Independence H-D said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Poor Oklahoma and Lake Charles if this ever happens. Lake Charles would be absolutely crushed. Almost everyone you come across at those casinos is a Houstonian or Texan.

I believe this would hurt Tilman Fertitta by rendering his Golden Nugget Casino/Resort and golf course basically useless...which is good reason to get behind it. F that guy. Two-faced mafioso POS.

---

His properties in Galveston are set up to convert to casinos the minute it passes.

---

I always heard this, but thought it turned out to be urban legend?

Say it is true...won't he take a MAJOR L when lake Charles and his casino/resort/golf course there becomes a wasteland?

Name one property in Galveston that has enough ground level open square footage for casino grounds even close to the size of Lauberge or Golden Nugget, or Harrah's in Nola. Always heard the San Luis was prepped for casino conversion but it is not even close to big enough imo.

texagbeliever said:

---

So you would be cool if homeless people were shooting up heroin outside your home or church. You would be fine with someone just doing LSD at the table next to you in a restaurant.

Those people are only hurting themselves...until they get desperate enough to hurt someone else.

---

If someone is shooting up heroin outside my home on my property, call the police and have them removed for trespassing. Private property rights are paramount to freedom.

If someone is using LSD at a restaurant I'll leave and tell the management why I'm leaving and that I won't be back until they use their own private property rights to ban it. Then the owner can decide if the free market supports LSD drug use at a restaurant and if they want it to continue, or not, for whatever reason they decide. Until then, I'll find another restaurant at or eat at home.

Freedom isn't always neat, but it is always free and worth protecting. And if that means being exposed to things I don't support nor condone from time to time, so be it.

twk said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

I'm indifferent, but municipalities should get final say.

Also, don't pi$$ on my leg and tell me casino gambling will fund education and lower property taxes.

Signed,
TX Lottery

---

This has been discussed previously, but the problem is that whatever limitations the legislature might put in regarding locations, none of that will apply to Indian tribes. As soon as you legalize casino gambling, we will have new tribe claims, and new tribal land claims, coming out of the woodwork, with the result being that rather than limited to a few carefully chosen locations, we have casinos all over the place.

The choice is between casino gambling pretty much everywhere, or no casino gambling, not between Las Vegas style resorts and no casino gambling. Living withing spitting distance of Oklahoma, where they have casinos everywhere, I think not having casinos is the better option. You certainly don't want to end up with some low rent casino operation next to your home or business.

---

its not even that, if you look in Louisiana damn near every convenience store, gas station, bar etc is a mini casino. Oh and every truckstop.

again why do we want to be like Louisiana????

From Kevin D Williamson, libertarian:

Quote:

---

The grossest, nastiest, most shame-inducing thing you'll run into leaving the sanctuary of your own home right now is offered by the Texas Lottery: a lottery scratch-off ticket that costsand I am not making this up$100. Let me repeat: That's a lottery scratcher priced at 100 gently depreciating U.S. dollars.

---

Quote:

---

And the lottery is, disproportionately, a poor man's game: Households earning $10,000 a year or less typically spend a full 6 percent of their income on lottery tickets. As the Focus for Health Foundation reports, the households in the lowest income quintile are the most active lottery players, African Americans spend five times as much per capita on lottery tickets as whites, lottery players lose 47 cents on the dollar every time they play, and, statistically, you have a better chance of being killed by a toppled vending machineor being canonized as a saintthan you do of winning a lottery jackpot.

---

Quote:

---

he Texas Lottery was sold to the state in the 1990s as a way to help pay for public schools. In 2022, lottery revenues put less than $2 billion into the Foundation School Funda drop in the ocean of public-school spending in Texas, amounting to about 2.9 percent of expenditures. Less than 1 percent of lottery revenues support veterans' programs and other state initiatives. All of the revenues put into public-school spending since that form of state-sanctioned gambling began in the 1990s amounts to about one semester's worth of expenditures. But lotteries, like other forms of state-sanctioned gambling, reliably fail to deliver the promised economic benefits.

So, what is Texas contemplating? More gambling, of course.

