteries got started. Some many poor
> won that it became obvious that they were buying a
> large portion of the tickets. The criticism was that
> much of the money they spent on buying tickets was
> state money from welfare. Politicians thought to
> prohibit the people on welfare from winning when they
> realised that few other people buy the lottery tickets.

I've been biding my tongue, but this meshes pretty well the
impressions I got of casinos in the 1996-1999 timeframe,
when I was webmaster for more than half of the ones in
Atlantic City, as well as multiple properties in Las Vegas,
New Orleans, Tunica and... whatever fancy-schmancy name they
gave the Gary, Indiana waterfront. "Buffington Harbor,"
that's it! ;)

The marketing materials always showed middle-class yuppie
families, but most of the slot machines were manned by
blue-haired grannies who arrived by the busload to blow
their social security money.

Yeah, there are folks like Sue who limit themselves. But
if those folks were more than a tiny fraction of the overall
customer base, the casinos would go broke. For them to
make a profit, a lot of people need to lose a lot of money,
a lot of the time - plain and simple math.

As Alvin pointed out, yeah, there are lots of stories of
down-and-out people winning huge jackpots... but I wonder
how much of their being down-and-out had to do with them
gambling away money they really needed for other things?

In my experience, the people losing the money are the ones
who have the least of it (because the ones who have the most
didn't get there by gambling ;) and who have the least
control when it comes to managing it. Without the casinos,
they might find other ways of keeping themselves and their
descendents poor in perpetuity, but the casinos certainly
provide a "fun" and easy way of doing it.

Hmm. I guess I just kinda said where I stand. And unlike
most(?) other people here, I've been on the "house's" side,
in terms of where my pay was coming from.

--
Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://hilom.multiply.com/ - images, words, technology
Sue Larkin
2005-03-13 08:30:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <1110657604-***@news.lava.net>, ***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(John W. Bienko) wrote:

:The introduction of gambling in Hawai`i is..
:like mixing fire with water.
:The gambling operations will add ZERO to the economy..
:and in fact take away more than apparent from the
:totality of the living standards currently being enjoyed
:by the very lucky resisdents of Hawai`i.

Not all of Hawaii's residents currently enjoy even adequate living
standards. Reminds me of the recent news coverage of an extended family
of 15 who are homeless and living out of several vans in Waialua. Not
to mention the "camp" of homeless families less than a mile from where
I live...vans parked in rows, side by side...in an empty dirt lot on
the main drag in Waianae.

:What does occurr is a transfer of wealth form the
:middle and poor classes to the operators of the
:casinos and to the government which takes a percentage
:of the betting dollars. Then the casino operators take
:the operator's percentage.
:The remaining pot .. about 25% of the total amount bet
:is shared by the gamblers. Not a very attractive return
:on the amount of one's bet.

Attractive return? It's a bet, not an investment.

:The attraction is the Jackpot .. a one in a million chance..
:and the adrenalin rush..
:For the majority of the gamblers the experience will end
:in substantial monetary losses.. and resulting mental
:and physical deterioration.

The "majority" of gamblers experience "substantial monetary losses"?
Please enlighten me.

Is it government's responsibility to protect gamblers from themselves?
If so, then what about protecting people with other addictions that
aren't covered under the law and still result in mental and/or physical
deterioration, not to mention shattered relationships...shopping, sex,
smoking, alcohol, to name a few.

:Gamblers can never be winners.. the odds are stacked
:against them by the gambling system and government rake-offs.
:There ar emany better ways to spend one's hard earned
:money... health.. education.. living standards.. the arts..
:public works.. donations to the underprivileged..

I am not a gambler by nature so I agree that there are much better ways
to spend one's money. That said, I've been to Vegas 3 times, for 3 days
each time, in my 60 years. Each time I allowed myself $20. to
lose...not a penny more! A little poker, a few nickle and quarter slot
machines, a lot of fun! I always left Vegas with more than that $20.
IOW...I never lost! One time I returned home with $50. Talk about an
adrenalin rush! <g> I made $30...not a bad "return" in terms of
percentages! There is gambling, the hobby and there is gambling, the
illness (addiction). Not everyone who gambles falls into the latter
category.

Not being a gambler I'm not well versed on the subject but from what
little I've heard from my friends in Vegas it's the "underbelly" of the
gambling world that's the problem and not the industry itself. My
friends are very happy to have jobs...jobs they couldn't find in
Hawaii. An addicted gambler won't just gamble in Atlantic City or Vegas
but will continue that behavior in all areas of his/her life. I've seen
that happen.

As Jerry mentioned, there is gambling going on in Hawaii...from cock
fighting to online betting. Where there's a will...

I'll see your .02 and I'll up it by .05!...Sue
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-15 07:35:01 UTC
Permalink
"Dan Birchall"
<***@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote in
message news:1110840600-***@news.lava.net...
>


>
> The marketing materials always showed
> middle-class yuppie
> families, but most of the slot machines were
> manned by
> blue-haired grannies who arrived by the busload
> to blow
> their social security money.
>
> Yeah, there are folks like Sue who limit
> themselves. But
> if those folks were more than a tiny fraction of
> the overall
> customer base, the casinos would go broke. For
> them to
> make a profit, a lot of people need to lose a
> lot of money,
> a lot of the time - plain and simple math.

I do not know what one means when we make
statements like, a lot of people need to lose a
lot of money". It is obvious that the reason the
casinos try to draw in a lot of people, because
the more people they can get to gamble, the more
money they make. But a "lot of money"? What does
that mean? My social security check comes to a
little over $1100 per month. If I were poor, all
that money would be needed just to put a roof over
my head, and to put food on the table. I doubt if
seniors are going to forgo that month in and month
out, because if they did, they would no longer
have a roof over their head, or food on the table.
No, I suspect that casino's make their money by
getting a little money out of a lot of people.
>
> As Alvin pointed out, yeah, there are lots of
> stories of
> down-and-out people winning huge jackpots... but
> I wonder
> how much of their being down-and-out had to do
> with them
> gambling away money they really needed for other
> things?

Obvously, if you are poor, there are always "other
things" that they could have spent their money on.
Some of those "other things" could be cigarettes,
booze, drugs, maybe a nice car, a big TV, and a
whole host of "other things". Some of which,
could also be questioned as a wise use of their
limited funds.
>
> In my experience, the people losing the money
> are the ones
> who have the least of it (because the ones who
> have the most
> didn't get there by gambling ;) and who have the
> least
> control when it comes to managing it. Without
> the casinos,
> they might find other ways of keeping themselves
> and their
> descendents poor in perpetuity, but the casinos
> certainly
> provide a "fun" and easy way of doing it.

That is why people gamble don't they....because
they "think" it is "enjoyable"?
Sue Larkin
2005-03-15 15:55:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <1110872100-***@news.lava.net>, "Jerry Okamura"
<***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
:I do not know what one means when we make
:statements like, a lot of people need to lose a
:lot of money". It is obvious that the reason the
:casinos try to draw in a lot of people, because
:the more people they can get to gamble, the more
:money they make. But a "lot of money"? What does
:that mean? My social security check comes to a
:little over $1100 per month. If I were poor, all
:that money would be needed just to put a roof over
:my head, and to put food on the table. I doubt if
:seniors are going to forgo that month in and month
:out, because if they did, they would no longer
:have a roof over their head, or food on the table.
:No, I suspect that casino's make their money by
:getting a little money out of a lot of people.

A curiosity question...
Considering the size and Disneyland atmosphere of the newer
mega-hotels, who/what owns the casino portion? Is it the hotel? Or is
the casino "sub-let" for lack of a better word to another entity? I'm
thinking that the retail portion has got to be bringing in huge bucks.
I have no idea what the rent might be per square foot but it's got to
be at least that of Waikiki if not a lot more...not to mention a
percentage of the sales. Then there are the hotel rooms. I remember
food being extremely reasonable in Vegas as were drinks in the casinos.
I'd be interested to know what the income is for one of the mega-hotels
prior to any gambling dollars factored in. Of course that would vary
based on room occupancy but I'm just curious if the casino might be
pure gravy.

:> As Alvin pointed out, yeah, there are lots of
:> stories of
:> down-and-out people winning huge jackpots... but
:> I wonder
:> how much of their being down-and-out had to do
:> with them
:> gambling away money they really needed for other
:> things?
:
:Obvously, if you are poor, there are always "other
:things" that they could have spent their money on.
:Some of those "other things" could be cigarettes,
:booze, drugs, maybe a nice car, a big TV, and a
:whole host of "other things". Some of which,
:could also be questioned as a wise use of their
:limited funds.

How 'bout fireworks? I know they're a cultural thing for many but it
still stuns me to see the massive amount of money that's spent by
people who have absolutely no discretionary income.
Maren Purves
2005-03-15 19:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Sue Larkin wrote:
> In article <1110872100-***@news.lava.net>, "Jerry Okamura"
> <***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> :Obvously, if you are poor, there are always "other
> :things" that they could have spent their money on.
> :Some of those "other things" could be cigarettes,
> :booze, drugs, maybe a nice car, a big TV, and a
> :whole host of "other things". Some of which,
> :could also be questioned as a wise use of their
> :limited funds.
>
> How 'bout fireworks? I know they're a cultural thing for many but it
> still stuns me to see the massive amount of money that's spent by
> people who have absolutely no discretionary income.

and some people save all year to afford their Christmas lighting ...
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-16 06:45:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> I do not know what one means when we make statements
> like, a lot of people need to lose a lot of money".
> It is obvious that the reason the casinos try to draw
> in a lot of people, because the more people they can
> get to gamble, the more money they make.

No. It doesn't seem likely. Casinos are in business to
make money-- a lot of money. They want a high rate of
return on their investment.

> table. No, I suspect that casino's make their money
> by getting a little money out of a lot of people.

