online craps casinos

Problems Muddy Ohio Casinos Regulation

Posted on May 20th, 2011

Two opposite sides of the coin are now bringing the Ohio state into a dilemma of highly problematic proportions. As great as the revenue coming from the gambling industry is, the side effects of the rapid and abrupt bloom of casino gaming are now slowly showing signs of clouding the valuable benefits it provides for the state government, according to anti gambling groups. The Ohio government is finding all the options it could possibly get to lay down some official regulatory actions and rules before things could get out of hand. The Ohio Casino Control Commission has already taken flight but, a lot of critics still have their eyebrows raised because of the regulating commission’s transparency concern.

The budget for the commission which is tasked to do a thorough assessment of gambling in the state and is expected to pose tough regulations for gambling establishments, ironically, will come from gambling revenues. And that brought critical thoughts of a possible conflict of interest which might cloud the commission’s reputability. The projected addition of 20,000 slot machines brought about by the launching of four new casinos makes matters worse for addressing the impact of gambling in the area like traffic. Casino oversight boards have still yet to name an executive director and are only just starting to sketch up some gambling rules. Disputes on some staffing and funding issues are also hounding them.

Another factor that is making it hard for the formulation of regulatory decisions is the fact that no official statistical data can be provided to stand behind the notion of how serious the effects of the gambling facilities are in the area. Analysts agree that the speed at which Ohio has expanded its gambling capabilities has compromised the state’s ability to effectively erect countermeasures to several effects of the measure. “There are few jurisdictions in the United States that have any sort of plan on problem gambling, or on gambling in general,” said executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling Keith Whyte. “It’s still amateur hour. We’re still approaching it piecemeal. Ohio’s guilty of that as well.”

Regulation of casino gambling widely varies across different states. According to the review of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999, states had the tendency to lean towards two gambling regulating extremes. One is the Nevada model, which treats gambling industries as favored ones because of their obvious money-making capabilities and the countless job opportunities it presents to the state. As a result, the regulation of gambling related events and actions are relatively loose. Gambling establishment operators are given much freedom to decide and act for the goodwill of their gambling businesses in the belief that it would lead to better revenues and thus, better economy. In contrast, New Jersey’s take on gambling control is strict and firm that it was noted by the 1999 congressional commission that any casino gambling outside Atlantic City was considered illegal. Places like Indiana have followed the approach of New Jersey in gambling regulation procedures.

Last year, Australia has found the negative effects of gambling to cost $4.9 billion annually. “Harm minimization” efforts were taken into action which targets mainly slot machines limiting the allowable bets and playing duration. But the American regulators said they would not be following Australia’s footsteps. Executive director of Pennsylvania’s Gaming Control Board Kevin O’Toole said that the U.S regulators would stop short on ensuring fair games in gambling casinos and reporting the appropriate collectible tax. “We’re not social scientists,” O’Toole said. “We consider the social issue of problem and compulsive gambling and we take it very seriously,” O’Toole said.

“But I think it’s a lot different to say that a regulatory agency should expend money or resources to try to prove or disprove a theory about whether this or that type of slot machine has a greater probability of facilitating compulsive gambling. I absolutely disagree with that.” Still, many believe that with effective regulations in place, the unwanted effects of gambling facilities to its surrounding areas would be minimized, if not eradicated. The huge problem, as put forward by gambling supporters and punters does not lie with gambling per se, but with the lack of effective regulations.