Arguments Against Gaming Are Simple, Potent and Few

Back in November 1998, almost two-thirds of California voters felt that helping Native Americans to help themselves was the right thing to do. More than 5 million upright, righteous, law-abiding adults approved the idea of permitting Indian tribes to operate casinos.

One small, hardy but dwindling tribe, the Maidu, has figured out that a casino has a better economic potential than basket weaving, their traditional source of sustenance.

Unlike some other tribes, the Maidu are landless and would like to acquire a distressed patch of real estate in Oxnard. The territory in question is occupied by a small, hardy but dwindling band of shopkeepers who have also been struggling to eke out a living.

The Maidu would like to build a casino at the site along with a 250-room hotel, which would be complemented by restaurants, shops and other tourist-friendly attractions. However, a number of upright, righteous and law-abiding folk are determined to keep the Maidu in their place, which is no place at all inasmuch as the Maidu have long since been forced off any land they may have had.

By blocking the Maidu from any incursion into the sovereign territory of Oxnard, the righteous opposition aims to protect the weak-minded locals who would be unable to resist the wicked temptation of gaming tables and slot machines, forcing them to patronize the 10 other Indian casinos in Southern California or fritter away their money in Las Vegas.

All this has stimulated a spirited intellectual debate in which all the philosophical and moral arguments are laid bare.

The debate, as it has raged so far:

“I think we ought to listen to the proposal for an Indian casino.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“But Indian-run casinos are perfectly legal in California.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“The state of California itself runs a gambling operation. It’s called Lotto.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“Churches condone gambling. They run bingo games.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“A casino could pump millions of dollars into the Oxnard economy.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“A casino could mean hundreds of jobs for Oxnard.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“With the improved economy we could strengthen our public safety operations, afford more police and fire protection, expand our parks and recreation facilities, broaden educational opportunities for children and adults alike, improve health services, build more houses, initiate civic beautification programs, expand our cultural resources, finance our own electricity-generating capability, attract more commerce and industry . . . .”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“We could help redress the historic wrong that we did when we drove the Indians off their land and cheated them out of their heritage.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“We could give the Indians a chance to become economically self-sufficient, reduce the welfare rolls, cut taxes . . . .”

” Cut taxes? Well . . . no. No. No. Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“There are more than 30 Indian casinos in California and there is no evidence that they create any undue problems.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“If Oxnard doesn’t consider the idea, other Ventura communities will.”

“Gambling is evil and I don’t like it.”

“Well, why don’t we put it in on the ballot and let the people of Oxnard decide?”

“Haven’t you been listening to a word I’ve said?”

“I’m sorry, you were saying . . . ?”