No. It more seems that they make a lot of money from a
small number of people. For example, suppose the
typical addicted gambler goes over there once a year
where he loses about say $300,000. Most of time, he/she
can control his/her habit and limit their losses. But
say once a year they lose a ton of money. Now a lot of
small gamblers may go over for a week and gamble til
they lose their couple hundred dollars. A few will come
close to winning back their initial funds. But each big
loser is equivalent to about a thousand small loosers.
IIRC there are about 5% addicted gamblers in Las Vegas.
Since each big loser may lost about what 1000 small
losers lose, it seems that the few big losers help keep
Las Vegas cheap for the rest of us.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-16 19:10:07 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110955502-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> I do not know what one means when we make
>> statements
>> like, a lot of people need to lose a lot of
>> money".
>> It is obvious that the reason the casinos try
>> to draw
>> in a lot of people, because the more people
>> they can
>> get to gamble, the more money they make.
>
> No. It doesn't seem likely. Casinos are in
> business to
> make money-- a lot of money. They want a high
> rate of
> return on their investment.
>
>> table. No, I suspect that casino's make their
>> money
>> by getting a little money out of a lot of
>> people.
>
> No. It more seems that they make a lot of money
> from a
> small number of people. For example, suppose the
> typical addicted gambler goes over there once a
> year
> where he loses about say $300,000. Most of time,
> he/she
> can control his/her habit and limit their
> losses. But
> say once a year they lose a ton of money. Now a
> lot of
> small gamblers may go over for a week and gamble
> til
> they lose their couple hundred dollars. A few
> will come
> close to winning back their initial funds. But
> each big
> loser is equivalent to about a thousand small
> loosers.
> IIRC there are about 5% addicted gamblers in Las
> Vegas.
> Since each big loser may lost about what 1000
> small
> losers lose, it seems that the few big losers
> help keep
> Las Vegas cheap for the rest of us.
>
Look, when you put u a multi-billion dollar hotel,
with all the expenses that go with putting up such
a structure, you need a whole lot of income just
to make the payment on the hotel and to pay for
the overheard. Even if you could get $300,000
from each and every rich person you get to go to
your hotel, there is no way that you can get
enough of those rich people to drop enough money
to pay for the hotel and the expenses they incur
on a daily basis.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-15 07:40:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Dan Birchall wrote:

> ***@lava.net (Alvin E. Toda) wrote:
>> This is also a similar criticism of lotteries. I was
>> in California when lotteries got started. [So] many
>> poor won that it became obvious that they were
>> buying a large portion of the tickets. The criticism
>> was that much of the money they spent on buying
>> tickets was state money from welfare. Politicians
>> thought to prohibit the people on welfare from
>> winning when they realised that few other people buy
>> the lottery tickets.
>
> I've been biding my tongue, but this meshes pretty
> well the impressions I got of casinos in the
> 1996-1999 timeframe, when I was webmaster for more
> than half of the ones in Atlantic City, as well as
> multiple properties in Las Vegas, New Orleans, Tunica
> and... whatever fancy-schmancy name they gave the
> Gary, Indiana waterfront. "Buffington Harbor,"
> that's it! ;)
>
> The marketing materials always showed middle-class
> yuppie families, but most of the slot machines were
> manned by blue-haired grannies who arrived by the
> busload to blow their social security money.
>
> Yeah, there are folks like Sue who limit themselves.
> But if those folks were more than a tiny fraction of
> the overall customer base, the casinos would go
> broke. For them to make a profit, a lot of people
> need to lose a lot of money, a lot of the time -
> plain and simple math.

> Hmm. I guess I just kinda said where I stand. And
> unlike most(?) other people here, I've been on the
> "house's" side, in terms of where my pay was coming
> from.

I wonder how those who work with this stuff don't seem
to have the passion for gambling. And yes I see oodles
of the local elderly at the California Casino in Las
Vegas dropping quarter after quarter, or dollar after
dollar, into slot machines.

Many years ago, I once attended some training on some
design software, and met an engineer who said that they
were planning to switch to electronic slot machines,
and that the new capabilities would bring new
opportunities to make the games more exciting to the
masses. For example, Hawaii machines could have
surfboards in their displays. But he had no passion in
for gambling and thought that those who design the
games understand the psychology of the obsessed who
play those games. Today, slot machines continued to be
the major machines on the casino floor. Smart machines
can even play poker for example.

Anyway, I've concluded that casino employers don't want
workers who are too interested in gambling. That way
workers'll spend less time in trying to figure out how
to beat the system. And if they did find a way, that
they'd be less likely to use that system for their own
advantage.

--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-15 07:40:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1110814202-***@news.lava.net...

>> Jerry, the topic of this thread is casino gambling.
>> That's something that only exists illegally in
>> Hawaii. Most addicted gamblers would rather go to
>> Las Vegas to lose their homes, then get messed up
>> with the local syndicate.
>
> Casino gambling is just an large scale opertion,
> it is still gambling.

I disagree. The economic and social impact of casinos
is very great in Hawaii.

>> You mean casinos. They build a better casino so the
>> gambler wont be tempted to sight-see and stop
>> gambling. What would that say about the many things
>> that tourists now do in Hawaii? What would happen to
>> our golf courses for example, if tourists stoped
>> playing golf and just played the roulette wheel?
>
> That depends on whether a large casino operation will
> attract "new" customers or "old" customers, don't you
> think? I would imagine that a regular visitor to
> these islands would not be "sightseeing" either,
> since they have already done the "sightseeing" part.
> And Las Vegas also has an awful lot of golf courses.
> Every been there? Ever try to golf in a desert
> environment like Vegas? It is very very hot, during
> the summer times, yet the golf courses seem to do a
> thriving business.

We don't want to compete with cheap Las Vegas golf
courses, or the cheap vacation that is going to Las
Vegas. Hawaii golf courses should remain world class
and expensive-- where Japanese golfers could find a
game almost any time of the year. That said, I don't
see anything wrong with Hawaii golf resorts having
local promotions for discounts to local players in the
off season.

>> Costs in Las Vegas are probably better than in
>> Honolulu, so a "good" living is probably easier
>> there. That's the price of living in Hawaii-- higher
>> costs of living. What John is saying is what some of
>> the indians on reservations with casinos are saying:
>> for all the tons of money being droped by gamblers
>> only a fraction is being earned by the indians. The
>> good artists and craftsmen of them earn more from
>> selling their art to tourists, than they would ever
>> earn as a card dealer in a casino.
>
> And I have said, whose fault is that. The leaders of
> that Indian land, or the person who runs the casino
> operations. A Casino cannot operate on Indian land,
> without the permission of the leaders of that Indian
> tribe.

It is the fault of tribe politicians who believe the
slick presentations of the developers of the casino.
But as I have stated before, it is not an unreasonable
expectation that all tribe members should become
wealthy judging from the huge sums of money that are
being lost in the casino?

>> Baloney, addicted gamblers would never bet if they
>> thought that they might lose. They fear losing, but
>> they expect to win every time they gamble. For them
>> risking all is a very special thrill.
>
> Of course they do. This is not rocket science. Any
> gambler knows that odds are with the house. Because
> the odds are with the house, it does not take a
> rocket scientist to figure out that your chances of
> winning are slim to none. There are only two games
> now, (use to be three) that a "good" gambler can win
> consistently, that is poker and blackjack (though
> they have made the chances of winning at blackjack a
> whole lot harder today).

Gamblers know the low odds of course. But they believe
these odds apply to someone else-- not to them who have
an "inate" ability to win, or have figured out a good
method.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-16 07:45:01 UTC
Permalink
"Sue Larkin" <***@xobop.com> wrote in message
news:1110902100-***@news.lava.net...
>

>
> A curiosity question...
> Considering the size and Disneyland atmosphere
> of the newer
> mega-hotels, who/what owns the casino portion?
> Is it the hotel? Or is
> the casino "sub-let" for lack of a better word
> to another entity? I'm
> thinking that the retail portion has got to be
> bringing in huge bucks.
> I have no idea what the rent might be per square
> foot but it's got to
> be at least that of Waikiki if not a lot
> more...not to mention a
> percentage of the sales. Then there are the
> hotel rooms. I remember
> food being extremely reasonable in Vegas as were
> drinks in the casinos.
> I'd be interested to know what the income is for
> one of the mega-hotels
> prior to any gambling dollars factored in. Of
> course that would vary
> based on room occupancy but I'm just curious if
> the casino might be
> pure gravy.

Since today, at least the bigger hotels, are
public corporations, they run the entire
operation.
>
> :> As Alvin pointed out, yeah, there are lots of
> :> stories of
> :> down-and-out people winning huge jackpots...
> but
> :> I wonder
> :> how much of their being down-and-out had to
> do
> :> with them
> :> gambling away money they really needed for
> other
> :> things?

I have no doubt that if you are down and out, that
"some" would think that they might as well spend
some bucks to "shoot for the moon". The question
it seems to me is, what percentage of the total
population of poor does that represent. And while
we talk about that, then we should also include
those who smoke (expecially given the tax
situation here in Hawaii), or those who use some
kind of drug of choice, or those who spend their
money on alcohol. Those who buy brand new cars,
or a brand new appliance, when they cannot afford
it. After all, there are lots of opportunities to
blow you money on a whole bunch of things that we
think we either want or need.
>
> How 'bout fireworks? I know they're a cultural
> thing for many but it
> still stuns me to see the massive amount of
> money that's spent by
> people who have absolutely no discretionary
> income.
>

Because they get a "kick" out of using them?
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-16 07:45:03 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110872412-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1110814202-***@news.lava.net...
>

>>
>> Casino gambling is just an large scale
>> opertion,
>> it is still gambling.
>
> I disagree. The economic and social impact of
> casinos
> is very great in Hawaii.

