Why has legalizing gambling allover been non-controversial politically?

[Non Swing Voter]

In the DC area here they recently legalized gambling in Maryland without much controversy at all.  Arguably this causes more societal harm than a lot of other "controversial" political issues.  Yet it seems this hasn't been politicized by either party. 

[Meursault]

Because we need at least a handful of issues untouched by American moral authoritarianism.

[Maxwell]

Because there are important issues out there, and keeping gambling illegal is certainly not one of them.

[CountryClassSF]

Mainly because, in my judgment, it's a personal responsibility issue. 

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Republicans are bought off with Gambling money and many democrats want to turn america into a wh*re house.

[ElectionsGuy]

Because it shouldn't be, its a choice you make to spend your money. I think most people agree that you have the freedom to spend your money in whatever way you choose as long as your accountable to it. Its a very unimportant issue in the political sphere.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are you referring to legalizing gambling on general principle or legalizing casino gambling specifically? If you're referring to the latter, there's been a massive rumpus over it here in Massachusetts. It's not by any means a universally hated policy but if attempts to put a repeal question on the November ballot succeed it's really not clear whether or not it will be sustained.

[TJ in Oregon]

People think it will spur economic growth and raise tax revenue. There are some number of people on either side out of principle, but I think it generally plays out somewhere along the lines of seeing a casino in another state and wondering why they can't have people travel to their state and spend the money.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Polling shows that people these days are far more accepting of legalized gambling than they used to be. It takes a huge edge off an issue that used to have staunch moral opposition.

[dead0man]

Gambling (a casino) failed here a few years ago simply because "god says gambling is wrong and we don't want it here".  This despite the fact that it's already here right across the river in Council Tucky.  So we get the negative impact of casinos without any of the revenue....GENIUS!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because despite their rhetoric, Republicans care about big money more than they care about "Christian values". Democrats are just being social-liberal wimps, as usual.

[AggregateDemand]

Democrats accuse corporate America of ripping off customers and workers. The gambling industry is literally designed to rip people off with rigged odds. Democrats don't care.

[Badger]

Polling shows that people these days are far more accepting of legalized gambling than they used to be. It takes a huge edge off an issue that used to have staunch moral opposition.

Exactly. A couple decades ago it was notably more controversial. But it rarely went past being a state by state issue to a federal matter in the pre-internet days.

[traininthedistance]

Casinos have certainly been controversial in Philadelphia.

It's an interesting cleavage, of course: social conservatives and certain more moralistic and/or class-conscious left-wingers versus market liberals/social liberals/libertarians etc.  And of course the liberals are winning big time these days.

I'm generally not a huge fan of protectionist and artificial-limit approaches to things, but I wonder if the equilibrium we had when I was young, where casino gambling was a Nevada and Atlantic City thing, might have actually been the right answer in this case.  A little bit of enforced scarcity, but not outright ban, seems like it worked in terms of making it available without underworld involvement, but not so available as to be a widespread social problem, and of course with each new casino you get diminishing returns to profit, so it's not even a great deal for the areas that are banking on it for "economic development" or the companies that would operate them.

[Indy Texas]

Is it non-controversial? In Texas, it can't even make it out of the legislature to be put to public referendum.

The economic incentives aren't there for us, though. When most states or jurisdictions legalize gambling, it's in response to sluggish economic growth and a relative shortage of unskilled jobs. Texas has an ample supply of those.

But what do Louisiana, Mississippi, impoverished Mississippi River towns in Missouri and Illinois, and Michigan have in common? A need to attract money from other parts of the country and to find jobs for people with little education. Casino gaming and the ancillary dining, entertainment and hospitality activity that ensues is a labor-intensive industry that can do that.

[IceSpear]

Because there are important issues out there, and keeping gambling illegal is certainly not one of them.

[Non Swing Voter]

It hasn't been non-controversial in New York. Last year's ballot measure allowing several casinos passed by a comfortable margin, but failed in nearly two dozen counties. Since then, there's been no shortage of public rancor over where to site them, although that has more to do with NIMBYism and political influence-peddling than moral opposition to gambling.

