By jeef

November 4, 2009 7:42 PM | Link to this

I for one(maybe there are others),made up my own mind to vote for issue 3.It was not the hyped up pros and cons of television,it was not the barrage of unfounded information,that everyone and their brother seems to have when they need to voice an opinion. No it was simply a matter of personal choice. Maybe I made a mistake,made ‘em before,and will make them again,but I can live with my choice,right or wrong. I am an occassional gambler (the boat once a year,vegas/reno every 3 or 4 yrs.),but I don’t believe Ohio casinos are going to make me go more often. Like voting yes was a personal choice,it is also the choice of all Ohioans to go or not go into the casinos.Do we really need someone else to hold our hand and make that choice for us? I think not.

By TKidding72

November 4, 2009 6:43 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the lecture their crazy but the people of Dayton have been going to Casinos in Indiana for a long time. They have also been playing the lottery for a long time as well. The people with so called gambling addictions would be leaches on society no matter what the circumstances. I don’t think gambling is the problem I think people that will not only gamble to much but will take advantage of people anyway they can.

By Barry

November 4, 2009 5:50 PM | Link to this

what is worse, a monopoly of people who are running a business or a monopoly of people who say “no you can’t do that in this state”. the second group of people are what we call the state legislature and they had the “monopoly on gambling” before we took it from them and gave it to someone else. the legislature could have easily of bypassed the need for issue three by allowing casinos in Ohio, but they didn’t want to do that so they got over ridden by the people who live in the state and care enough to go out and vote. there was less then a 50% turnout yesterday. if you are unhappy about the turnout you should maybe have gotten out of your lazyboy and gone out to vote

By Barry

November 4, 2009 5:40 PM | Link to this

Roo the Bones—the legislature was never going to do the right thing on this, that is why there is a procedure where the citezens can bypass and over ride the politicians in Columbus.

By fatladysinging

November 4, 2009 5:26 PM | Link to this

“Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” Many years ago gambling was legal everywhere in the US - then they made it illegal. Have you any clue why they did that?

By hungryman

November 4, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this

I don’t care what any of you say…I for FOR Cassano’s. They have great pizza and at a reasonable…oh, nevermind. I misread the ballot screen.

By Reality

November 4, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this

I could care less about whether we have Cassinos or not. What I care about is that we, the people of Ohio, just wrote a monopoly into our State Constitution. This group of Cassino operators are now above State government regulation. The jobs are great but most will be gone in 2 years and we’ll still a monopoly in our constitution. My bet is that this will end in Federal Court after an Ohio city left out of the Monopoly sues the State for anti-trust violations! So much for the wisdom of teh people!

By Reality

November 4, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this

I could care less about whether we have Cassinos or not. What I care about is that we, the people of Ohio, just wrote a monopoly into our State Constitution. This group of Cassino operators are now above State government regulation. The jobs are great but most will be gone in 2 years and we’ll still a monopoly in our constitution. My bet is that this will end in Federal Court after an Ohio city left out of the Monopoly sues the State for anti-trust violations! So much for the wisdom of teh people!

By Reality

November 4, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this

I could care less about whether we have Cassinos or not. What I care about is that we, the people of Ohio, just wrote a monopoly into our State Constitution. This group of Cassino operators are now above State government regulation. The jobs are great but most will be gone in 2 years and we’ll still a monopoly in our constitution. My bet is that this will end in Federal Court after an Ohio city left out of the Monopoly sues the State for anti-trust violations! So much for the wisdom of teh people!

By Reality

November 4, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

This is an example of the initiative model run out of control. I don’t care about casino’s one way or the other, but to put that in our constitution is crazy. I’m sure that 90% of the people who voted for this thing knew nothing about the ammendment other than jobs and tax revenue. My guess is that this constitutional monopoly will end in federal court when an Ohio city left out of the cassino gig sues for anti-trust violations. It’s so disheartening to see our political process used to help the rich get richer. The jobs are great but most of them will be gone in 2 years and we’ll still be stuck with a monopoly written into our State Constitution. These Cassinos are above state government regulation!

