Posts Tagged ‘Florida’

To: The State of Florida, From: Blackjack Fans

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

This has been going on for awhile now. In the state of Florida the Seminole Tribe and state law makers are still in a stalemate about whether the Tribe should be allowed to have table games, including blackjack, in all seven of their casinos. I started following this closely. And then a little less closely. And a little less closely. Then it was just a part of my routine. The same things were being said over and over again.

Let me sum it up: In 2007 Florida Governor Charlie Crist stuck a compact with the Seminoles that allowed them to have table games. State law makers weren’t happy with Tribe casinos having what they viewed as a monopoly on table games within the state. Now, two years later, they’re still fighting over it. Like a tennis match. Back and forth. Specifically House Speaker Larry Cretul says that the governor had no such power to make such a deal with the Tribe. The Tribe says that the Supreme Court okay’s the compact and that they are operating within it. Florida says no, and the Seminoles say yes.

This morning I came across a news notice that Cretul wants the Tribe casinos shut down, saying that they are violating state law by continuing to operate without a compact. Again, the Tribe says that they are still operating within the 2007 compact. But what got me was here is this man, this House Speaker, that wants to cut off a source of much needed income for the state of Florida, money that can fund schools, money that can help to educate the state’s children.

He’s not alone either. Owners of dog racing tracks don’t want the Tribe operating either. They’re worried about losing business to the casinos because the Seminole casinos will have popular table games like blackjack and their race tracks won’t. What these dog track owners need to realize that while they might lose their customers that are at the tracks specifically to gamble, they will hold onto their fans who love to watch dogs run around a track. It seems like tracks owners don’t want to worry about competition. It’s almost like they want to be the only ones to offer gambling—which would give tracks the monopoly on gambling in Florida—this coming from track owners who believe that monopolies are bad.

Dog tracks are not Wal-Marts—they are not going to be able to offer every form of gambling avenue possible to gambling and blackjack fans. They can keep their dog races, which have their own following, and the Seminoles can have their table games like blackjack, which have a different following.

What everyone—Seminoles included—is that this state needs the money. Schools are suffering: teachers are being laid off, books are becoming out-dated, and schools are closing. Children are not receiving the knowledge they need to be productive members of society in a few years time. What these law makers, track owners and, yes, even the Seminoles need to be concerned about is the state’s children and their education, and not worry about how can line their pockets more.

I’m all for heading out to a casino and playing blackjack face to face with a dealer—sometimes you just need a break from online blackjack. But really what’s more important—profit or smarts? I’ll go with smarts, thanks. And while money for education comes from multiple sources, the Seminoles are willing to pay a couple million down to have the games and to keep contributing a good chunk of their profits from blackjack and other table games—and they designate that money to be put towards education. But the children’s interests first, guys and ladies.

I say if they’re willing to pay, let the Seminoles pay. Who are the state and track owners to say what is best for Florida gamblers? If we want to play, let us play. If the money I lose is going towards a teacher’s salary, show me to the blackjack tables! Let us play!

Do Blackjack Players Need Nannies?

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Over in Victoria, Australia there is much debate on a casino expansion of blackjack tables. You have some that want it, saying that it’ll benefit their economy. And there are others who say, in short, that gambling is the root of all evil, and that more blackjack tables will increase addictive gambling. I beg to differ.

But before I continue, I wish to say that, yes, if allowed more opportunity, some individuals who lack self-control could develop a problem with gambling. I would never say that more opportunities couldn’t possibly create a few more addicts.

However, for a state government to step in and say that they know best for, well, everyone, I just can’t stand behind that. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to play blackjack. In regards to the debate and the state’s role in public interest, Victoria’s Premier John Brumby said it was not the government’s place to “be a nanny and get in everybody’s face and say what you can and can’t do.”

For a government to say that they are going to cut everyone off just to reign in a handful of people, it would be like a mother grounding a whole neighborhood of children just to keep her own in line. All those children will do is sneak out their bedroom windows when her back is turned. And likewise, those who wish to play blackjack will venture to another state’s economy to play if their own won’t let them.

And that is precisely what the state of Victoria could be giving up. It’s similar to what is happening in Florida between the state and the Seminole tribe. Here again, the state is wishing to limit the amount of tables the Seminoles are allowed to have. But what the state of Florida will be losing is more money for their education budget, as that’s where the taxes of the Seminole’s gambling profits will go.

If the state of Victoria were to allow the expansion of blackjack tables, at the risk of a handful of the population as compared to the thousands that live in Victoria, the state has the potential to create an income off the blackjack tables.

But income aside, is it really a state’s responsibility to dictate how their citizens choose to enjoy themselves? Are we sheep? Do we really require our state to shepard us? No, I refuse to accept that a handful of men and women know what’s best for thousands of people in regards to their recreation. It is each person’s choice to play blackjack or not. The vast majority of people will play for the fun of the game—can they beat the dealer? Will they be dealt blackjack this time? It is not the state’s decision to nanny its citizens. After all, they will crawl out their bedroom windows into another state’s economy if they wish to play blackjack.