That's a really interesting map.  I'm assuming Red = against gambling.  It looks like Manhattan voted against it but most of the rest of the area voted for it.

[Badger]

It hasn't been non-controversial in New York. Last year's ballot measure allowing several casinos passed by a comfortable margin, but failed in nearly two dozen counties. Since then, there's been no shortage of public rancor over where to site them, although that has more to do with NIMBYism and political influence-peddling than moral opposition to gambling.

That's a really interesting map.  I'm assuming Red = against gambling.  It looks like Manhattan voted against it but most of the rest of the area voted for it.

That is interesting. I wonder why Manhatten would say no, especially compared to the rest of the city? Maybe the tony set worried about NIMBY issues? Though I suspect any new casinos there would be attached to existing hotels (Trump comes to mind).

Also surprised at the Buffalo/Niagra region voting no. The economy up there isn't great IIRC. Maybe the Catholic Diocese campaigned against it as it could chip into their bingo revenue. (Seriously, the Church opposed casinos in other states based exactly on that basis.)

[Nhoj]

It hasn't been non-controversial in New York. Last year's ballot measure allowing several casinos passed by a comfortable margin, but failed in nearly two dozen counties. Since then, there's been no shortage of public rancor over where to site them, although that has more to do with NIMBYism and political influence-peddling than moral opposition to gambling.

That's a really interesting map.  I'm assuming Red = against gambling.  It looks like Manhattan voted against it but most of the rest of the area voted for it.

That is interesting. I wonder why Manhatten would say no, especially compared to the rest of the city? Maybe the tony set worried about NIMBY issues? Though I suspect any new casinos there would be attached to existing hotels (Trump comes to mind).

Also surprised at the Buffalo/Niagra region voting no. The economy up there isn't great IIRC. Maybe the Catholic Diocese campaigned against it as it could chip into their bingo revenue. (Seriously, the Church opposed casinos in other states based exactly on that basis.)

There are already casinos in Buffalo/Niagra, its likely self preservation.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yeah, even in PA where the prudes own the liquor stores but don't have 3/4 of them open on Sundays, allows gaming.  $$$$$$$  > Prudes.

[Brittain33]

Because when a neighboring state or nearby reservation does it and your citizens go over there to waste their money, you stop caring about the problem with it and work on them losing their money closer to home.

[AggregateDemand]

I think gambling is OK, in moderation.

Gambling is OK when there is no house. I don't care if casinos take a rake for providing a safe, fair, comfortable, legal environment for gamblers, but the rigged odds house games are complete nonsense. Normally, I'd let bygones be bygones, but when people gamble themselves into poverty, they rob the rest of us by leaning on the entitlement state.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aren't slot machines basically programmed to a science to take your money at this point?  This is why I oppose "local" casinos.  I wouldn't be surprised if they have people in the back that can change the odds from a wifi hot spot.

They're programmed to have very specific odds that favor the casino. As opposed to the old days, when they were mechanically designed to have very specific odds that favor the casino.

Casinos in most states are required to report their slot machines' odds to a regulatory body, which typically then makes those odds public. As a rule of thumb, you can expect to get 90% back, with your odds improving with more expensive machines and decreasing with penny and fractional penny machines.

[politicus]

Because people don't realize that ludomania is a real thing with serious consequences for those affected.

[DC Al Fine]

Casinos have certainly been controversial in Philadelphia.

It's an interesting cleavage, of course: social conservatives and certain more moralistic and/or class-conscious left-wingers versus market liberals/social liberals/libertarians etc.  And of course the liberals are winning big time these days.

I find issues like this really interesting because they generate strange political bedfellows.

As for the issue itself, I think the the economic benefits are vastly overrated, especially if you're the 239th town outside Vegas/AC to get a casino instead of the third. It's not really a worthwhile thing to ban though.

My main problem with gambling as a political question is when the state tries to get in on the action. There's a huge agency problem at place with the government having an incentive to promote a vice with all the attendant social problems that go along with it.