RAISING REVENUE: Gambling at age 18 opposed - News

PRINT THIS Popular

Nov. 13, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

RAISING REVENUE: Gambling at age 18 opposed

Budget problems require other options, legislative leaders say

By ED VOGEL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY -- Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, both D-Las Vegas, said Wednesday that they would oppose a move to lower the minimum age to gamble in Nevada to 18.

"I don't think there would be much support at this point" for the move, Horsford said. "I would be opposed to such a policy."

Most Popular Stories

NORM: Details emerge in Jackson probe

NORM: When live news shots turn bad

NORM: Lance Burton renews contract

NORM: Terry Fator, wife ending marriage

Motorcyclist killed in collision with CAT bus

Motorcyclist killed in crash on Blue Diamond

Clark County man dies of H1N1 virus

Motorcyclist killed in crash with SUV at Durango and Sahara

NORM: Jacksons set up LV memorial area

OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING: Police account is disputed

"I don't have a strong interest in changing the gaming age as a way of dealing with our budget problems," Buckley added. "Of course, there is the argument that if you can vote or go to war at 18, you should be allowed to gamble."

Fifteen states and many Indian casinos already have a minimum age of 18 to gamble. Virtually every state with a lottery allows 18-year-old players. In Maine, 16-year-olds can play slot machines.

During a gaming law conference Friday in Las Vegas, lawyer Thomas Smock asked state gaming officials whether the gambling age should be lowered as a way to raise revenue during the current recession.

Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said he would take Smock's suggestion to Horsford and Buckley.

Neilander said Wednesday that he takes no position on the suggestion, and any move to lower the gaming age is up to the Legislature.

"As a law enforcement agency, we would not take a position on this policy issue," he said. "However, it would be very difficult to enforce, and much data would need to be considered regarding the revenue and costs associated with such a proposal."

One obvious problem is that the drinking age is 21. Cocktail servers could be required to check identification of everyone they were serving.

There also could be a negative reaction if youthful gamblers blew college money on gambling and became problem gamblers.

Horsford said he understood the spirit in which the suggestion was made.

"What is to blame is the state budget," he said. "The lawyer was looking for a way to raise revenue. There would have to be a thorough discussion in public hearings. I don't think there is a lot of appetite to consider it at this point."

Buckley agreed, saying legislators would have to weigh very carefully the consequences of lowering the age to gamble.

Legislators and Gov. Jim Gibbons are looking for new sources of money or finding ways to cut services because of declining tax revenue. Gaming revenues declined by 5.44 percent in September, according to a report released Wednesday by the Gaming Control Board.

Since the beginning of the fiscal year in July, Nevada's state government has received $229 million in gaming taxes, a 10.9 percent decline from the same period in 2007.

Gibbons announced Monday that the state needs to cut spending by an additional $300 million in the fiscal year budget that ends next June 30 because of declining revenue. He will meet with legislators Nov. 20 in Carson City to discuss steps they can take.

The governor and legislators already have cut spending by $1.2 billion since January.

Unlike the federal government, which typically spends more than its revenues, Nevada's constitution requires balanced budgets.

Gibbons spokesman Ben Kieckhefer said that the suggestion for lowering the age for gambling came out of left field and that the governor could not support it.

