ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Westmoreland's casino bet VIII

| Saturday, Dec. 2, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

The article “White House: True cost of opioid epidemic tops $500 billion” illustrates the need to consider both the positive and negative effects of all tax-related sources of revenue. This is the only way to determine if there is a true benefit.

Tobacco generates revenue but has significant health-related costs. Alcohol generates revenue but has serious negative effects such as DUI and a long list of social and legal costs related to addiction. Recreational marijuana is being praised for its tax-revenue benefits, but not much has been said about costs related to addictive use of marijuana.

Now more casinos are being touted as a great source of tax revenue. Gambling in moderation can be fun but, unfortunately, there are adverse consequences associated with addiction. I have yet to see any true cost figures addressing the adverse effects of addictive gambling.

I implore, and hope others do the same, the investigative reporters of this newspaper to determine both the potential tax revenue and adverse behavioral costs of expanding the gambling footprint with another casino. Absent information about all the true costs, how can one make an informed decision on such an important economic evaluation?

Claude Frantz


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me