Des Moines Register. May 17, 2018
Sports betting is inevitable, so Iowa must revitalize gambling treatment program
Sports betting is a can of worms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld New Jersey law that allows sports betting at the state’s casinos and horse tracks. The decision is expected to lead to legalization of this form of gaming in an estimated 32 states, probably including Iowa, within five years.
This form of entertainment has the power to ruin more lives through gambling addiction and to undermine the integrity of college sports by making it a quasi-professional industry. And unfortunately, it will happen whether Iowa legalizes it or not.
Iowans like to gamble. A study conducted for the Iowa Gambling Treatment Program in 2015 found that 68 percent of Iowa adults had gambled in the past 12 months and that one in 10 was at risk for problem gambling.
Only a few Iowans, less than 10 percent, had engaged in fantasy sports during the same 12-month period. But those who had - mostly men under age 55 - were more likely to be at risk for problem gambling, the study showed. About half, or 94,000 Iowans, had wagered money on fantasy sports in the past year.
Meanwhile, the share of gaming tax money devoted to the state’s gambling addiction prevention and treatment program has dwindled. In 2009, the Legislature eliminated the Gambler’s Treatment Fund, which had been receiving 0.5 percent of gaming tax revenues. Now, the Iowa Gambling Treatment program doesn’t even get a line item in the budget. It receives a general appropriation, and that money has been cut from $3.1 million to $2.6 million.
Lawmakers have justified the cut by saying services aren’t fully utilized, demonstrated by a 50 percent drop in the number of people in treatment for gambling addiction. But Eric Preuss, director of the Iowa Gambling Treatment Program, said the program has also had less money to advertise its hotline, 1-800-BETS-OFF, and associated services.
The promotion is important because the rate of people with gambling problems who actually come in for treatment is less than 1 out of 100 nationally, Preuss said. Compare that to substance abuse treatment, where in the neighborhood of 1 in 10 people who need treatment actually gets it, studies show.
“If everyone that needed help showed up, we couldn’t serve them,” Preuss said. “We just don’t have the network.”
Gambling has already left a stain on professional sports. We can expect more fallen heroes like Pete Rose, whose sports betting while playing for and managing the Reds may forever keep him out of the Hall of Fame.
Both professional and collegiate sports officials have called for an “integrity fee” to be collected for sports bets. Athletic programs could use the money to hire staff to implement and enforce compliance programs aimed at avoiding gambling-related corruption.
Register sports columnist Randy Peterson wrote that the prospect of widespread, legal betting on college sports is expected to hasten the day when student athletes are paid and even allowed to pursue advertising and endorsement deals just like the pros. The argument is that having some income will help keep them honest. Sure, because that worked so well for Rose.
Yes, sports betting is a can of worms, but the can is already open. Iowans are already wagering on websites run by offshore entities. Nearby states could have laws in place allowing sports betting, including on mobile apps, before the end of the year. Iowa could experience many of the problems related to gaming addiction without getting a penny of the revenues.
Iowa lawmakers who favor legalization are making that argument already. Rep. Jake Highfill, R-Johnston, told the Register he plans to introduce legislation next session to legalize sports betting at Iowa casinos.
“This is already happening, and this will be a great way for states to get a handle on it,” Highfill said. “If you think that putting our heads in the sand and wishing it will go away will stop it, it is not.”
The bill Highfill proposed this year, House File 592, would place sports betting in Iowa casinos under the regulation of the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission. It also would allow mobile-phone betting through an advance-deposit system that essentially means a gambler would have to be pre-approved and put his money up front. The age limit would be set at 21.
The bill does not increase the gaming tax dollars going toward gambling addiction or even require a study of the resources that may be needed if this new form of gaming is introduced. It also does not identify any money for integrity fees or other enforcement-related costs that might fall on collegiate programs. If lawmakers are going to reap the spoils of gaming, they should be prepared to take full responsibility for the negative consequences.