---

Quote:

---

While the economic literature on the subject is somewhat mixed, there is a great deal of scholarship finding that casino gambling provides economic benefits that are, at best, modest, that those purported benefits are in many cases nonexistent, and, at times, that the economic impact runs into the negative. Everybody thinks they are going to get Las Vegas, but they end up with Atlantic City or something even more disappointing. A University of Chicago study found "no change in overall per capita income" from gambling legalization in the cases it studied; some scholars have suggested that the negative externalities associated with gambling have left Atlantic City on net economically worse off than it would have been with no gambling industry at all; Dan Keating, the project manager for the Wynn Philadelphia casino, put it plainly: "No one should plan on a casino to bring about urban renewal." The promised jobs and promised easy tax revenue rarely live up to advocates' promises.
Les Bernal, an activist whose organization, Stop Predatory Gambling, opposes state-sanctioned commercial gaming, puts it this way: "The data has always been clear that this is a massive public-policy failure. In more simple terms, the economic impact of commercialized gambling is the equivalent of taking a hundred-dollar bill, throwing it into the street, and then paying somebody minimum wage to pick it up." Gambling is what the economist Paul Samuelson referred to as a "sterile transfer"money out of one pocket into a different pocket, creating no real value. Samuelson in fact addressed the issue directly in his standard textbook, Economics: "There is a substantial economic case to be made against gambling. … It involves simply the sterile transfers of money or goods between individuals, creating no new money or goods. Although it creates no output, gambling does nevertheless absorb time and resources. When pursued beyond the limits of recreation … gambling subtracts from the national income." Bernal warns the libertarian-minded that the kind of gambling being contemplated in Texas is the opposite of a free-market outcome: It is a particularly ugly and regressive form of state capitalism, a series of cartels in which the government is the senior partner.
"You pay even if you don't play," Bernal says. That is because casinos are associated with a reduced local standard of living, while non-gamblers end up paying for increased social services, higher law-enforcement costs, and other negative externalities associated with gambling.
State-cartel gambling is not a very fruitful model for economic development. It is, on the other hand, an exceedingly efficient mechanism for transferring money from desperate poor people to such figures as Mark Cuban and Tilman Fertitta.
One of the arguments made for legalizing gambling in Texas and other states that do not already have it is that without legalization, Texas will lose out to places that do have gambling. The foolishness of that argument can be readily seen from a trip to Atlantic Cityor just up the road from Dallas in Ardmore, Okla.
If that's what winning looks like, Texas should be happy to lose out.

---

There's more than a few posters on this site who make no attempt to refute the downside of casino gambling, and they resort to name-calling everybody who has doubts. I have doubts, and I lean libertarian. I would enjoy gaming on occasion. But I'm not willing to endure all of the negative effects.

Gator92 said:

---

I'm indifferent, but municipalities should get final say.

Also, don't pi$$ on my leg and tell me casino gambling will fund education and lower property taxes.

Signed,
TX Lottery

---

We all know whatever tax revenue casinos bring in will be subtracted from education funding and that extra money will be spent on pet projects for legislators, i.e. pork.

Quote:

---

Reminds me of the latest bust in Plano that had clergy and school district admins with *****s.

---

how did I miss this?!?!

I don't want casinos in Texas, and I like to occasionally gamble. Keep 'em across the rivers.

If one were built in Texas, let's play a game and guess where it would make the most sense to build one. I'll start……Waco//Temple is my guess.

Funny how so many on here are for freedom until they don't like what someone else likes.
Freedom is great as long as everyone thinks like me mentality.

AGHouston11 said:

---

Maybe just legalize it within 5 miles of all state borders !

---

Several issues there off the top of my head:

(1): Texas cannot do that, because the Texas legislature doesn't make the laws for other states no matter how close they are.
(2) Texas wouldn't do that because it's insanely stupid. If Texas determines that casinos are in fair play, then put them in Texas. Why would you put them just on the other side of our borders? Just so you can keep an eye on where all that Texas money is going?
(3) THat's pretty much already in place (at least on our southeastern border.

texagbeliever said:

---

BudFox7 said:

---

No surprise that conservatives want to legislate individual freedoms. I don't like it, let's make it illegal.

---

Drag queen for minors.
Banning porn in schools.
CRT
Not letting 15 year olds be strippers
Child genital mutilation
Child hormone suppressors

Do I need to go on or do you realize there are plenty of things we don't legalize in the name of conservative morality.

---

I do think it is bull**** that they've banned 18 year olds from working in strip clubs in Texas. They're allowed to go in there and spend their money but they can't work there and earn money? That's horse***** SB 315 is garbage.

Big Money Aggie said:

---

I wouldn't put much weight in police unions backing casinos. They're looking to get security contracts down the road.

---

There are over 2000 illegal gaming rooms in Dallas alone. Bring in legalized gambling, the idiotic calls from morons who lost their paycheck every Friday night stop.

Gambling already exists in Texas, might as well make it legal and let the professional run it. As long as it is illegal, gaming rooms will thrive, and they have no incentive to run a fair game.