By KlackKlack

November 4, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this

To all of the folks complaining about gambling, I bet you don’t complain when the money is going to your church in the form of bingo halls and monte carlo nights do you? And what is the state lottery? That’s the main reason people complain, your preacher need that money to make his Cadillac payment.

By FreedomWriter

November 4, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this

Obviously the DDN doesnt care about fairness. Thats plain to see. Maybe its time to send them a message also. They depend on us, the public for their livelihood. Maybe we could do a group boycot of their paper, their TV station, (Channel 7) and the rest of the crap they monopolize us all with.. And if they would like to respond back to me they know how to reach me. They have the email address. I say bring it on DDN, were all ready for yah!

By wrc

November 4, 2009 1:06 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it funny how the DDN let Crazy ramble on about the evils of gambling,but yet if you try posting a veiw opposite DDN they limit it.Then they wonder why people don’t buy there paper.As more than once I was limited to 350 to 500 letter limit respond.

By CA

November 4, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this

It’s sad that the morals of our country have gone so far down that we’re willing to vote in something that destroys lives & families. The only winners at these casinos are the owners.

By nicetosee

November 4, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this

nice to see dayton’s soon to be FORMER mayor didnt get a Casino lined up for Dayton. Thanks itchbay

By William

November 4, 2009 12:46 PM | Link to this

A sad day for Ohio. I have seen first hand how Casinos wreck lives and marriages, increase crime, and lead to lives of dispair for many. Be careful what you wish for, Ohio: you may just get it.

By Jay

November 4, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this

The mindless sheep in Montgomery County fell for the anti casino ads that featured Satan. One look at that and they were decided. Too bad most of the voters don’t even read up on issues, they just respond to scare tactics.

By Pockets

November 4, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this

Fantastic!! Now I can play in poker tournaments and supplement my income !!

By thisiscrazywhatiswronginthisworld

November 4, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

What is wrong with this. We are in depression. No good paying jobs,if you have one your lucky that will last, retirements taken away to bankruptcy are we stupid to vote on casino’s. What a joke have we not learned what is important first. Now the voting for election 2009 the people we voted are saying they want to continue where they left off. What a confused country. You deserve what is coming to you.

By anonymous

November 4, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

Dear Crazy: It is a little late for these statistics. You have closed the barn door after the horse is out!

By Anne

November 4, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this

I would have voted for it, but when I read the actual ammendment instead of just the ‘spin’ from my mail….I saw several things that worry me. Only time will tell how it all works out,but I don’t feel Ohio will be the winner.

