he recession have pressured policy-makers to find a means of stimulating growth in towns all across the nation. Iowa legislatures, prompted by the farm crisis of the 1980s, were first in discovering riverboat gambling as a resource to stimulate growth, (Greenberg, 1991).
             I admit it is tempting to support such a means of generating revenues, after all, the majority supports it. But policy-makers must ask, "Can we depend on riverboat gambling as a stable source of revenues and is it really painless revenues we will be generating?". Of course, the answer is a resounding no! Clearly, states should not be in the business of operating casinos. Even though the amount of revenue generated by state sponsored gambling is small it is foolhardy to rely on unstable sources of income in place of taxes. There are many other reasons I can not support this policy and I will discuss each in detail. I do not support state-sponsored casino gambling, but there are some compelling arguments for its establishment. I will attempt to point out both sides of the argument while ultimately showing the costs will not outweigh the benefits.
             First, it is important to discuss the origins of casino gambling and how it gained its recent acceptance among the public. Lotteries were the driving force in changing the attitudes of the public about gambling. New Hampshire instituted the first state lottery in 1964. Many other states quickly followed suit. In the late 1970s New Jersey approved casino gambling in Atlantic City, mostly to bring in tourism and lift the tax burden. The mood was set for other states to pass similar legislation, but repeatedly states voted down proposals for casino gambling. It was not until 1989 when South Dakota voters approved a measure to bring casinos into the landlocked town of Deadwood that other states began to consider casino gambling. Even though Deadwood now operates casinos, the idea of state sponsored casinos o...