That is right. But as we argue about this, you
choose to emphasize the negatives, and others like
me choose to emphasize the positives. That is
what we do when we take sides on this and any
other issues that we discuss on this newsgroup.
>
>>> You mean casinos. They build a better casino
>>> so the
>>> gambler wont be tempted to sight-see and stop
>>> gambling. What would that say about the many
>>> things
>>> that tourists now do in Hawaii? What would
>>> happen to
>>> our golf courses for example, if tourists
>>> stoped
>>> playing golf and just played the roulette
>>> wheel?
>>
>> That depends on whether a large casino
>> operation will
>> attract "new" customers or "old" customers,
>> don't you
>> think? I would imagine that a regular visitor
>> to
>> these islands would not be "sightseeing"
>> either,
>> since they have already done the "sightseeing"
>> part.
>> And Las Vegas also has an awful lot of golf
>> courses.
>> Every been there? Ever try to golf in a desert
>> environment like Vegas? It is very very hot,
>> during
>> the summer times, yet the golf courses seem to
>> do a
>> thriving business.
>
> We don't want to compete with cheap Las Vegas
> golf
> courses, or the cheap vacation that is going to
> Las
> Vegas. Hawaii golf courses should remain world
> class
> and expensive-- where Japanese golfers could
> find a
> game almost any time of the year. That said, I
> don't
> see anything wrong with Hawaii golf resorts
> having
> local promotions for discounts to local players
> in the
> off season.

Are you a golfer? I use to golf, and they have
some pretty great golf courses in Las Vegas. And
those "expensive" golf courses in Hawaii, also
means that those who like to golf who cannot
afford the green fees, cannot afford to play in
those "world class" golf courses we have here.
For the most part the only people who can play in
our world class golf courses are those with the
money. And there are a lot of people who like to
golf who are not rich.
>
>>> Costs in Las Vegas are probably better than in
>>> Honolulu, so a "good" living is probably
>>> easier
>>> there. That's the price of living in Hawaii--
>>> higher
>>> costs of living. What John is saying is what
>>> some of
>>> the indians on reservations with casinos are
>>> saying:
>>> for all the tons of money being droped by
>>> gamblers
>>> only a fraction is being earned by the
>>> indians. The
>>> good artists and craftsmen of them earn more
>>> from
>>> selling their art to tourists, than they would
>>> ever
>>> earn as a card dealer in a casino.
>>
>> And I have said, whose fault is that. The
>> leaders of
>> that Indian land, or the person who runs the
>> casino
>> operations. A Casino cannot operate on Indian
>> land,
>> without the permission of the leaders of that
>> Indian
>> tribe.
>
> It is the fault of tribe politicians who believe
> the
> slick presentations of the developers of the
> casino.
> But as I have stated before, it is not an
> unreasonable
> expectation that all tribe members should become
> wealthy judging from the huge sums of money that
> are
> being lost in the casino?

Doesn't that depend to a degree on how large the
"tribe" is?
>
>>> Baloney, addicted gamblers would never bet if
>>> they
>>> thought that they might lose. They fear
>>> losing, but
>>> they expect to win every time they gamble. For
>>> them
>>> risking all is a very special thrill.
>>
>> Of course they do. This is not rocket science.
>> Any
>> gambler knows that odds are with the house.
>> Because
>> the odds are with the house, it does not take a
>> rocket scientist to figure out that your
>> chances of
>> winning are slim to none. There are only two
>> games
>> now, (use to be three) that a "good" gambler
>> can win
>> consistently, that is poker and blackjack
>> (though
>> they have made the chances of winning at
>> blackjack a
>> whole lot harder today).
>
> Gamblers know the low odds of course. But they
> believe
> these odds apply to someone else-- not to them
> who have
> an "inate" ability to win, or have figured out a
> good
> method.
>
From everything you posted, I gather you are not a
gambler. If you are not a gambler, how do you
know what a gambler believes or does not believe?
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-17 03:40:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> Look, when you put u a multi-billion dollar hotel,
> with all the expenses that go with putting up such a
> structure, you need a whole lot of income just to
> make the payment on the hotel and to pay for the
> overheard. Even if you could get $300,000 from each
> and every rich person you get to go to your hotel,
> there is no way that you can get enough of those rich
> people to drop enough money to pay for the hotel and
> the expenses they incur on a daily basis.

Actually, I would expect that the $300,000 come from
people like you and me. There's a saying that there's
someone like that born every minute. Rich people like
Secretary Bennett lose millions. But the Casinos are in
business to make money. Just having gamblers buy food
and hotel rooms at cost will still be a lot of profit
if the big and addicted players are attracted to their
casinos.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-17 18:40:05 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1111030821-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Look, when you put u a multi-billion dollar
>> hotel,
>> with all the expenses that go with putting up
>> such a
>> structure, you need a whole lot of income just
>> to
>> make the payment on the hotel and to pay for
>> the
>> overheard. Even if you could get $300,000 from
>> each
>> and every rich person you get to go to your
>> hotel,
>> there is no way that you can get enough of
>> those rich
>> people to drop enough money to pay for the
>> hotel and
>> the expenses they incur on a daily basis.
>
> Actually, I would expect that the $300,000 come
> from
> people like you and me. There's a saying that
> there's
> someone like that born every minute. Rich people
> like
> Secretary Bennett lose millions. But the Casinos
> are in
> business to make money. Just having gamblers buy
> food
> and hotel rooms at cost will still be a lot of
> profit
> if the big and addicted players are attracted to
> their
> casinos.
>
I haven't got anywhere near $300,000 to dump in
any casino. And even if I did, that would be a
one time affair, so the casino would have to
repeatedly have to find more customers who would
dump $300,000 day in and day out.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-18 04:10:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1111030821-***@news.lava.net...

>> Actually, I would expect that the $300,000 come from
>> people like you and me. There's a saying that
>> there's someone like that born every minute. Rich
>> people like Secretary Bennett lose millions. But the
>> Casinos are in business to make money. Just having
>> gamblers buy food and hotel rooms at cost will still
>> be a lot of profit if the big and addicted players
>> are attracted to their casinos.
>>
> I haven't got anywhere near $300,000 to dump in any
> casino. And even if I did, that would be a one time
> affair, so the casino would have to repeatedly have
> to find more customers who would dump $300,000 day in
> and day out.

Nonsense, you need to also consider the assets of your
children, friends, and family. As an addicted gambler,
you might also think up a scheme to inflate your assets
by buying worthless land on the Big Island and claiming
an outrageous figure for it to get credit from the
casinos. But you might just be a big politician here in
Hawaii who can get the law changed for allowing casinos
in Hawaii through your political influence. Bet they
might give you a million bucks credit on that alone. If
you continue to pay back on your credit, then they'll
give you even more credit on money to lose.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-19 04:00:09 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1111119009-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1111030821-***@news.lava.net...
>
>>> Actually, I would expect that the $300,000
>>> come from
>>> people like you and me. There's a saying that
>>> there's someone like that born every minute.
>>> Rich
>>> people like Secretary Bennett lose millions.
>>> But the
>>> Casinos are in business to make money. Just
>>> having
>>> gamblers buy food and hotel rooms at cost will
>>> still
>>> be a lot of profit if the big and addicted
>>> players
>>> are attracted to their casinos.
>>>
>> I haven't got anywhere near $300,000 to dump in
>> any
>> casino. And even if I did, that would be a one
>> time
>> affair, so the casino would have to repeatedly
>> have
>> to find more customers who would dump $300,000
>> day in
>> and day out.
>
> Nonsense, you need to also consider the assets
> of your
> children, friends, and family. As an addicted
> gambler,
> you might also think up a scheme to inflate your
> assets
> by buying worthless land on the Big Island and
> claiming
> an outrageous figure for it to get credit from
> the
> casinos. But you might just be a big politician
> here in
> Hawaii who can get the law changed for allowing
> casinos
> in Hawaii through your political influence. Bet
> they
> might give you a million bucks credit on that
> alone. If
> you continue to pay back on your credit, then
> they'll
> give you even more credit on money to lose.
>
Do you know of any addicted gamblers? I do. If
you did, you would know that like a drug addict in
your family, you do not help them with their
"addiction" by giving them money to support their
"addiction". You might just as well throw your
money down a toilet and flush it.
MTI
2005-03-19 23:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Jerry do you know people addicted to TV? Addicted to going out with or
dating the wrong people? Addicted to their pets? Addicted to
chocolate?
Hooked on Korean soap operas? Addicted to sports? Dare I say it,
addicted to the internet?

The mere existence of weakness, the mere existence of those that cannot
control their impulses or compulsions, is not the end all, be all
argument
against anything.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-12 20:00:08 UTC
Permalink
"al Guacamole" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110602114-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Doesn't take too many disasters to make it a bad
> law. How many is too
> much? How about one?
>
Well, let's see. How many deaths are caused by
drunk drivers in Hawaii. How many "drunks" are
caught, before they kill or injure someone? Since
it is against the law to drive while under the
influence, and we read all the time that some
drunk has caused a death of someone, is that a
"bad" law?
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-12 20:00:10 UTC
Permalink
I am not sure I understand the point you are
trying to make. But doesn't "all" people have
some sort of problem? So, while it may not be
okay, isn't the simple fact that we all have
"problems" of some sort, make the statement sort
of irrelevant? Some people smoke. Some use
drugs. Some, if not most, break the traffic laws
just about everytime they drive. Some people eat
the "wrong" foods. A whole lot of people do not
exercize enough, whyich is not exactly the "right"
thing to do.

"al Guacamole" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110592201-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Has it cured Mel Cabang? How about Secretary
> Bennett? How is the fact
> that there is a problem make it OK? Grow up....
>
> --alvin
>
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-14 15:30:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> I am not sure I understand the point you are trying
> to make. But doesn't "all" people have some sort of
> problem? So, while it may not be okay, isn't the
> simple fact that we all have "problems" of some sort,
> make the statement sort of irrelevant?

It depends on what you mean by "irrelevant". People
like Cabang and Bennett have caused a great deal of
hardship on their families for their gambling habits.
It's not the same kind of problem that all other people
will have. Sure most of us have a problem with heavy
traffic. But our problems don't make those of addicted
gamblers any less of a problem.

