It's pretty much self-evident. Gambling is addictive and providing more facilities for gambling will make more addicts which will cause all sorts of other social problems. In addition, most forms of organised gambling are essentially scams. The DoI would not be opposed to liberalising certain gambling laws (especially those relating to gambling within domestic locations), though feels that this ought to be up to lower levels of government, but can't see any logical reason for removing all restrictions.
With respect, Mr. Secretary, those same arguments could be used to outlaw alcohol and bars.
Everyone should envision for a moment what Nevada would be like to live in--or support government services--without legalized gambling.
As an economic issue, there's a reason Las Vegas (and to a lesser degree, Reno) is called "the last Detroit". It's one of the only places in the country a high school graduate can get a decent middle class job where they can own a house and send their kids to college with a minimum of debt.
I would only support BK's amendment if the DoI can give an overview of what criteria it would use in granting licensure of gaming establishments. I'm all for reasonable common sense regulation of the gaming industry, but I'm loathe to turn the licensing process to an organization that will work to stymie opening such establishments at every turn.
