Editorials
Monday, March 22, 1999

Legal gambling has
heavy social costs

The issue: Whether to legalize gambling in Hawaii
Our view: The cost in terms of wrecked lives is too high

THE perennial campaign to legalize gambling in Hawaii has taken a hit with the release of a national study. Prepared for a federal gambling commission, the study found that 5.5 million Americans are problem or pathological gamblers. Another 15 million could be at risk of developing an addiction to gambling.

Based on a national telephone survey of almost 2,500 adults, the researchers concluded that 2.5 million Americans are pathological gamblers -- the most seriously compulsive gamblers -- and another 3 million are problem gamblers.

Researchers found that people are twice as likely to be problem or pathological gamblers if a casino is within 50 miles of their home. That's significant for Hawaii, where the gamblers have to fly to Las Vegas. Having a casino on Oahu could multiply the gambling problem here.

The report estimated the annual cost of compulsive gambling at $5 billion, but this is probably too low. In computing the cost of gambling-related divorces, researchers used only legal expenses. Obviously there are many costs besides legal fees. And they did not have access to statistics on white-collar crime, such as fraud.

Frank Fahrenkopf, director of the American Gaming Association, contended that the report "confirms that the economic and social benefits of gaming far outweigh the costs to society of pathological and problem gambling." But that assertion did not take into account the obvious gaps in the study.

Whatever the correct cost may be, the report establishes that gambling has become an addition for millions of Americans, with devastating consequences. The price of legalizing gambling here could be a sharp increase in the number of shattered lives. Is that what Hawaii wants? We don't think so.

Philippines pact

The issue: An agreement permitting U.S. forces to train in the Philippines
Our view: The Philippines is too weak to defend itself

ANOTHER controversy over the military is straining U.S. relations with the Philippines. U.S. forces left the country in 1992, ending nearly a century of their presence, after the Philippine Senate refused to renew an agreement on the use of Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base. However, occasional joint military exercises and naval ship calls at Philippine ports continued until December 1996. All such activities ended when the Manila government closed a legal loophole that had shielded U.S. military personnel from prosecution by the Philippines for offenses committed in the country.

Last year U.S. and Philippine officials signed a new agreement allowing U.S. forces to train in the country and providing legal protection for U.S. military personnel while on duty there.The agreement must be ratified by the Philippine Senate. Action is expected later this year.

The agreement is opposed by nationalists objecting to the waiver of criminal jurisdiction as an infringement of sovereignty. They also contend the presence of American forces would encourage prostitution and drag the Philippines into conflicts between the United States and other countries.

Last Friday about 50 activists scuffled with police after splattering red paint on the U.S. embassy in Manila to protest the pact.

President Joseph Estrada, who as a senator voted to close the U.S. bases, seems to have taken a more realistic view since his presidential victory last year. Estrada now says the nation needs the visiting forces agreement and its military alliance with the United States because the Philippines is too weak to defend itself, which is certainly true.

Meanwhile China is emerging as an economic and military power seeking dominance in East Asia. The Philippines has no means of backing up its protests against Chinese incursions in the disputed Spratly Islands.

If the Philippines expects the United States to come to its aid under the terms of the mutual defense agreement, the least it can do is let American forces conduct exercises in the country. But the nationalists insist on fighting yesterday's battles against colonialism rather than deal with the country's current security needs.

Anthrax inoculation

The issue: Some military personnel are refusing to be inoculated against anthrax
Our view: The threat of an anthrax attack cannot be ignored

THE marvels of the Internet don't seem so wonderful to Pentagon officials struggling to contain a revolt against inoculation against anthrax. Perhaps 200 members of the armed forces have refused inoculation against the deadly biological agent. Defense Secretary William Cohen has ordered that all 2.4 million military personnel take the vaccine.

Misinformation about disease is nothing new, but the Internet makes it easier to spread falsehoods as well as fact. So the Pentagon is fighting back with a website entitled "Countering the Anthrax Threat." The theme is that an anthrax attack is the real problem, not the inoculation.

The problem is compounded by the belief that the military has not come clean about previous problems, such as radiation exposure to troops in nuclear tests in the 1950s, illnesses attributed to the herbicide Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and speculation about the root causes of unexplained illnesses among thousands of Gulf War veterans. Skepticism about government pronouncements proliferated after Vietnam and Watergate and was strengthened by President Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky.

Unfortunately, there is nothing phony about the danger from an anthrax attack -- or the need to be prepared. The resisters need to be set straight.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor