Letter to the editor, The Sun, Baltimore, Feb. 10, 2007

Social cost of slots far exceeds revenue,

In response to the letter "Gambling already sponsored by state" (Feb. 1), I would say that I, too, remember when slots were in Maryland - I remember the political corruption, the increased crime and the social costs.

That's why the public fought so hard to close them down.

And morality is just one facet of the slots debate.

I object to slots because they are a bad idea economically and socially.

One only needs to look at what slots have done and not done for Illinois.

State Rep. John Bradley said that after 15 years, "results show that gambling is a social failure. It is the taxpayers who have been left holding the bag when it comes to paying for the costs of cleaning up the unseen messes it creates."

Maryland would do well to learn from Illinois' mistake.

Slots look like a great revenue source, and they are for the first couple of years.

But if you look at several reputable, non-industry-funded studies, you'll find that the social costs (for addiction treatment, insurance fraud, lost productivity, law enforcement and business closings, to name just a few) far outweigh the revenue slots generate in just a few years.

And to argue that because the state already sponsors gambling, slots are a good idea just doesn't make sense.

The types of gambling we now allow could be equated to marijuana. But slots are called the "crack cocaine" of gambling because they are much more addictive.

Barbara Knickelbein

Glen Burnie

The writer is a co-chairwoman of NOcasiNO Maryland.