It's a little like the little kid telling his folks
that why can't he do a bad thing (why is gambling
addiction so bad), when the other kids do it too (every
one seems to have some sort of problem)?

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-14 22:45:04 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110814206-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> I am not sure I understand the point you are
>> trying
>> to make. But doesn't "all" people have some
>> sort of
>> problem? So, while it may not be okay, isn't
>> the
>> simple fact that we all have "problems" of
>> some sort,
>> make the statement sort of irrelevant?
>
> It depends on what you mean by "irrelevant".
> People
> like Cabang and Bennett have caused a great deal
> of
> hardship on their families for their gambling
> habits.
> It's not the same kind of problem that all other
> people
> will have. Sure most of us have a problem with
> heavy
> traffic. But our problems don't make those of
> addicted
> gamblers any less of a problem.

Don't know anything about Cabang, but though
Bennett did have a really big gambling problem, it
seems to me the only "people" he hurt was himsele,
since from everyting I have read, you could well
afford the loses he incurred. So, what "hardship"
did Bennett cause that affected his family? And
if Bennett was "adicted" he sure does not seem to
have had a very serious "addiction" problem, since
he apparently had no problem stopping that
"addicted" habit". I would agree though that it
is not the same kind of problem that all other
people will have, but that is why we are "people",
don't we all have different problems, that are
more or less of a problem to ourselves and our
families.
>
> It's a little like the little kid telling his
> folks
> that why can't he do a bad thing (why is
> gambling
> addiction so bad), when the other kids do it too
> (every
> one seems to have some sort of problem)?
>
Because it isn't?
MTI
2005-03-12 20:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Telling someone to "grow up" now there's a sign of maturity.

As for "a problem" making a law okay . . . that's such a vast over
simplification of the issues I don't know where to begin. My intial
response to this thread was to point out that keeping organized,
licensed
and legal gambling out of Hawai'i wasn't going to keep Hawai'i "gambling
free" since it's such an integrated component of island life. Why on
earth
does the Honolulu-Advertiser spend so much ink on "Pigskin Picks" during
football season and the prize is a trip to Vegas? Just this afternoon,
while having a late lunch at Nori's in Hilo, I heard a conversation
between
the cashier and a retirement age local woman. She was saying that she
was
in Vegas last month and is going again next month and that while her
husband
did okay, she lost some. Imagine that, all the money leaving the state.

Then there are the claims that gambling will cause the social and moral
decay of the island population . . . just like the other 48 states that
already have some form of state regulated gaming? Isn't the opposition
to
gaming in Hawai'i contaminated with just a twinge of hypocrisy?
John W. Bienko
2005-03-13 02:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Gerry.. You do have a very interesting point of view.
I repeat.. gambling does not produce anything..
it has disasterous consequences..
I do not see anything worthwhile in Las Vegas or Atlantic
City.. the workers are modern day slaves to the
moneymaking machine of the gambling corporations..
Money does not grow on trees.. even in Hawai`i.
It is the people who will have to pay for all those
buildings and gambling facilities..
and the people will get very little in return.
.. so little that you highlight the euphoria of the
high flying moment..
And after that fleeting moment in the sun
there is ZERO.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Sue Larkin
2005-03-13 08:30:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <1110681301-***@news.lava.net>, ***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(John W. Bienko) wrote:

:Gerry.. You do have a very interesting point of view.
:I repeat.. gambling does not produce anything..
:it has disasterous consequences..

That's way too broad a statement to be true.

:I do not see anything worthwhile in Las Vegas or Atlantic
:City.. the workers are modern day slaves to the
:moneymaking machine of the gambling corporations..

For the most part I think that can be said of corporations in general,
not just those involved in the gambling industry.

:Money does not grow on trees.. even in Hawai`i.
:It is the people who will have to pay for all those
:buildings and gambling facilities..
:and the people will get very little in return.

I think the point Jerry was trying to make was that, in return, more
people would have jobs.
[...]
MTI
2005-03-13 08:35:03 UTC
Permalink
I think you're mistaking what is a business for some sort of social
agency.
A casino is a buisness, it generates jobs and pays taxes . . . it's a
business. It's not a school, hospital, fire department or dog catcher.

The argument that it's "bad for Hawaii" or "doesn't give to the people"
is
so totally based on passion and morality that it's hard to comment on
the
lack of facts in it. What do restaurants contribute . . . other than
obesity and high blood pressure . . . what do shopping centers
contribute
other than fostering a society based on material goods . . . one can
always
find the bad in anything and a reason to object to it, if you look hard
enough.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-14 15:30:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> I think you're mistaking what is a business for some
> sort of social agency. A casino is a buisness, it
> generates jobs and pays taxes . . . it's a business.
> It's not a school, hospital, fire department or dog
> catcher.

Not only is it a crummy business for Hawaii to engage
in. It seems that the only argument going for it is
that we should have addicted gamblers from Hawaii
losing their money in local casinos rather than
mainland casinos. There are a lot better ways to
improve our economy than pandering to the weaknesses of
some of our citizens.

--alvin
MTI
2005-03-14 22:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Fast food is also a "crummy business" Alvin, so why no ongoing outrage over
that? The adult entertainment businesses along Kapiolani Blvd are also
"crummy businesses" but the local papers allow them to advertise in the
sports sections. As you say, the "weakness of some of our citizens" is
supposedly a justification for disallowing gambling, but can you think of
any business, including shopping malls that have sales every weekend, that
do not market to the "weakness" of their customers.

Take the unspoken morality play out of the debate and you'll find very
little to differentiate the business goals of a casino to any other
hospitality/service business.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-15 04:15:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> Fast food is also a "crummy business" Alvin, so why
> no ongoing outrage over that? The adult
> entertainment businesses along Kapiolani Blvd are
> also "crummy businesses" but the local papers allow
> them to advertise in the sports sections. As you
> say, the "weakness of some of our citizens" is
> supposedly a justification for disallowing gambling,
> but can you think of any business, including shopping
> malls that have sales every weekend, that do not
> market to the "weakness" of their customers.
>
> Take the unspoken morality play out of the debate and
> you'll find very little to differentiate the business
> goals of a casino to any other hospitality/service
> business.

It's not just a moral thing.

Casinos have real consequences that are bad for our
existing businesses. It's no wonder that a rumor might
be that tour bus businesses might be opposed to them.
When people would rather gamble than go to a luau, it's
time to worry about what other businesses would be
affected especially when you realise it is to the
casino's advantage to supply all the gambler's need
rather than leaving the hotel to do some touring or
worse, to gamble at a competitors casino.

Worse than economic consequences, there are also real
social disasters that are waiting to happen with
casinos.

If the people of Hawaii can gamble all they want now,
then why do we need casinos? The public funding to
casinos could be better used to attract or build more
profitable and sustaining businesses and industries in
Hawaii.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-14 22:45:07 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110814208-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:
>
>> I think you're mistaking what is a business
>> for some
>> sort of social agency. A casino is a buisness,
>> it
>> generates jobs and pays taxes . . . it's a
>> business.
>> It's not a school, hospital, fire department
>> or dog
>> catcher.
>
> Not only is it a crummy business for Hawaii to
> engage
> in. It seems that the only argument going for it
> is
> that we should have addicted gamblers from
> Hawaii
> losing their money in local casinos rather than
> mainland casinos. There are a lot better ways to
> improve our economy than pandering to the
> weaknesses of
> some of our citizens.
>
Like what?
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-13 23:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Good points

"MTI" <***@mc-carter.com> wrote in message
news:1110702903-***@news.lava.net...
>
> I think you're mistaking what is a business for
> some sort of social
> agency.
> A casino is a buisness, it generates jobs and
> pays taxes . . . it's a
> business. It's not a school, hospital, fire
> department or dog catcher.
>
> The argument that it's "bad for Hawaii" or
> "doesn't give to the people"
> is
> so totally based on passion and morality that
> it's hard to comment on
> the
> lack of facts in it. What do restaurants
> contribute . . . other than
> obesity and high blood pressure . . . what do
> shopping centers
> contribute
> other than fostering a society based on material
> goods . . . one can
> always
> find the bad in anything and a reason to object
> to it, if you look hard
> enough.
>
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-13 23:25:01 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message news:1110681301-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Gerry.. You do have a very interesting point of
> view.
> I repeat.. gambling does not produce anything..

Depends on what one means when we say "it does not
produce anything" doesn't it? Who "produced"
those multi-billion dollar hotels? Are you saying
that the workers at these establishments, and
those who service those hotels are not "producing"
anything? What about the jobs that those
hotel/casino operations "produce" from those who
have to provide the goods and services that any
large operation needs? What about the services
that Neveda State government can provide becuase
of the revenue they receive from these gambling
operations. If they did not have that as a source
of revenue, where would they get the revenue to
provide the services they do provide. As I
understand it, Las Vegas is one of the fastest
growing cities in the country. You do not become
one of the fastest grwoing cities in the country,
if people cannot get jobs, or believe that they
are better off in Las Vegas than where they came
from.

> it has disasterous consequences..
> I do not see anything worthwhile in Las Vegas or
> Atlantic
> City.. the workers are modern day slaves to the
> moneymaking machine of the gambling
> corporations..

Those modern day slaves make a pretty good living
working for the casinos. Most of them belong to a
union. Are you saying that a union would allow
their workers to be slaves?


> Money does not grow on trees.. even in Hawai`i.

Actually, money, as it is defined today, does sort
of grow on trees. All that is required is for the
Feds to print more of it, or to use the multiplier
effect to increase the money supply anytime they
want to (of course they can also do the reverse).
..

