The guys count on me for poker night over at Ralph's place. I think Vegas is a blast. Slot machines and card counters fascinate me. I'll go out of my way to check out an Indian casino.

But I look around this gambling gonzo state and I can't believe there's not somebody out there willing to take up the tough questions I heard the other day at the annual meeting of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling.

Beyond the usual blather about "responsible gambling," I heard some alarming stuff. Take the typical state resident with a gambling problem. He lost an average of $30,484 over the last 12 months.

"We have a state that is sick from gambling," said Leah Ralls, a social worker from the Danielson public defender's office, to loud applause.

I heard Peter Youngblood, an assistant U.S. attorney, talk about what our two mega-casinos have meant for law enforcement.

"We see a marked increase of criminal activity as a result of these casinos being here," Youngblood said. Bartenders who are prohibited from serving drunks have more ethics than our casinos, said Youngblood, that think nothing of catering to problem gamblers.

"It's irresponsible," he said.

Yeah right, Youngblood. We know that it's the gambler's fault.

"People don't accept it as an addiction," said Mark G. Farrell, a New York judge. Nevertheless he told the meeting about his experimental court that tries to rehabilitate, not merely punish, gambling addicts who are arrested. Imagine that.

It's a long way from Connecticut, where gambling means $700 million annually in guilt-free revenue pleasure for our state legislature. We throw a few million dollars toward treatment, but can't be bothered to adequately fund a study to see if we need help.

A few years ago I thought Attorney General Richard Blumenthal might be ready to take on gambling's dark side after he unmasked a new lottery game as a marketing ploy designed to hook children.

What's Blumenthal up to now? Why, he's going after illegal use of a "money wheel" at a fundraiser for East Catholic High School. Meanwhile, the Connecticut Lottery has decided it needs to squeeze more money out of its customers.

It's no coincidence you've been watching and hearing so many lottery ads, laughing away at those silly knights in armor. They've added millions of dollars to their advertising and marketing budget to convince you to buy, among others, more "Set for Life" scratch tickets at $10 each.

Surprise, surprise, they're succeeding. These sales, by the way, are almost certainly coming disproportionately from chronic gamblers because they are the ones who are buying all those additional scratch tickets. And yes, lots of people do play scratch games, but it's poor and uneducated people who spend more of their income doing so.

"We are hoping [the sales] don't come from the most vulnerable people, people who are already spending more than they should on lottery products," said Christopher Armentano, director of problem gambling for the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. "Perhaps some of the effort should be put into how best to reduce the harm to those people."

I'm sure the lottery and casinos will be glad to hear that Armentano, one of the lone, dogged voices questioning the impact of all the gambling out there, is retiring next year.

Without him, you'll just have to believe what the ads promise.

"The longer you live," the lottery relentlessly reminds us, "the more money you get."

Unless you lose, like most people. Sorry to ruin the party.

Return to Archives