The National Council on Problem Gambling adopted a resolution in February 2017 that contains helpful guidelines for legislators, regulators, leagues and teams (and the media). Ensuring that any expansion of sports gambling includes “dedicated funds to prevent and treat gambling addiction” is the first thing on the list.
The council calls for specific requirements for sports betting operators to implement responsible gaming programs, including self-exclusion and the ability to set limits on time and money spent betting. The council also calls for baseline and ongoing surveys of the prevalence of gambling addiction. We would also add more research on gambling behaviors among Iowa youth.
Lawmakers should not leave all the rule-making to unelected gaming commissioners. They should require and generously fund strict regulation and robust addiction prevention and treatment programs.
Iowa lawmakers can’t put the lid back on this can of worms, but they can try to keep some of the nastiest critters in the can.
____
Dubuque Telegraph Herald. May 18, 2018
Draw the line on dogs, dining
If it seems that you are seeing more dogs out and about these days, you are not imagining it. There is no official Canine Census, but by all estimates their population in the U.S. is on the rise.
The American Pet Products Association tags the count at 78 million, with 44 percent of U.S. households owning a canine, while the research and marketing firm Statista puts the population at nearly 90 million, a 32 percent increase since just 2000.
In a separate report, Ireland-based Research and Markets noted how urban Americans tend to pamper their pooches more than their country counterparts.
Thus, it should be no surprise that many folks who own dogs consider them such a member of their families that they take them virtually everywhere. Whether it’s an airline flight, a people-packed venue such as farmers markets, or retail establishments or restaurants, they have their dogs with them. Other people? Well, they are expected to accommodate the dogs and deal with them.
But should they?
The Telegraph Herald last week reported that the City of Dubuque found it necessary to remind several local restaurants, particularly those with outdoor seating areas, of Iowa law. It states that “live animals may not be allowed on the premises of a food establishment.” Service animals receive an exemption, which is a reasonable, long-standing policy. (Stay tuned for demands for exemptions for “emotional support animals.”)
Several Dubuque restaurants were not in compliance - ignorance of the law or precedent were stated reasons - by allowing and even promoting their outdoor seating areas as “pet-friendly,” and so city officials issued the reminder.
As they should.
Don’t misunderstand. We are not anti-dog. Our roster of Editorial Board members includes dog owners. But we are opposed to dogs (and other pets) in restaurants and other places where health, sanitation and personal safety are high priorities.
As dogs (and other pets) become more prevalent in U.S. households, this message might be more difficult for their owners to accept. But just because you are a dog lover does not mean everyone loves dogs - even your dog.
Not everyone would love to interact or share space with your dog - at many venues but especially where food is prepared and served or where there are large numbers of people.
City officials are right on two fronts: To address the violations by restaurants, and to do so initially with only warnings and reminders. No heavy-handed response out of the gate is necessary.
Dogs are more prevalent and popular, but the state health laws exist for good reason. They need to be enforced.
____
Quad-City Times. May 18, 2018
Rauner weaponized his veto pen
Gov. Bruce Rauner was more concerned with shoring up his base than legitimate policy on Monday when he grabbed his veto pen and all but executed right-minded gun legislation.
That’s the only conceivable takeaway from Monday’s laughable line-item veto issue that, for whatever reason, saw Illinois’ Republican governor demand the reinstatement of the death penalty as it was 1985.
Calling Rauner’s attempt to rewrite straightforward gun control with his veto pen odd would be an understatement. The legislation was a hard-fought win for Illinois’ General Assembly. It contained obvious provisions, such as boosting the cooling-off period for the purchase of assault-style weapons from 24 hours to 72.
Rauner’s attempted re-write was a concoction of even stronger gun-control measures - he would extend the waiting period to all rifles - and, as if the inserting the mother of all poison pills was his goal, reinstate the death penalty, which hasn’t been on anyone’s radar in Illinois since 2000.
