MW: New Midwest Gambling Freedom Act

[Arturo Belano]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: VP-elect windjammer

[Arturo Belano]

I'm undecided on this bill. Striking out Section 1 would bring one previous law, the Protection Of Personal Gambling Proposition, back into effect. The previously passed version of the Midwest Gambling Act already incorporates much of the Protection of Personal Gambling Proposition, so there's not much of a point in striking out Section 1.

Also, I am not quite sure about the intentions behind striking out the bit in Section 4.

[Arturo Belano]

I'm fine with that Clause 1 being struck out, but I disagree with the takedown of the sentence in Clause 4. I can see how it might be good for the government to be impartial on the issue when it's a basic, uncontroversial right. However, gambling addictions can often hurt families and financial savings (statistically over 100K Ohioans are affected alone), so I'm a bit skeptical on that clause being struck out when we're leaders who shouldn't be condoning such economic woes.

I completely agree. Striking out Section #4 in a way eliminates our government's currently neutral stance on the issue.