By Crazy

November 4, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this

Social costs of gambling nearly half that of drug abuse, new book concludes Mark Reutter, Business & Law Editor 217-333-0568; mreutter@illinois.edu 3/8/04 “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” By Earl L. Grinols CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Owing to the widespread expansion of casinos, the cost of pathological and problem gambling has soared to nearly half the annual cost of drug abuse in the United States, an expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says in a new book. The social costs of gambling, such as increased crime, lost work time, bankruptcies and financial hardships faced by the families of gambling addicts, have reached epidemic proportions, costing the economy as much as $54 billion annually, Earl L. Grinols, an Illinois economist, has written in “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” published this month by Cambridge University Press. This compares with the estimated annual $110 billion cost of drug abuse, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. Casino gambling causes up to $289 in social costs for every $46 of economic benefit, according to Grinols. “In 2003 dollars, the cost to society of an additional pathological gambler is $10,330 based on studies performed in the mid-1990s, whereas the cost to society of an additional problem gambler is $2,945,” he wrote. “Accounting for the cost of raising tax dollars to cover some of these costs raises the totals to $11,304 and $3,222, respectively.” Put differently, Grinols said, “The costs of problem and pathological gambling are comparable to the value of the lost output of an additional recession in the economy every four years.” He pointed out that nearly all research on gambling consists of industry-sponsored studies ballyhooing new jobs and increased taxes. “Good policy requires that some party provide factual and accurate information,” he wrote. “Because a casino promoter, an Indian tribe or even local government places itself in the role of the house, thereby reaping benefits, does not mean that casinos are socially beneficial. Social benefits must take into account all stakeholders. There are benefits of casinos to players, to owners and to citizens, and there are costs as well. Identifying a winner or loser from the social perspective requires understanding the complete picture and knowing which components should be compared.” On the positive side of the ledger, a casino may increase local employment and raise state and local tax revenues. In Las Vegas and Atlantic City, N.J., where casinos primarily serve tourists, gambling creates regional jobs and an inflow of revenues. However, in the Midwest and South, where casinos primarily attract a local clientele, gambling causes a net loss to the community. Not only do out-of-state casino operators remove gambling dollars from the local economy, but local employers and taxpayers must foot the bill of increased crime, personal bankruptcy, domestic violence, lost workdays, child abuse and other social costs from problem gamblers. According to evidence cited by Grinols, gambling causes addictive and destructive behavior much like alcohol and drugs. About 30 percent of the population does not gamble, and most people who gamble do so infrequently, such as on an occasional trip to Las Vegas. However, about 10 percent of the population gambles regularly and accounts for up to 80 percent of the wagers in casino enterprises. This means that the gaming industry’s profits are based on a relatively small number of addicted gamblers who run up huge costs to themselves, their families and society. While excessive gambling affects members of all social classes, its greatest social concern comes from its prevalence among poor economic groups. “If there were no social costs caused by gambling, there would be no reason to object to it,” the Illinois economist argued. “That is, when individuals understand risk and odds and want to gamble for enjoyment as they would for any other form of recreation, there is no argument.” However activities that create more social harm than good, according to Grinols, “need to be regulated, monitored and in some cases altered or banned to achieve greater social well-being … The need for public intervention occurs precisely when the costs are borne by one agent or group and the benefits by another.”

By Myron

November 4, 2009 9:54 AM | Link to this

I love gambling for the entertainment value and go to the boats frequently. However I don’t go to Hollywood because they NEVER have $5.00 dollar tables. I drive a little farther and go at off hours. This one casino in Cincinnati will have the tightest slots and the highest minimum table games. I voted against the casino issue because a monopoly will be created. Do you think the average Joe will see an affordable table game at one of these casino’s? Hell No! They have us by the balls and they know it. What’s wrong with a half a dozen casino’s? Monopolies are a bad thing and competition is good.

By Ahorn Davinski

November 4, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this

@roll the bones,,,,At least it is a start. I agree that the issue was flawed but we can use any money we get. I think you were the same one who said before that they should let the market decide where to put the casinos. I agree completely but that wasn’t on the ballot.

By Paul

November 4, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this

The county voted NO so the county need take none of the tax monies which will be coming their way! The people speak! Glad my county said YES!!!

By FreedomWriter

November 4, 2009 9:37 AM | Link to this

To bad they couldnt be building one in our area where we were hit as one of the worst cities in the state. Perhaps now that the door is open, maybe WE can lobby for one to be built here. Now that the political scene is changing in Dayton (What-hoo) now maybe some things can REALLY change.. Its a first step, a BABY one but a beginning.

By frank dean

November 4, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

Does this mean they want the county to refuse their share of the money? Yeah when pigs fly.

By dave

November 4, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this

ya well, I live in Montg co and I voted for it… plain and simple… don’t like it don’t go… deal with it. all the “not in my back yard” attitudes are done. now just watch all the people that voted no since “they will never go” will also throw a fit when there will be a smoking section in the casino even though they will NOT go.

By Dave

November 4, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this

Well, the state legislature has had YEARS to do something, but hasn’t. So the voters did their job instead.

By Roll the Bones

November 4, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this

Remember: Many of us that voted no still SUPPORT legalized gambling. We just wanted the state legislature to take the necessary action instead of amending the constitution.