Monthly statements for gamblers
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Sept. 27, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Sitting in the state House of Representatives' Gaming Oversight Committee is a bill titled “Casino Monthly Statements.” This is the only legislation since our gaming law passed in 2004 addressing compulsive casino gambling before someone has the problem.
The bill, proposed by Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks County, would require casinos to mail to gamblers a monthly statement detailing how much they won and lost. Gamblers should know how much they win or lose so they can better control their spending.
This bill has died four times. Powerful senators whose districts get a $10 million annual “hosting fee” do everything in their power to stop it from becoming the law.
The main argument against the bill is the mailing cost of monthly statements. So Clymer amended the bill to limit the mailing to only those patrons whose winnings and losses are $500 or more. I can't imagine anyone not wanting a loved one who is losing $500 or more a month to not receive a statement. Who knows how many Pennsylvanians' lives would be better if they knew this information?
We need to stop our casinos from breeding compulsive gambling degenerates. We need to call our legislators and tell them to support HB-1335, the casino monthly statements bill.
The writer is a former gambling addict who is seeking reforms in Pennsylvania casino system.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Dress code
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Not reviled abroad
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66