For those of you fretting about how it will destroy communities, I heard the same bull**** when we legalized the lottery and the racetrack.

Somehow horseracing is okay and the lottery is okay but a legal card game is a bridge too far? Get serious.

TxAgswin said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Maybe just legalize it within 5 miles of all state borders !

---

Several issues there off the top of my head:

(1): Texas cannot do that, because the Texas legislature doesn't make the laws for other states no matter how close they are.
(2) Texas wouldn't do that because it's insanely stupid. If Texas determines that casinos are in fair play, then put them in Texas. Why would you put them just on the other side of our borders? Just so you can keep an eye on where all that Texas money is going?
(3) THat's pretty much already in place (at least on our southeastern border.

---

I think AGH was saying 'put it within 5 miles of the Texas State border', i.e. 5 miles from leaving Texas, so people from Oklahoma or Louisiana could come here to gamble, and it would give all the Texans leaving the State to gamble a place to gamble. So put a casino in Waskom, TX so it attracts people headed to Shreveport. Put it in Denison or Sherman so it attracts people headed to Oklahoma.

Ah, I see.

That makes more sense.

Although I don't think that would even be necessary. If you build a casino pretty much anywhere in Texas, it would be a goldmine just with Texas customers.

All the states around us have casinos where Texans are their lifeblood. Texas opening up casino gambling would be a huge kick in the nuts to the Lake Charles economy.

I've always heard it would be Tilman opening one up in Galveston, but that seems like that would be cannibalizing both his Lake Charles and Vegas casinos.

texagbeliever said:

---

So are you okay with strip clubs and ***** houses next to elementary schools? There is a line somewhere. Gambling as a state decision seems like a reasonable level for deciding that line.

---

Isn't that already the case in Houston?

twk said:

---

Signel said:

---

Don't need the nanny state to tell me not to bet. I am responsible. If you chose to be stupid with your money, that is on you. I'd rather have casinos and a revenue stream other than income taxes that might allow property tax relief.

---

The revenue arguments for casinos are weak, and only work if you ignore the costs they impose. I understand the libertarian argument, and I don't care whether you gamble or not, but no one wants low rent casinos hurting their property values.

---

Someone told me that the way it would be written would be limiting it to Vegas resort-style casinos. Not sure if true but I would be in favor of that

GE said:

---

twk said:

---

Signel said:

---

Don't need the nanny state to tell me not to bet. I am responsible. If you chose to be stupid with your money, that is on you. I'd rather have casinos and a revenue stream other than income taxes that might allow property tax relief.

---

The revenue arguments for casinos are weak, and only work if you ignore the costs they impose. I understand the libertarian argument, and I don't care whether you gamble or not, but no one wants low rent casinos hurting their property values.

---

Someone told me that the way it would be written would be limiting it to Vegas resort-style casinos. Not sure if true but I would be in favor of that

---

People lie. That sounds like a lie to get you to accept something you'd otherwise oppose.

texagbeliever said:

---

BudFox7 said:

---

No surprise that conservatives want to legislate individual freedoms. I don't like it, let's make it illegal.

---

Drag queen for minors.
Banning porn in schools.
CRT
Not letting 15 year olds be strippers
Child genital mutilation
Child hormone suppressors

Do I need to go on or do you realize there are plenty of things we don't legalize in the name of conservative morality.

---

So odd that you combine all those things. You're really telling us more about yourself than the bill.

ryanhnc10 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

ryanhnc10 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

So are you okay with strip clubs and ***** houses next to elementary schools? There is a line somewhere. Gambling as a state decision seems like a reasonable level for deciding that line.

---

Have you seen Houston? Their lack of zoning already accomplished this without casinos

---

A quick Google search shows that a strip club is a sexually oriented business and is subject to distance rules from schools and churches.

---

Thanks for being literal. My point is that Houston doesn't seem to care too much about strip clubs and where they are located to residences (affecting property values)

---

Houston doesn't care about anything. Hence, the state of affairs Houston is in. Anyone outside of that bubble is abhorred.

GE said:

---

twk said:

---

Signel said:

---

Don't need the nanny state to tell me not to bet. I am responsible. If you chose to be stupid with your money, that is on you. I'd rather have casinos and a revenue stream other than income taxes that might allow property tax relief.

---

The revenue arguments for casinos are weak, and only work if you ignore the costs they impose. I understand the libertarian argument, and I don't care whether you gamble or not, but no one wants low rent casinos hurting their property values.

