Let’s discuss
gambling rationally
It would be great if we could talk about contentious public policy in a reasoned manner. Unfortunately, in the wake of Sun International's recent proposal to open a casino/hotel in Ko Olina, some are unable to use reason or facts when discussing legalized gambling in Hawaii.
One recent case of unreasoned and unsupported argument can be seen in Charles Memminger's Jan. 29 Honolulu Lite column, "Legal casinos in Hawaii a bad bet."
He begins by stating that he is not anti-gambling, just "anti-shibai." His statement is ironic in that the second half of his column contains misinformation and shows a distinct anti-gambling bias.
A key factual error is this statement: "If Hawaii allows casino gambling, any Indian tribe could buy land in Hawaii and open a casino."
This is plainly false. Gaming by tribal governments is regulated by the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which states that Indian gaming is allowed only on land considered "Indian country." Basically, this is reservation land as defined by federally recognized tribal governments.
In order for a federally recognized tribe to purchase land off of its reservation for a casino, it must get approval from both federal and state governments. Moreover, any federally recognized Indian tribe that wants to open a casino must first negotiate a "tribal-state gaming compact" with the state's governor, and an out-of-state tribe purchasing land for a casino would not be exempt.
Memminger also claims that tribes have done this "all over the country." In truth, only two tribes in the entire U.S. have opened casinos off their reservations. In both cases, these were in areas that had historically belonged to the tribe, and were in the same state that the tribe lives.
The columnist goes on to say that "if you think any of the various Hawaiian sovereignty organizations would not immediately partner up with an Indian tribe to open their own casino -- since Sun's plan doesn't consider giving Hawaiians a cut of the action -- you're not paying attention."
Why he brings Hawaiians into the issue is a mystery. In our post-Rice vs. Cayetano world, Hawaiians are not legally considered Indians. Neither do they, under U.S. law, have any inherent powers of sovereignty, of which the right to operate casinos is only one.
Only if the Inouye/Akaka "sovereignty" bill before Congress passes will there be a chance that Hawaiians would become involved with gambling. Given the current party split in Congress and a Republican administration, however, this is at least four years off.
Even then, Hawaiians would have to be considered "Indians" for the purposes of IGRA and Senator Inouye, who does not want gambling in Hawaii, is unlikely to allow it. It is an extreme long shot that Hawaiians will be involved in gaming as a result of a Ko Olina casino.
One more thing: Pathological gambling in this country is not as widespread as many anti-gambling forces would imply. According to research by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, the national prevalence rate of lifetime pathological gambling is 0.8 percent.
When we compare this to alcohol dependence (13.8 percent), drug dependence (6.2 percent) and major depression (6.4 percent), it is clear that "gambling addiction" is not the problem it is made out to be.
The public, press and Legislature ought to consider some facts: If built, the casino would provide a job center for West Oahu that has been long sought but never achieved.
Forty million dollars a year for scholarships for Hawaii students, generated by a wagering tax, is far more than the state will otherwise have. And that's no shibai.
Jonathan Likeke Scheuer is completing
a Ph.D. on public policy.>