> It is the people who will have to pay for all
> those
> buildings and gambling facilities..
> and the people will get very little in return.
> .. so little that you highlight the euphoria of
> the
> high flying moment..
> And after that fleeting moment in the sun
> there is ZERO.
>

Everything, eventually will go to zero, it depends
on ones time frame. We will become extinct no
later than when the sun dies.
Maren Purves
2005-03-14 22:50:07 UTC
Permalink
John W. Bienko wrote:
> I repeat.. gambling does not produce anything..

neither does the service industry, if you take "produce"
literally.

> I do not see anything worthwhile in Las Vegas or Atlantic
> City..

then don't go there. I don't.

> the workers are modern day slaves to the
> moneymaking machine of the gambling corporations..

are they really all that differnt from all of the
other ones who work too?

> Money does not grow on trees.. even in Hawai`i.

does too, if you grow the right trees.
Ever been to a coffee, papaya, macadamia, etc., orchard?

> It is the people who will have to pay for all those
> buildings and gambling facilities..

just like for all other buildings and facilities.
This isn't different between casinos and hospitals or schools.

> and the people will get very little in return.

the ones who do the building do, and the ones who work there,
and ...

(never mind that I'm still against gambling, but even if
it was legal it was still up to me to not do it, yes?)

Maren
MTI
2005-03-15 07:40:05 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110860100-***@news.lava.net...
> When people would rather gamble than go to a luau, it's
> time to worry about what other businesses would be
> affected especially when you realise it is to the
> casino's advantage to supply all the gambler's need
> rather than leaving the hotel to do some touring or
> worse, to gamble at a competitors casino.

***How many luaus can a visitor go to during a 5-7 day stay? One?
Seems
to me that showrooms in casinos will employ a few more local
entertainers,
nah, why would they want to provide entertainment to gamblers, no casion
operator in their right minds would do that . . . ***

> Worse than economic consequences, there are also real
> social disasters that are waiting to happen with
> casinos.

***Alvin . . I think more people have been injured by the health
effects of
2 for 1 Pizza Hut Pizzas, Spam musubis and ZipPaks than will ever be
injured
by legalized gambling in Hawaii.***

> If the people of Hawaii can gamble all they want now,
> then why do we need casinos? The public funding to
> casinos could be better used to attract or build more
> profitable and sustaining businesses and industries in
> Hawaii.
>
> --alvin
>

***Public funding? I'd want to put extra auditors on the job so that
we,
the public, can keep track of all the money that the state will be
taking
in***
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-16 06:45:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> ***How many luaus can a visitor go to during a 5-7
> day stay? One? Seems to me that showrooms in casinos
> will employ a few more local entertainers, nah, why
> would they want to provide entertainment to gamblers,
> no casion operator in their right minds would do that
> . . . ***

I always thought that the shows and eats at the casinos
were to attract gamblers from other hotels to their
casino. The more different and desireable the
attractions, the more times they can hope to attract
the same gambler. Was at the California Casino this
December and they provide enough meal tickets that you
really don't have to leave the hotel.

>> Worse than economic consequences, there are also
>> real social disasters that are waiting to happen
>> with casinos.
>
> ***Alvin . . I think more people have been injured
> by the health effects of 2 for 1 Pizza Hut Pizzas,
> Spam musubis and ZipPaks than will ever be injured by
> legalized gambling in Hawaii.***

It's relative. But IIRC there isn't more than 5%
estimated for addicted gamblers in Las Vegas. This
number is sufficient to keep casinos very happy.

>> If the people of Hawaii can gamble all they want
>> now, then why do we need casinos? The public funding
>> to casinos could be better used to attract or build
>> more profitable and sustaining businesses and
>> industries in Hawaii.
>>
>> --alvin
>>
>
> ***Public funding? I'd want to put extra auditors on
> the job so that we, the public, can keep track of all
> the money that the state will be taking in***

Funny that the residents to do not benefit from all of
that money. It isn't the windfall that gambling
supporters claim. It would be far better economically
for Hawaii to use the money that would go to these
casinos to grow say 5 companies like MicroSoft in
Hawaii.

--alvin
MTI
2005-03-16 19:10:03 UTC
Permalink
The employees of the restaurants, showrooms and other amenities that the
casino/hotels provide for their patrons are local people. Remember those
commericals that used to run here . . a $20 bill paid by a tourist changes
hands multiple times until it ends up buying a shaved ice for little girl.
That's what happens to the economy.

As for developing another Microsoft in Hawaii, doesn't our tax money already
support the Manoa incubator for high tech, so that's already been done. And
how much money are proponents of legalized gambling asking from the state?
If you are suggesting that the private investment that casinos would be
spending be used for something else, why don't we ask McNaughton to spend
more money on developing tech than opening more Starbuucks or Jamba Juices
too? We're still talking about private investment, not the use of public
funds. Please keep the two separate in your arguments.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-16 19:10:09 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110955500-***@news.lava.net...
>
>
> Funny that the residents to do not benefit from
> all of
> that money. It isn't the windfall that gambling
> supporters claim. It would be far better
> economically
> for Hawaii to use the money that would go to
> these
> casinos to grow say 5 companies like MicroSoft
> in
> Hawaii.
>
We have gone over this territory before. A
company like Microsoft can be located anywhere in
the world. Why would they want to locate in a
high tax, high regulation State, where there is a
limited labor source, when they can locate
somewhere where they will not pay such a high tax
rate, or not have to deal with all the regulations
that this State offers, and has a limited labor
base.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-16 07:40:02 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1110860100-***@news.lava.net...
>

>
> Casinos have real consequences that are bad for
> our
> existing businesses. It's no wonder that a rumor
> might
> be that tour bus businesses might be opposed to
> them.
> When people would rather gamble than go to a
> luau, it's
> time to worry about what other businesses would
> be
> affected especially when you realise it is to
> the
> casino's advantage to supply all the gambler's
> need
> rather than leaving the hotel to do some touring
> or
> worse, to gamble at a competitors casino.

It will be bad for certain businesses and great
for other businesses.
>
> Worse than economic consequences, there are also
> real
> social disasters that are waiting to happen with
> casinos.

One should weigh the advantages and disadvantages.
And there are advanatages as well as
disadvantages, whether you have legal gambling in
Hawaii. or you do not.
>
> If the people of Hawaii can gamble all they want
> now,
> then why do we need casinos? The public funding
> to
> casinos could be better used to attract or build
> more
> profitable and sustaining businesses and
> industries in
> Hawaii.
>
Because it would be more convenient? Because you
do not have to board an airplane and spend seven
or more hours flying there, not to mention, the
time it takes to fly back? Because you don't have
to spend the hundreds of dollars that you could
spend in other areas on an airplance ticket, not
to mention the cost of the hotel room? Because if
it is anything close to Las Vegas or Reno, it
opens up additional entertainment opportunities,
as well as some inexpensive and great eating
places? Because it requires a lot of people, to
run a large scale casino/hotel
operation....translation: jobs? And good paying
jobs at that. Because such an operation has to be
"fed" which means that there is a need for people
who cater to the needs of a hotel/casino
operation?

And we have talked a number of times about other
types of opportunities for business growth in
Hawaii, and I have yet to hear you find one that
is near as big as the opportunity for business
growth that gambling would bring into these
islands....not to mention it would be a great
revenue source for the State, County government.
Like I have said there are advantages and
disadvantages.
just another
2005-03-17 00:25:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <1111000208-***@news.lava.net>, "Jerry Okamura"
<***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1110955500-***@news.lava.net...
>>
>>
>> Funny that the residents to do not benefit from
>> all of
>> that money. It isn't the windfall that gambling
>> supporters claim. It would be far better
>> economically
>> for Hawaii to use the money that would go to
>> these
>> casinos to grow say 5 companies like MicroSoft
>> in
>> Hawaii.
>>
> We have gone over this territory before. A
> company like Microsoft can be located anywhere in
> the world. Why would they want to locate in a
> high tax, high regulation State, where there is a
> limited labor source, when they can locate
> somewhere where they will not pay such a high tax
> rate, or not have to deal with all the regulations
> that this State offers, and has a limited labor
> base.

When VeriFone was purchased by HP, one of the 1st things HP did was
drastically cut the Honolulu
(actually Mililani) office. Let almost 100 engineers go.

On the one hand, VeriFone was born here, and Hawaii reaped the benefits
of its nearly $300
million in sales for years. On the other hand, had HP not acquired
them, they might've stayed
indefinitely.

Same I think with Adtech; Spirent has moved much of it off island,
could possibly move all of it
away; yet Hawaii's still reaped much benefit from Adtech. My point is
that investment in making
fledgling tech companies possible has already provided much benefit to
Hawaii, even when those
companies eventually move away. Hawaii *does* have a good high-tech
labor base, and a rather
easy locale to recruit to if you're paying reasonable wages.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-17 18:40:01 UTC
Permalink
"just another" <***@noaddress.com> wrote in
message news:1111019105-***@news.lava.net...
>
> In article <1111000208-***@news.lava.net>,
> "Jerry Okamura"
> <***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> When VeriFone was purchased by HP, one of the
> 1st things HP did was
> drastically cut the Honolulu
> (actually Mililani) office. Let almost 100
> engineers go.
>
> On the one hand, VeriFone was born here, and
> Hawaii reaped the benefits
> of its nearly $300
> million in sales for years. On the other hand,
> had HP not acquired
> them, they might've stayed
> indefinitely.
>
> Same I think with Adtech; Spirent has moved much
> of it off island,
> could possibly move all of it
> away; yet Hawaii's still reaped much benefit
> from Adtech. My point is
> that investment in making
> fledgling tech companies possible has already
> provided much benefit to
> Hawaii, even when those
> companies eventually move away. Hawaii *does*
> have a good high-tech
> labor base, and a rather
> easy locale to recruit to if you're paying
> reasonable wages.
>

Therein is the "kicker", i.e. "if you are paying a
reasonable wage". What is "resonable"?
"Reasonable" from the companies viewpoint, or
"reasonable" from he workers viewpoint. And yes,
you can find success stories, but it takes a lot
of success stories to make it a viable alternative
to say the tourist operation in Hawaii. And yes,
while they are here, they provide some benefits,
but the question is will they stay here. Now
having said that, there are obviously niche
markets where a company can survive and thrive
even in a high tax, high regualtion environment.
But if you had a company, what would be your
druthers, operate in a high tax, high regulation
environment, or operate in a less high tax, high
regulation environment, where there is a very
large labor pool to pick from.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-17 03:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, just another wrote:

> In article <1111000208-***@news.lava.net>, "Jerry Okamura"
> <***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>> We have gone over this territory before. A company
>> like Microsoft can be located anywhere in the world.
>> Why would they want to locate in a high tax, high
>> regulation State, where there is a limited labor
>> source, when they can locate somewhere where they
>> will not pay such a high tax rate, or not have to
>> deal with all the regulations that this State
>> offers, and has a limited labor base.
>
> When VeriFone was purchased by HP, one of the 1st
> things HP did was drastically cut the Honolulu
> (actually Mililani) office. Let almost 100 engineers
> go.
>
> On the one hand, VeriFone was born here, and Hawaii
> reaped the benefits of its nearly $300 million in
> sales for years. On the other hand, had HP not
> acquired them, they might've stayed indefinitely.

