"Arrested" for winning"

[OTABILL]

Worthy of discussion

Gamblers banned from Maryland casinos risk arrest as well as money

[FloridaPhil]

If you have a gambling problem big enough to have yourself banned, you should be arrested for gambling.   Isn't that the whole idea in the first place?  

[ko king]

I just grazed over the article but it seems to me like they're saying, "We dare you to admit that you have a problem".

[DaBurglar]

Interesting, very interesting.....This is a really complex issue, I can see valid arguments and points for a lot of different "sides" to it.....I would simply say at this point my main problem or "issue" with what is currently in place and practiced is:   1)  Is it truly necessary to ARREST the individual for a first (or even second) incident of entering a casino after self exclusion?  I instead why not simply apprehend and escort the individual OUT with a WARNING that any future trespasses MAY result in arrest and further legal action?    if, after one or two further incidents, a self-banned person continues to attempt to access and play inside casinos, THEN arrest them and charge them with something......my point is ANYONE with a true blue "Addiction" usually slips up or relapses once or twice after periods of sobriety and abstinence (ask any former smoker or boozer or junkie.....it is HARD saying "no" when it is always so available and accessible!)2)  Why is it necessary to confiscate ALL of the person's PERSONAL funds or money?  I can clearly understand confiscating all WINNINGS, all CHIPs/Tokens etc, but the monetary value of the person's original buy in or chip purchase SHOULD be returned to them for a first or even Second offense......as with #1 above, if after 1 or 2 incidents the person STILL keeps trying to enter, then start taking EVERYTHING he/she/it brings with them into the casino.3)   It seems to me, with all the current attention and knowledge we have about other forms of addiction to other CLEARLY harmful things/substances/activities, it is about time that the government(s)  at the state and Federal levels  seriously look into FREEZING the number of casinos available in the USA, or at least at the state/local levels.......Maryland does not NEED  six (6) OR MORE casinos!     They are going to RUE the day they approved so many (if they are not already rueing it!)    IN OTHER WORDS....there are MORE than enough casinos in the USA (and the world) to allow those of us who are NOT addicted, and who CHOOSE to play appropriately and within our means, to gamble for fun and recreation!   It really is now becoming an issue about just HOW much (or how many) is ENOUGH?!?!?!    Don't forget, you now also have the INTERNET which means people do not even need to leave the house to gamble......there needs to be limitations on just HOW prolific and HOW available we want gambling to actually be.

[FloridaPhil]

The article says the guy behind this push is a former problem gambler.  I can understand where he gets his energy from, but I agree that arrest and confiscation of his funds are over the top.   I think he should be escorted out with his money and given a warning.  If he continues to sneak in, put him in irons.  Why does the Northeast need more casinos when the existing ones say they are losing money.  Crazy....  

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar I believe several state governments already "freeze" as you say: the number of casinos in a particular state. There is no reason for the "FEDERAL" goVErnmeNT to try and mUdDLe with an individual state's power to govern on a LoCal level.


I think there are way too many bars and restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages in the United States. I think that because the number of people killed by drunk drivers is higher a year than the number of people killed by casino patrons; the government should step in and limit the number of places that sell alcohol in this country.


My point is that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY comes into play here just like it does drinking. Why limit the number of casinos in the United States when just getting people to take PWERSONAL responsibility for their actions is the better course? Obviously because every person in the United States does not patronize casino gambling, those who don't have made the choice not to go to a casino. I don't patronize strip clubs just because there are 3 located within 20 minutes of my house.

[notes1]

I would be willing to bet a buck that the reason for the rules are some other gambler in the past had themselves self excluded, gambled anyway and then sued the casino, for allowing them to play. some wonderful lawyer took the case and maybe even won.

[FAA]

"I've seen people go in disguises — wear a mustache, wear a hat," said Beck, 62. Beck,
a former NJ resident, signed up for that state's gambling
exclusion program in 2001 and  didn't return to a casino until a Bob Dylan concert at the Borgata in Atlantic City in 2008. He experienced a familiar, heady rush. "It
was a combination of the senses that recaptured a feeling and experience that transported me back in time to a gambling den," said
Beck, who moved to Maryland in 2015 and is clinical director of the
Maryland Center for Excellence on Problem Gambling. "It wasn't
just the sights and sounds; beyond that. It was the re-creation
of an atmosphere that I knew so well. Maybe the smell of the perfumed
hostesses, the alcohol. It just created for me a cornucopia of
sensation. The body remembers what the mind forgets." Well said. A heady wine indeed. I can't catch a sniff of "perfumed hostesses." No opportunity to interact with them. After getting home from a losing trip on Saturday, I happened to catch "The Gambler" with Mark Wahlberg. What serendipity. I had seen it on the big screen, but after a big losing day it is especially depressing. Very sobering film.  

[DaBurglar]

Why does the Northeast need more casinos when the existing ones say they are losing money.  Crazy....  
Excellent question Phil, essentially echoes mine but with a
slightly different focus:     Your focus on mentioning specifically the
NORTHEAST is extremely adroit analysis on your part because of the sheer
concentration of population there and the fact that if.....IF casinos
are unable to make money THERE, then it is unlikeikey they'd profit
elsewhere too........in essence Phil you just highlighted another type
(or FORM)  of gambling taking place amongst actual CASINO companies at a
higher level than mere people!    it goes like this:In a market
(like the Northeast or segmented areas or portions of the Northeast),
the population is capable of supporting (profitably) a certain number of
casinos in the area (for arguments sake lets say 3 {three} casinos will
work in the state of Massachusetts);   But for various political and
business reasons & pressure, the state of Massachusetts decides it
wants to have a total of 5 {five} casinos and passes legislation to make
such a thing reality;   this is essentially "GAMBLING" at the highest
level as the companies who willingly and knowingly submit applications
for one of the 5 licenses in the state KNOW that the market in all
honesty can only support 3  casinos........each company is therefore
"BETTING" (i.e. "gambling") that they can out
perform/outmarket/outthink  the other 4 competitors and capture a
greater share of the total market that the others (i.e. they are betting
that their casino will be on of the 3 that profit sufficiently for it
to be a success!)

[FAA]

Market saturation has long been evident. Discussion of market saturation is itself saturated. Market forces will usually take care of it, as we just saw in AC. With Revel, NJ got stuck with a large bill of course. As long as taxpayers are not on the hook, build away America.