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	38 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Chill wrote on November 13, 2008 06:15 PM: I have been gambling in the casinos since I was 15 and only got stopped on a few occassions. Just abide by the following rules- 1- Machines only, no table games 2- Stay away from jackpots that lock up the machine ($1,200 or more) 3- Don't order drinks 4- Dress conservative 5- Smoke a cigar 6- If you are up, cash out your ticket and buy in again (never leave lots of credits on the screen in case you get stopped) I am 18 now and can't get enough of the video poker machines rainey wrote on November 13, 2008 06:10 PM: So a person can go to war and put their life on the line for this country at the age of 18, but they can't gamble. Makes a lot of sense...NOT! Tommy Chong NOT! wrote on November 13, 2008 04:02 PM: Hey, like, take a chill pill man! This is a bad idea that's, like, going nowhere fast. Don't get so upset dudes. tw wrote on November 13, 2008 03:37 PM: Why the interim step? Let's just reduce it to 12 and we can get their candy money too. Sad Summerlin wrote on November 13, 2008 02:40 PM: American must absolutely be the dumbest people in the world at 18 years old, but then miraculously be the most amazing people in the world at 21... 98% of the Free world allows kids 18 - 21 to drink, smoke, vote, gamble, join the military, etc. Most of the free world does it responsibly. Some do not. What is so special about the magic 3 years between 18 and 21? It is definitely not the University. It definitely isn't hormones... If someone is old enough to be an ADULT for criminal prosecution, armed services, voting in an election, driving a motor vehicle, operating heavy machinery, signing legal documents, OWNING A BUSINESS, paying taxes (must the list go on)... why do we insist on those MAGIC 3 years for drinking or gambling? We need to teach our children responsibility while they are in our home... by 18... it is too late... We completely send the wrong mixed signals to 18 - 21 year olds... WE WANT YOU TO BE AN ADULT --- BUT WE DON'T TRUST YOU TO GAMBLE OR DRINK... But some states allow gambling but not drinking... hold on... we trust you to gamble (IN THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT WHERE ALCOHOL ISNT SERVED)... The mixed inconsistent messages are overwhelming... However... I do agree this is a non-story... it was a question asked at a conference and then panel responded appropriately. Kim wrote on November 13, 2008 02:20 PM: Yea, let's fleece what little pocket change most 18 years have to help our economy - that makes a lot of sense. Why don't we go after the elementary kids' milk money while we're at it! 18 is too young to gamble. I don't care about war, voting, etc. My vote will always be "no" on this. I don't want to be sitting next to some moron 18 year old while I play blackjack either, do you? ET wrote on November 13, 2008 01:40 PM: No need to protect these youngsters,most are gangsters an kill each other,get knocked up and are n the military.Once again the Church of MOS,needs to mind its own business. Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on November 13, 2008 01:30 PM: I agree "why not?" but you're taking a very narrow view - and our society is much broader and very diverse! Where so many fail to "get it" is when they look only through the lense of their own lives - and they end up with a narrow view and their conclusions fall short. It's NOT just about YOU! I begin from the beginning - realizing that NO CHILD CHOOSES THEIR PARENTS! Some children are born as orphans, or are abandoned and don't have parents - and a lot of people just don't "get it" - let alone how many children are having children and don't know how to be parents - yet to count in the many young parents that came from dysfunctional families and don't know how to parent in a positive manner? The problems of society are much larger and far more complex than the lives any one of us experienced! Thinking that IF we made 21 the magic number for adulthood, as difficult as that would be, then assuming at some later date 25 years down the road it won't work out is delusional - there's no basis in fact for that fictional fantasy? "If parents raised their children..." is a premise that would only be valid in a perfect world - and it's a false premise isn't it? I'm glad "why not" is a perfect parent with perfect kids - the vast majority of us have not been that lucky - but, thanks for commenting anyway! Bobby wrote on November 13, 2008 01:20 PM: I even have it more backwards. We have no problem letting our children have babys when they are 14, 15, 16 and on and on. But we as really dumb and ignorant humans actually stand there and let some horrible humans tell us we can't drink, gamble until we are 21. You humans and your dictating ways. You just loved to be told what to do. Strange how you humans act. When I was under 21 I got drunk, gambled and did what ever I wanted and would never listen to another human tell me I couldn't. You humans are funny! A child can raise a child, but don't let them drink or gamble. That's too funny and ONLY because you can't stop them from having babys OR THEY WOULD MAKE THAT ILLEGAL TOO! why not? wrote on November 13, 2008 01:15 PM: It's amazing how most responders think 18 is too young..... I guess the next time around, 21 will be too young in the forthcoming 25 years.... If parents raised their children vs. letting the children run the home, there wouldn't be any discussion.. too young, get a grip. If your child is unprepared to manage finances at age 18, you, the parent, should take responsibility... a child given proper guidance during the 18 years of childraising would have provided them with the training and confidence to decide what they can or can't handle the decision to gamble. And it they can't, they should be able to discuss it with a parental figure for advice. That's what my kids do. Read All Comments