Yes. Had VeriFone grow to a billion dollar company, the
state would have got a lot of revenue from the company.
Certainly a lot more than that from a casino that pays
low wages to its personel.

Was reading a wage survey in this Sunday's
Star-Bulletin. IIRC, a black jack dealer on an Indian
reservation casino where there is no other casino for
competition earns $10,000. I would expect that dealers
in a hypothetical Hawaii Casino might earn no more than
what the maids get-- minimum wage, a lot less that the
average wages at Verifone.

> Same I think with Adtech; Spirent has moved much of
> it off island, could possibly move all of it away;
> yet Hawaii's still reaped much benefit from Adtech.
> My point is that investment in making fledgling tech
> companies possible has already provided much benefit
> to Hawaii, even when those companies eventually move
> away. Hawaii *does* have a good high-tech labor base,
> and a rather easy locale to recruit to if you're
> paying reasonable wages.

I believe this year a SPIF fund to give private loans
insured by the state is going to be operating through
private VC firms to give loans to small startups to
move them say from 20 million dollar companies to 200
million dollar companies.IIRC it was approved in last
year's legislature. It should be ready by now.
Hopefully, the 200 million dollar companies can go to a
public IPO at that point and raise money on the stock
market. There's a lot going for Hawaii to be a base for
High Tech companies to grow and flourish.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-17 18:40:08 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1111030819-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, just another wrote:
>
>> In article <1111000208-***@news.lava.net>,
>> "Jerry Okamura"
>> <***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> We have gone over this territory before. A
>>> company
>>> like Microsoft can be located anywhere in the
>>> world.
>>> Why would they want to locate in a high tax,
>>> high
>>> regulation State, where there is a limited
>>> labor
>>> source, when they can locate somewhere where
>>> they
>>> will not pay such a high tax rate, or not have
>>> to
>>> deal with all the regulations that this State
>>> offers, and has a limited labor base.
>>
>> When VeriFone was purchased by HP, one of the
>> 1st
>> things HP did was drastically cut the Honolulu
>> (actually Mililani) office. Let almost 100
>> engineers
>> go.
>>
>> On the one hand, VeriFone was born here, and
>> Hawaii
>> reaped the benefits of its nearly $300 million
>> in
>> sales for years. On the other hand, had HP not
>> acquired them, they might've stayed
>> indefinitely.
>
> Yes. Had VeriFone grow to a billion dollar
> company, the
> state would have got a lot of revenue from the
> company.
> Certainly a lot more than that from a casino
> that pays
> low wages to its personel.

If I have one "billion" dollar company vs. another
"billion" dollar company (I assume you are talking
about sales), what is the difference?
>
> Was reading a wage survey in this Sunday's
> Star-Bulletin. IIRC, a black jack dealer on an
> Indian
> reservation casino where there is no other
> casino for
> competition earns $10,000. I would expect that
> dealers
> in a hypothetical Hawaii Casino might earn no
> more than
> what the maids get-- minimum wage, a lot less
> that the
> average wages at Verifone.

Note what you just said. The key word is "no
competition". If there is no "competition" for
any labor force, then the sole employer has a big
advantage because no one else will hire that
person. Can you say that there will be "no
competition" for the labor force in Hawaii? It is
a red herring.
>
> I believe this year a SPIF fund to give private
> loans
> insured by the state is going to be operating
> through
> private VC firms to give loans to small startups
> to
> move them say from 20 million dollar companies
> to 200
> million dollar companies.IIRC it was approved in
> last
> year's legislature. It should be ready by now.
> Hopefully, the 200 million dollar companies can
> go to a
> public IPO at that point and raise money on the
> stock
> market. There's a lot going for Hawaii to be a
> base for
> High Tech companies to grow and flourish.
>
It "could" happen, but I have my doubts. A
business is in business to make a profit.
Something you becry about all the time when it
comes to petroleum companies in Hawaii. The
difference between an oil company and a high tech
company, is that an oil company locates in this
State, to sell its products to the residents of
this state. A high tech company, as I have said
many times before, has the world as a potential
customer. If you have the world as a potential
customer, your business location is not important,
i.e. you can locate your business virtually
anywhere in the world, and still be successful.
So, if your business location is not that
important, then the cost of operating in that
location vs. anyother location becomes more
important.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-17 03:40:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> As for developing another Microsoft in Hawaii,
> doesn't our tax money already support the Manoa
> incubator for high tech, so that's already been done.

An incubator does not a high tech industry make. We
need to invest in people as well: better schools and a
university system with community colleges for
continuing education, and invest in entrapaneurs and
small startups trying to grow into that MicroSoft.

> And how much money are proponents of legalized
> gambling asking from the state? If you are suggesting
> that the private investment that casinos would be
> spending be used for something else, why don't we ask
> McNaughton to spend more money on developing tech
> than opening more Starbuucks or Jamba Juices too?
> We're still talking about private investment, not the
> use of public funds. Please keep the two separate in
> your arguments.

Good. Then let's also talk about the private costs of
ruined lives from financial disasters that addicted
gamblers and their families have to live through. This
is the sordid story of the success that comes from
casino gambling.

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-17 18:40:12 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1111030823-***@news.lava.net...
>

>
> Good. Then let's also talk about the private
> costs of
> ruined lives from financial disasters that
> addicted
> gamblers and their families have to live
> through. This
> is the sordid story of the success that comes
> from
> casino gambling.
>
Okay, let us talk about that. Do you have any
statistics to give us, about how many Hawaii
gamblers that go to places like Las Vegas or Reno,
that come home needing to declare bankruptcy as a
result of their gambling loses.
MTI
2005-03-17 06:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Alvin, falling back on the "sordid story" argument is safe and simple.
The
"lives will be ruined" hew and cry. Are lives being ruined by trips to
Vegas, Reno, Tahoe, etc.? Where are the public service announcements
warning our citizens of the risks of "Lost Wages, Nevada?"
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-18 04:10:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> Alvin, falling back on the "sordid story" argument is
> safe and simple. The "lives will be ruined" hew and
> cry. Are lives being ruined by trips to Vegas, Reno,
> Tahoe, etc.? Where are the public service
> announcements warning our citizens of the risks of
> "Lost Wages, Nevada?"

How many lives need to be ruined before you consider
this to be a problem? Most of the general public is not
on ice in Hawaii. Yet we consider that to be a problem
even for the small numbers of the minority that have
this addiction.

--alvin
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-18 04:10:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

>> Good. Then let's also talk about the private costs
>> of ruined lives from financial disasters that
>> addicted gamblers and their families have to live
>> through. This is the sordid story of the success
>> that comes from casino gambling.
>>
> Okay, let us talk about that. Do you have any
> statistics to give us, about how many Hawaii gamblers
> that go to places like Las Vegas or Reno, that come
> home needing to declare bankruptcy as a result of
> their gambling loses.

IIRC there was an news article quoting about 5% of the
gamblers in Las Vegas being addicted. It is significant
because the state had only allocated $100,000 to start
a program in Las Vegas for these victims. The 5% is a
little high because Las Vegas attracts gamblers from
all over the country, but there is little reason to
expect that Hawaii will be any different if casino
gambling is started here.

Don't know the percentage of these that declare
bankruptcy. I suspect their family covers a lot of
their debts. Do you suppose that a good figure to gauge
an addicted gambler is how many of them are over
$40,000 in debt for their gambling losses? The reason I
quote $40,000 is that $20,000 is a limit that many
credit cards impose, so $40,000 might indicate that
they have maxed out at least two cards. I can see
maxing out one card because of stupid spending, but two
cards indicates someone who can't stop spending.
Gambling is obsessive so two cards might be a good
figure. What do you think?

And just what other figures do you think is available
for this? Don't think that bankruptcy is a good figure
of merit because people's and their families' resources
vary and bankruptcy doesn't always exhaust some
people's resources. For example, Secretary Bennett is
addicted but he probably has to lose a lot more than
you or I before he will declare bankruptcy.

--alvin
MTI
2005-03-18 08:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Alvin, I have seen more lives ruined by the pursuit of the "mighty
dollar"
unrelated to gambling. I have also seen fortunes squandered in lawsuits
"for the principle of the thing." However, we do not seek to ban
captialism, materialism or litigation because of the fears of lives
being
ruined. Why is that? It's because there is a balance and risk-benefit
calculation that society makes. Your opposition seems to be based on a
concept that perhaps just one person addicted to gambling would be too
high
a price to pay for the benefits, which you have yet to acknowledge.
When
you have some slightly firmer studies or numbers that will aid in doing
the
risk-benefit computation, perhaps we will have a better dialog.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-20 01:35:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:

> the fears of lives being ruined. Why is that? It's
> because there is a balance and risk-benefit
> calculation that society makes. Your opposition
> seems to be based on a concept that perhaps just one
> person addicted to gambling would be too high a price
> to pay for the benefits, which you have yet to
> acknowledge. When you have some slightly firmer
> studies or numbers that will aid in doing the
> risk-benefit computation, perhaps we will have a
> better dialog.