Rauner’s capital punishment ploy is even more troubling because, at its core, it would create two classes of citizens. The death penalty would be available only to cop killers and mass murderers, under Rauner’s plan.
So - in an era of Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter - Rauner comes out and yells from the rooftops that, indeed, some lives matter more. His is a dangerous political statement that would designate two-tiers of citizenship: those who wear a uniform and those who don’t. It would belie the premise that all citizens have equal access to justice. It would, in a very real sense, further the divide between the police and the policed.
Put frankly, the General Assembly has no appetite to reinstate the death penalty, regardless of the fine print. Nor should it.
In recent years, new evidence has exonerated hundreds of inmates on death row, almost all of whom were convicted after prosecutors declared the evidence beyond question. Rauner’s strange, made-up new legal standard, “beyond all doubt,” cannot account for the failing fundamental to the American justice system.
Mistakes do and will always happen, and the death penalty’s finality leaves no room for human error. It’s a reality with which no appeals system can adequately grapple, particularly with the hardly fool-proof nature of forensic science. These fundamental truths alone should negate any inkling of again wielding capital punishment.
But adoption of his veto demands wasn’t Rauner’s goal on Monday. As has been his way, Rauner tossed a hand grenade and walked away from the rubble with no intention picking up the pieces.
Recent polls have Rauner trailing Democratic challenger JB Prtizker by more than 20 points. Closing that gap before November would be a tall order for almost anyone. The left will never forgive Rauner’s attacks on organized labor. And his right flank was badly weakened by his centrist approaches to immigration and abortion.
Rauner appears to be a man without a constituency. And, there can be no doubt, that pleasing influential police organizations and the law-and-order crowd would help, if only just.
Precisely no one should be surprised that Rauner is tacking rightward. And yet, oddly he opted to split the proverbial baby by extending the cooling-off period to all long guns, a move that only further frustrates conservatives opposed to almost any gun control.
Overturning Rauner’s veto would be difficult in any instance, particularly in the House. His attempts to both extremes only complicates things further.
Rauner’s line-item veto were the actions of a governor who, more than three years in, is without a political base. It’s yet another bit of political flailing from a governor who’s been consistently incapable of framing his world view.
And, this time, Rauner’s lack of focus could scuttle legislation that, in many ways, he appears to support.
___
Sioux City Journal. May 10, 2018
Iowa should pursue legalized sports betting
In light of Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision, we support plans already under discussion for the Iowa Legislature to revisit next year the legalization of betting on college and professional sports under regulation by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission.
The court, in a 6-3 ruling, struck down the 1992 federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or Bradley Act, through which most states, including Iowa, were prohibited from the establishment of sports wagering.
“The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own.”
Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN the decision “… clears the way for all states to make their own decisions about legalizing sports betting …”
In the just-completed legislative session, proponents of legalized sports betting in Iowa pushed for a new state law in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision, but those efforts were unsuccessful. Iowa is one of 18 states in which legislation was introduced this year to legalize sports betting if the Supreme Court struck down the 1992 law.
With uncertainty removed, it’s time for renewed focus in our state. Iowa Rep. Jake Highfill, R-Johnston, told The Des Moines Register on Monday he will, in fact, introduce a proposal when the Legislature convenes in January to allow betting on college and professional sports.
We welcome a robust discussion with an eye toward passage of legalized sports betting through which Iowans and the state of Iowa can get a piece of this popular activity.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board reported a record $4.8 billion of sports wagering in 2017, compared to $2.1 billion in 2010. Sports betting produced a record $248.8 million in revenue for Nevada last year. A survey of Iowans conducted by Innovation Group (a consultant firm for the gaming industry) showed residents might spend between $80 million and $90 million each year on sports betting if it became legal in our state.
For nearly 40 years, casinos have been part of this state’s landscape. Today, nearly two dozen casinos produce an economic impact of some $1 billion each year.
The addition of sports betting represents a natural next step in the evolution of gambling in Iowa.
____
Please read our comment policy before commenting.