View the original

In this issue:

Items 1 and 2: There is an intense debate underway in Concord over the issue of slot machines. The House has rejected two slot machine bills, but some of the ‘no’ votes were gambling supporters who were voting against poorly-drafted legislation. The real fight is in the State Senate. Opponents point to the social costs of expanded gambling. Proponents downplay those costs. But if there is no social cost to expanded gambling, why do the Senate bills limit slot machines to a few locations? If slot machines are a good way for the state to make money, why not have a slot machine casino in Concord and Manchester and Nashua and every other town in the state? The answer, of course, is that most people (and legislators) do understand the social costs of casinos and do not want one in their town.