It's more than one person. And I have annecdotal
evidence of it in my family. I think almost all
families in Hawaii have had members who just didn't
know when to stop-- even Jerry.

I hate to stereotype, but so often I've seen gamblers
in the movies to be oriental. But then, why does there
seem to be casinos there that cater largely to people
from Hawaii-- The California Casino? I find it hard to
believe that the problem is so small as you assume. In
fact, why do advocates predict so many from Hawaii will
lose money if we have local casinos if they are not
already aware that gambling is a problem for many in
Hawaii?

--alvin
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-19 03:55:04 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1111119005-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>

>>>
>> Okay, let us talk about that. Do you have any
>> statistics to give us, about how many Hawaii
>> gamblers
>> that go to places like Las Vegas or Reno, that
>> come
>> home needing to declare bankruptcy as a result
>> of
>> their gambling loses.
>
> IIRC there was an news article quoting about 5%
> of the
> gamblers in Las Vegas being addicted. It is
> significant
> because the state had only allocated $100,000 to
> start
> a program in Las Vegas for these victims. The 5%
> is a
> little high because Las Vegas attracts gamblers
> from
> all over the country, but there is little reason
> to
> expect that Hawaii will be any different if
> casino
> gambling is started here.

Letg us for the sake of discussion say that the
number 5% is correct. Does that mean that all of
them will declare bankruptcy, or just a small
percentage of those who are addicted will declare
bankruptcy, or the reverse that the majority of
the 5% will declare bankruptcy. The point is, you
have not answered the question I asked.
>
> Don't know the percentage of these that declare
> bankruptcy. I suspect their family covers a lot
> of
> their debts. Do you suppose that a good figure
> to gauge
> an addicted gambler is how many of them are over
> $40,000 in debt for their gambling losses? The
> reason I
> quote $40,000 is that $20,000 is a limit that
> many
> credit cards impose, so $40,000 might indicate
> that
> they have maxed out at least two cards. I can
> see
> maxing out one card because of stupid spending,
> but two
> cards indicates someone who can't stop spending.
> Gambling is obsessive so two cards might be a
> good
> figure. What do you think?

People "max" out on their credit cards for a whole
lot of reasons. There is no way to know if they
"maxed" out their credit card as a result of
gambling or as a result of other spending. There
is also no way to know how long it took them to
"max" out their credit card. As for gambling
being obsessive, it is no more or less "obsessive"
than a person who "maxed" out their credit card
because of spending, which I would be willing to
bet represents a whole lot more people than those
who "max" out their credit limit as a result of
gambling.
>
> And just what other figures do you think is
> available
> for this? Don't think that bankruptcy is a good
> figure
> of merit because people's and their families'
> resources
> vary and bankruptcy doesn't always exhaust some
> people's resources. For example, Secretary
> Bennett is
> addicted but he probably has to lose a lot more
> than
> you or I before he will declare bankruptcy.
>
All I asked for is some data to prove the
assertion that Hawaii gamblers declare bandruptcy
as a result of their gambling, and how many have
declared bankruptcy, say during the last five
years for every other reason.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-19 03:55:05 UTC
Permalink
"Alvin E. Toda" <***@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1111119007-***@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:
>
>> Alvin, falling back on the "sordid story"
>> argument is
>> safe and simple. The "lives will be ruined" hew
>> and
>> cry. Are lives being ruined by trips to Vegas,
>> Reno,
>> Tahoe, etc.? Where are the public service
>> announcements warning our citizens of the risks
>> of
>> "Lost Wages, Nevada?"
>
> How many lives need to be ruined before you
> consider
> this to be a problem? Most of the general public
> is not
> on ice in Hawaii. Yet we consider that to be a
> problem
> even for the small numbers of the minority that
> have
> this addiction.
>
Good question. How many lives of those who live
in Hawaii, that go to places like Las Vegas are
"ruined" as a result of their gambling loses.
Maren Purves
2005-03-19 04:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Alvin E. Toda wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:
>
>> Alvin, falling back on the "sordid story" argument is
>> safe and simple. The "lives will be ruined" hew and
>> cry. Are lives being ruined by trips to Vegas, Reno,
>> Tahoe, etc.? Where are the public service
>> announcements warning our citizens of the risks of
>> "Lost Wages, Nevada?"
>
> How many lives need to be ruined before you consider
> this to be a problem? Most of the general public is not
> on ice in Hawaii. Yet we consider that to be a problem
> even for the small numbers of the minority that have
> this addiction.

entirely different thing.

Ice addicts (no idea what percentage of them) commit
crimes to support their habits, and people have been
killed, probably not only in traffic accidents, by
people high on ice. I doubt very much that gambling
(including being addicted to it) poses similar threats.


Maren
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-20 01:35:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Maren Purves wrote:

> Alvin E. Toda wrote:

>> How many lives need to be ruined before you [MTI]
>> consider this to be a problem? Most of the general
>> public is not on ice in Hawaii. Yet we consider that
>> to be a problem even for the small numbers of the
>> minority that have this addiction.
>
> entirely different thing.
>
> Ice addicts (no idea what percentage of them) commit
> crimes to support their habits, and people have been
> killed, probably not only in traffic accidents, by
> people high on ice. I doubt very much that gambling
> (including being addicted to it) poses similar
> threats.
>
>
> Maren

But similar. Ice addicts commit petty crime to get that
small ammount of money to buy a fix. Gambling addict
will borrow $40000 from his mother and never pay it
back. In terms of ammount and damage, the $40000 is the
much bigger crime. And what about fraud that gamblers
commit to get the large monies that they need for their
habbit. That can affect many more people or a whole
company.

I suspect the only violence that gamblers do is to
themselves. I mean that they may kill themselves. So
the violence aspect is very different.

--alvin
Sam Rouse
2005-03-20 16:25:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <1111282510-***@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
<***@lava.net>
wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, MTI wrote:
>
>> the fears of lives being ruined. Why is that? It's
>> because there is a balance and risk-benefit
>> calculation that society makes. Your opposition
>> seems to be based on a concept that perhaps just one
>> person addicted to gambling would be too high a price
>> to pay for the benefits, which you have yet to
>> acknowledge. When you have some slightly firmer
>> studies or numbers that will aid in doing the
>> risk-benefit computation, perhaps we will have a
>> better dialog.
>
> It's more than one person. And I have annecdotal
> evidence of it in my family. I think almost all
> families in Hawaii have had members who just didn't
> know when to stop-- even Jerry.
>
> I hate to stereotype, but so often I've seen gamblers
> in the movies to be oriental. But then, why does there
> seem to be casinos there that cater largely to people
> from Hawaii-- The California Casino? I find it hard to
> believe that the problem is so small as you assume. In
> fact, why do advocates predict so many from Hawaii will
> lose money if we have local casinos if they are not
> already aware that gambling is a problem for many in
> Hawaii?

Alvin, you seem to have a very naive view of gambling. A casino makes
a profit
by skimming a small portion of money from the flood of it that crosses
the
gaming tables or into its machines, via carefully calculated odds. In
Vegas,
casinos typically rake in about 3-5% of the cash that flows thru the
slot
machines. Other games have varying rakes - simple games of chance such
as
roullette favor the house about the same as the slots. With blackjack,
if you
learn the strategy, the house has only about a 1.2% advantage
(card-counting
notwithstanding); craps is similar.

Poker, the fastest-growing casino sport, is an entirely different
animal. You
are not playing against the house, but against the other players - the
house
takes its cut by collecting a small percentage (with a cap) of the pot
from each
hand. At Oregon's Indian casinos, this percentage averages out to
about $120/hr
for each 10-player table - so each player is paying about $12/hr to go
head to
head with other players. As entertainment goes, that ain't bad.

If you find these economics objectionable, there's a better target for
your ire
- the US insurance-based health care system. It works on exactly the
same
principles as the casinos - companies whose allegiance is to their
shareholders
essentially skim a percentage of all the health-care bucks that cross
the table,
based on minutely scrutinized actuarial data. In return for this, they
provide
absolutely nothing in the way of health care; in fact, they add
significantly to
the cost of delivering it. And unlike gambling, folks don't usually
have a
choice about entering the health-care system.

I can think of lots of good reasons for _Hawaiians to choose_ not to
allow
casino gambling in Hawaii, but your arguments are not among them.
John W. Bienko
2005-03-13 16:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Sue.. Mark.. Gerry..
The definitive study of the gambling industry has not been
completed.
Social agencies are reporting on the bankruptcies/suicides..
and are alarmed at the trend.
THe casinos promised many improvements in the cities which
approved their building. A hundred yards beyond the
casino sites in Atlantic City all one sees is city slums.
THe casino owners promised to upgrade the Boardwalk..
that did not happen.
A successful business mogul like Donald Trump lost
hundreds of million on his investments in casinos..
having declared bankruptcy.
To build a larger clientell the gambling industry has
undertaken an extensive promotion of POKER..
to attract the youth.. many have become addicited.
~The saga continues.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Sue Larkin
2005-03-13 23:25:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <1110732009-***@news.lava.net>, ***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(John W. Bienko) wrote:

:Sue.. Mark.. Gerry..
:The definitive study of the gambling industry has not been
:completed.
:Social agencies are reporting on the bankruptcies/suicides..
:and are alarmed at the trend.
:THe casinos promised many improvements in the cities which
:approved their building. A hundred yards beyond the
:casino sites in Atlantic City all one sees is city slums.
:THe casino owners promised to upgrade the Boardwalk..
:that did not happen.
:A successful business mogul like Donald Trump lost
:hundreds of million on his investments in casinos..
:having declared bankruptcy.
:To build a larger clientell the gambling industry has
:undertaken an extensive promotion of POKER..
:to attract the youth.. many have become addicited.