---

Someone told me that the way it would be written would be limiting it to Vegas resort-style casinos. Not sure if true but I would be in favor of that

---

The bill may be written that way, but once you allow casino gambling, the state has no control over Indian tribes, whose gambling activities are regulated by the federal Indian Gaming Act. The feds allow tribes to set up any type of gaming activity allowed by state law on tribal land, and whenever a state legalizes gambling, new tribal land claims come out of the woodwork.

NonReg85 said:

---

Ag06Law said:

---

Gambling has a unique ability to bring the paternalists out of the woodwork in a hurry.

---

I'm just against having it both ways. Get rid of welfare and then I'm all for allowing people the freedom to ruin their financial security.

---

This is the point I've been hoping someone else would make.

We are thinking about this and other "morality laws" wrong. It's not a binary yes/no good/bad. It should be about ranking priorities in our value system.

I'm against gambling and legalized marijuana until welfare is completely banished because the math doesn't work "having it both ways". Until then, both of those are about 99th and 100th on my to do list.

Having gigantic systems in place that render consequences from bad decision making useless is bad so other issues downstream of that are useless. This is welfare.

And it's the crux of the problem but we don't need to make the problem worse right now by legalizing more vices.

AAggie said:

---

ryanhnc10 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

ryanhnc10 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

So are you okay with strip clubs and ***** houses next to elementary schools? There is a line somewhere. Gambling as a state decision seems like a reasonable level for deciding that line.

---

Have you seen Houston? Their lack of zoning already accomplished this without casinos

---

A quick Google search shows that a strip club is a sexually oriented business and is subject to distance rules from schools and churches.

---

Thanks for being literal. My point is that Houston doesn't seem to care too much about strip clubs and where they are located to residences (affecting property values)

---

Houston doesn't care about anything. Hence, the state of affairs Houston is in. Anyone outside of that bubble is abhorred.

---

Considering it's one of the fastest growing cities in the country, obviously not everyone outside the bubble is abhorred.

Maybe they are moving here for our stellar titty bar scene.

Quote:

---

Maybe they are moving here for our stellar titty bar scene.

---

I know this is sarcasm but I have to say as a Dallasite.....I was very disappointed by the Houston titty bar scene.

BQ_90 said:

---

twk said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

I'm indifferent, but municipalities should get final say.

Also, don't pi$$ on my leg and tell me casino gambling will fund education and lower property taxes.

Signed,
TX Lottery

---

This has been discussed previously, but the problem is that whatever limitations the legislature might put in regarding locations, none of that will apply to Indian tribes. As soon as you legalize casino gambling, we will have new tribe claims, and new tribal land claims, coming out of the woodwork, with the result being that rather than limited to a few carefully chosen locations, we have casinos all over the place.

The choice is between casino gambling pretty much everywhere, or no casino gambling, not between Las Vegas style resorts and no casino gambling. Living withing spitting distance of Oklahoma, where they have casinos everywhere, I think not having casinos is the better option. You certainly don't want to end up with some low rent casino operation next to your home or business.

---

its not even that, if you look in Louisiana damn near every convenience store, gas station, bar etc is a mini casino. Oh and every truckstop.

again why do we want to be like Louisiana????

---

If they do this, they need to set up a limited number of gaming districts and distribute the revenue statewide. I don't want slot machines and video poker at my neighborhood gas station.

I would put districts, East of 61st street in Galveston, floating casinos in Corpus Christi Bay, riverboats on the Red River, and something out west, maybe in Marfa to bring some mobsters to keep the hippie artists in check.

twk said:

---

GE said:

---

twk said:

---

Signel said:

---

Don't need the nanny state to tell me not to bet. I am responsible. If you chose to be stupid with your money, that is on you. I'd rather have casinos and a revenue stream other than income taxes that might allow property tax relief.

---

The revenue arguments for casinos are weak, and only work if you ignore the costs they impose. I understand the libertarian argument, and I don't care whether you gamble or not, but no one wants low rent casinos hurting their property values.

---

Someone told me that the way it would be written would be limiting it to Vegas resort-style casinos. Not sure if true but I would be in favor of that

---

The bill may be written that way, but once you allow casino gambling, the state has no control over Indian tribes, whose gambling activities are regulated by the federal Indian Gaming Act. The feds allow tribes to set up any type of gaming activity allowed by state law on tribal land, and whenever a state legalizes gambling, new tribal land claims come out of the woodwork.

---

How many Indian tribes to do we have claiming to live in Texas right now?

How many came out of the woodwork in Oklahoma to take advantage of the casinos?

