1. Approving Casino Gambling.
2. Expanded and Updated Bottle Redemption
To me, the bottle law was a no-brainer, as aptly described in the Boston Globe:
It would have given a makeover to the state’s bottle redemption law... The 1982 law was written before the explosion of the snake-oil industry more commonly known as the bottled water business. And so it applies only to carbonated drinks — not water, sports drinks, or teas. Those drinks account for at least 1 billion of the more than 3 billion drink containers sold in Massachusetts each year. Only a third of those excluded containers, at best, are recycled (compared with 80 percent of bottles that carry deposits)... [but] Critics called the deposits a tax. And legislative leaders would rather eat their own heads than pass anything that even remotely resembles that evil specter. Never mind that the five-cent deposit is fully refundable. Never mind that the bill would save cities and towns cleanup costs and fund water supply improvements. Never mind that the bill would offset the much bigger and more permanent cost of clogging landfills with plastic forever.
Contrast this obvious utility with the casino bill. Lost in all of the posturing about "lost jobs" and "economic benefits" (read: new tax revenue for the state) is the fact that gambling is incredibly damaging to a large percentage of the population. When I was living in New Mexico, I remember driving by the casinos early on Monday mornings and still seeing a full parking lot as people gambled away their paychecks. So why I sympathize with the construction and service workers who were hoping for expanded job opportunities, don't ask me to cry for the casinos. There will be other development projects that arise that don't involve the severe costs of gambling, both societal and environmental. (For a look at the environmental costs of building a casino, see this article about the potential effects of the Mashpee Wampanoag Indians building a huge casino in Middleborough.)
No comments:
Post a Comment