There's the key word...addiction.
Bankruptcies and suicides are also the result of other addictions I
mentioned in a previous post. Please note that I'm not declaring where
I stand on the subject of legalized gambling in Hawaii. I'm only
declaring that gambling is not the only activity that causes addiction
and moral decay. If an activity is illegal, those addicted to it will
still find ways to participate.
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-13 23:25:06 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message news:1110732009-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Sue.. Mark.. Gerry..
> The definitive study of the gambling industry
> has not been
> completed.
> Social agencies are reporting on the
> bankruptcies/suicides..
> and are alarmed at the trend.
> THe casinos promised many improvements in the
> cities which
> approved their building. A hundred yards beyond
> the
> casino sites in Atlantic City all one sees is
> city slums.
> THe casino owners promised to upgrade the
> Boardwalk..
> that did not happen.
> A successful business mogul like Donald Trump
> lost
> hundreds of million on his investments in
> casinos..
> having declared bankruptcy.
> To build a larger clientell the gambling
> industry has
> undertaken an extensive promotion of POKER..
> to attract the youth.. many have become
> addicited.
> ~The saga continues.
>
Again, I asked the question before, and did not
get an answer, what is the national statistics on
suicides. Are gamblers any more or less inclined
to commit suicide then anyone else. And as I said
before, I thought the highest percentage of
suicides occur among teenagers, and it is illegal
for teenagers to gamble.

As for Trump, he still owns those casinos, last I
heard.

Poker is one of the few gambling games that skill
is a very important factor, if you are to ever
have a chance of winning on a regular basis.
Besides, is it the gambling industry that is
televising these poker tournaments, or some TV
producer who has determined there is a big
audience for scuh a program. Did the audience
come before the program, or the other way around?
MTI
2005-03-13 23:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Building the casions in AC did not create the slums a few blocks away .
. .
they were already there when the boardwalk was being improved. If
you've
been there in the last few years, you'll also notice that those areas
are
also being redeveloped and that there is investment in the "no mans
land."
It's not the same as Bruce Springsteen's "Atlantic City" video. If you
want
to see worse conditions, go to Asbury Park, Bruce's old hang out, which
is
slowly coming around again as well.

Again, if gambling is such a bad thing, why do the other 48 states have
it?
albert the panther
2005-03-14 03:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Sue Larkin wrote:

> Please note that I'm not declaring where
> I stand on the subject of legalized gambling in Hawaii.

Awww, come on, tell where you stand. :)

I'd love to see a State Lottery. I'd much prefer that
to an increase in the excise tax to fund this silly
railroad project.

When I lived in NYC, I'd spend a dollar every week to
buy a lotto ticket, would watch the tee-vee to see
what numbers came up. Most I ever won was about
sixteen dollars.

But there was the sweet dream of maybe getting rich.
Worth a dollar a week.
Sue Larkin
2005-03-14 15:30:01 UTC
Permalink
albert the panther <***@lava.net> wrote:

:Sue Larkin wrote:
:
:> Please note that I'm not declaring where
:> I stand on the subject of legalized gambling in Hawaii.
:
:Awww, come on, tell where you stand. :)

Well, if you insist...<g>

:I'd love to see a State Lottery.

That's exactly where I stand!

:I'd much prefer that
:to an increase in the excise tax to fund this silly
:railroad project.

I'd like to see it benefit education (better salaries for teachers and
updated & repaired facilities and equipment) and address the growing
homeless situation.
Sue Larkin
2005-03-14 03:30:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <1110756306-***@news.lava.net>, "Jerry Okamura"
<***@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
:Poker is one of the few gambling games that skill
:is a very important factor, if you are to ever
:have a chance of winning on a regular basis.
[...]

The subject of poker brings back fond childhood memories for me! My
parents and their gang of eclectic friends enjoyed many an evening
around the dining room table playing poker...penny, nickle, dime kine!
Often I would wake up and wander out of my bedroom, sit in my dad's lap
and watch. Sometimes he'd ask me to whisper advice in his ear...as if I
knew anything at the age of 5!!! But that made me feel important so I
became interested and watched and learned the various games. When I was
a teen I was allowed to play with them. And, yes, I'd bet...still
penny, nickle, dime kine! Often I won...not because I knew more or had
a better strategy but probably because I made less mistakes not having
indulged in any martinis!!! Those were incredibly fun times filled with
an abundance of laughter. Anyway...to make a long story short, sorta, I
grew up playing poker and, to this day, I'm not addicted to it. Neither
of my parents were...nor any of their life long friends. Can't remember
the last time I played but I'd guess it's been at least 20 years. If my
mental health isn't intact it's not because of gambling!!!

Trippin' down Memory Lane...Sue
John W. Bienko
2005-03-13 16:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Sue Larkin..
THat is quite the gambling record.. 3 tries.. 3 wins..
and I congratulate you on your strategy and luck of the Irish.

But..
Who pays the piper.. who pays for the gold and the glitter..
who pays for the billion dollar investments in the casinos?

If and when Hawai`i approves official casino operations..
you will see many more homeless.. many more vans parked
in those empty lots. Here in Ottawa the city has constructed and
manages 50,000 apartment units for the homeless..
In cases of emergency the homeless are placed in temporary
motel or hotel accomodation.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-13 23:25:05 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message news:1110732007-***@news.lava.net...
>
> Sue Larkin..
> THat is quite the gambling record.. 3 tries.. 3
> wins..
> and I congratulate you on your strategy and luck
> of the Irish.
>
> who pays for the billion dollar investments in
> the casinos?

The investors and the banks.
>
> If and when Hawai`i approves official casino
> operations..
> you will see many more homeless.. many more vans
> parked
> in those empty lots. Here in Ottawa the city has
> constructed and
> manages 50,000 apartment units for the
> homeless..
> In cases of emergency the homeless are placed in
> temporary
> motel or hotel accomodation.
>
Does that mean that there is legalized gambling in
Ottawa?
Sue Larkin
2005-03-13 23:25:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <1110732007-***@news.lava.net>, ***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(John W. Bienko) wrote:

:Sue Larkin..
:THat is quite the gambling record.. 3 tries.. 3 wins..
:and I congratulate you on your strategy and luck of the Irish.

There was no strategy...just pure, dumb luck! But the important thing
to note is that my 3 brief trips to Vegas did not cause me to feel
compelled to return again...and again...and again in hopes of hitting
the proverbial jackpot with the resultant "substantial monetary
losses.. and resulting mental and physical deterioration" and
"bankruptcies/suicides". The gambling industry attracts millions of
people like me...people who aren't addicted, know when to stop and
enjoy the circus atmosphere that gambling meccas have to offer. Three
times was enough for me altho' I would love to see all of the Cirque
shows and, yes, even Celine Dion's extravaganza!!!

Even my beloved film industry has it's shady side...porn. Because those
of us involved in film production are advocates for a bigger and better
film industry in Hawaii doesn't mean I approve of porn or would cast
any projects even resembling porn. I won't and I have turned down such
requests. That said, porn producers and actors don't taint the entire
film industry just as addicted gamblers don't taint the entire gambling
industry.

Is there a business or industry that is totally exempt from some sort
of immorality?

:But..
:Who pays the piper.. who pays for the gold and the glitter..
:who pays for the billion dollar investments in the casinos?

The same people who pay for the bigger and better shopping malls,
fancier and pricier restaurants, hotels that resemble
mini-Disneylands...the CUSTOMERS. And if those businesses (yes,
businesses) fall short then the investors pay.

It's difficult to legislate morality or, rather, it can be legislated
but it's difficult to enforce. Just look at Kuhio Ave. or Hotel St.

:If and when Hawai`i approves official casino operations..
:you will see many more homeless.. many more vans parked
:in those empty lots. Here in Ottawa the city has constructed and
:manages 50,000 apartment units for the homeless..
:In cases of emergency the homeless are placed in temporary
:motel or hotel accomodation.

Homelessness was covered at length in another thread a month or 2 ago.
John W. Bienko
2005-03-14 22:50:10 UTC
Permalink
The good citizens of Hawai`i should heed the warnings
stated so eloquently by Alvin.

I too wish to promote the concept of Living Life to
the Fullest in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

The legitimization of casino gambling would divert
scarce financial and human resources to an activity
which produces nothing of value.. in fact takes away
from the real assets of the community by creating
unrealistic expectation of Winning the Jackpot..
to live in luxury forever after.
THat is a one in a billion bet.. worse than being hit by
lightning.

Plato said it well..
It is not living, but living well, which we consider
most important.

--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Jerry Okamura
2005-03-15 07:35:03 UTC
Permalink
"John W. Bienko" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
in message news:1110840608-***@news.lava.net...
>

>
> Plato said it well..
> It is not living, but living well, which we
> consider
> most important.
>

But therein lies the "kicker", because each of us
have a different definition of what "living well"
means.
Alvin E. Toda
2005-03-15 07:40:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, John W. Bienko wrote:

> I too wish to promote the concept of Living Life to
> the Fullest in one of the most beautiful places in
> the world.
>
> The legitimization of casino gambling would divert
> scarce financial and human resources to an activity
> which produces nothing of value.. in fact takes away
> from the real assets of the community by creating
> unrealistic expectation of Winning the Jackpot.. to
> live in luxury forever after. THat is a one in a
> billion bet.. worse than being hit by lightning.
>
> Plato said it well.. It is not living, but living
> well, which we consider most important.

Hi John...Yes, I think that we need to remember that.
People don't continue to live here dispite the high
cost of living. It's the style of living that people
who settle here, want. We need to continue to look at
issues as to how if affects or sustains our life style.

We have gambling as a recreation in many forms, and it
is legal and unregulated-- that is except for high
stakes stuff which local organized crime seems to want
to control. Casino gambling brings more problems to
Hawaii than it solves.

--alvin
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...