Serious questions.

Quote:

---

3 federally recognized:

• Alabama-Coushatta
• Tigua
• Kickapoo

#Karankawa4Lyfe

---

Do any of them claim any land they can use to put a casino on?

Despite being a son of a compulsive gambler, I'm still able to see casinos in a positive light b/c they're a big revenue source that could help create jobs, infuse tourism dollars into areas of need, & create a wealth of taxable income for the cities/ state PROVIDED the revenue generated actually went towards education, highway infrastructure, BORDER SECURITY, reduced residential property taxes, etc. However, I have zero faith that our politicians won't find a way to screw this all up & line their pockets along the way, just like they did with the lottery; nevertheless, if we can take this opportunity to force the lottery to return towards fulfilling its original promises AND ensure casino revenue does the same from here on out, then why not?

Buzzy said:

---

twk said:

---

GE said:

---

twk said:

---

Signel said:

---

Don't need the nanny state to tell me not to bet. I am responsible. If you chose to be stupid with your money, that is on you. I'd rather have casinos and a revenue stream other than income taxes that might allow property tax relief.

---

The revenue arguments for casinos are weak, and only work if you ignore the costs they impose. I understand the libertarian argument, and I don't care whether you gamble or not, but no one wants low rent casinos hurting their property values.

---

Someone told me that the way it would be written would be limiting it to Vegas resort-style casinos. Not sure if true but I would be in favor of that

---

The bill may be written that way, but once you allow casino gambling, the state has no control over Indian tribes, whose gambling activities are regulated by the federal Indian Gaming Act. The feds allow tribes to set up any type of gaming activity allowed by state law on tribal land, and whenever a state legalizes gambling, new tribal land claims come out of the woodwork.

---

How many Indian tribes to do we have claiming to live in Texas right now?

How many came out of the woodwork in Oklahoma to take advantage of the casinos?

Serious questions.

---

I can't tell you how many tribal casinos there are, but there are two big ones just across the river from us in Wichita County, run by the Kiowa and Comanche tribes. Of course, they are set up out in the country because they want to be as close to Texas as possible. With legal gaming in Texas, they would set up shop in urban areas. The tribes are not particularly active in Texas because there is no reason for them to be, and their ancestors were all forced onto reservations in Oklahoma. But, they would not find it difficult to establish claims to tribal lands in Texas if they had the incentive to do so. The only Indian "casino" in Texas offers poker and slots (electronic bingo), and is pushing the envelope, legally, to do that, so we haven't seen any kind of rush to establish tribal lands here, yet.

People think gambling is the dude in a sport coat with two chicks by his side tossing dice. Instead, gambling is the unemployed guy in the wheelchair putting his last 5 bucks on double zero. Gambling is row after row of senior citizen zombies blowing their cash on video poker.

I'll go to a casino about every 4-5 years for a few hours. But they destroy the communities they're in. They should be totally legal, but let's understand what we're getting.

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

Despite being a son of a compulsive gambler, I'm still able to see casinos in a positive light b/c they're a big revenue source that could help create jobs, infuse tourism dollars into areas of need, & create a wealth of taxable income for the cities/ state PROVIDED the revenue generated actually went towards education, highway infrastructure, BORDER SECURITY, reduced residential property taxes, etc. However, I have zero faith that our politicians won't find a way to screw this all up & line their pockets along the way, just like they did with the lottery; nevertheless, if we can take this opportunity to force the lottery to return towards fulfilling its original promises AND ensure casino revenue does the same from here on out, then why not?

---

It's a myth that casinos are great economically for their communities. Great for the folks that own the casinos, but the impact on the community where they are located is usually a net negative. The jobs they create are overwhelmingly low paying service jobs with little prospect for advancement.

As far as where the money goes, dedicated revenue funds are usually pointless. Unless the money generated by the tax/revenue stream is enough to totally fund the activity in question, without tapping into general revenues, then dedicating the revenue stream is pointless, because the state will just provide less money out of the general fund, and spend it elsewhere.

These threads are depressing. You realize very quickly that no side promotes freedom. And at the end of the day you're just a tennis ball bounced back and forth between two mindsets of tyranny from the left and right.

Let them in. Far more people are addicted to alcohol in the US than gambling. It's all about moderation and educating yourself.

Not me brother, I don't like casino gambling, but I'm all in on Team Freedom.

God I hope so. It's ridiculous. We have to go to either Louisiana or Oklahoma or Vegas, for a few, to gamble.

Online is fine too but much more fun in person.