Thailand To Legalize Gambling

[sriracha john]

No dice, Samak

Most people don't want casinos

In fact, more than half the country is against them.

Assumption University found 56.4 per cent give a firm "no" to PM Samak Sundaravej's controversial idea to start building gambling dens.

Samak vows to introduce legalised gambling in his first term.

Abac Poll Research Centre director Noppadon Kannika says a majority does not support the legalisation of casinos. Reasons given include being against the teachings of Buddha, the ruination of lives and social turmoil.

But, three out of every 10 believe casinos are a good thing.

These people argue they generate tax revenue and stop local people flocking overseas to gamble. Noppadon predicts the debate over casinos will be a hot issue. "While the majority doesn't want casinos, hardcore gamblers badly do," he says.

The Abac survey was conducted last week and quizzed 2,726 people in 18 provinces.

- DAILYXPRESS

[Felt 35]

"Panem et circensis"

Congratulations to the new Thai government with their decision to legalize gambling. First things first!

[Plus]

Noppadon predicts the debate over casinos will be a hot issue. "While the majority doesn't want casinos, hardcore gamblers badly do," he says.

Tough choice, isn't it?

[Plus]

People should have a choice to gamble if they want.

Libertarians might argue that, on the other hand there's a strong argument that gambling is a social disease with many innocent people suffering as a result.

[patsfangr]

People should have a choice to gamble if they want.

Libertarians might argue that, on the other hand there's a strong argument that gambling is a social disease with many innocent people suffering as a result.

I must say, in complete honesty, that I struggle with questions of this type. I do care about people, and hate to see them suffer, or cause suffering for their families and others, due to their inability to limit themselves from excess of things that can destroy them. This is true of alcohol, other drugs, and gambling.

I am, however, equally committed to the philosophy that people should have the right to do just about anything they want, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to others, or deprive others of their rights.

Alcohol can, and does, cause just as many problems as, for example, marijuana. Yet the former is legal (and justly regulated), the latter is not. Why?

It's my belief that people who are predisposed to exceed will do so, whether legal or not. Over eaters will become obese. Is food "dangerous"? People who frequently drink themselves to unconsciousness (or extreme behavior), will kill themselves and/or cause trouble. Same with gambling.

I gambled regularly when I lived in the USA. I bet on NFL games. I played poker with friends. I played poker machines, and "live" poker in Las Vegas, and other casinos. When I gambled, I always began by establishing my limit for that particular session. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. But I never exceeded that limit.

It's called self-control. People with it won't cause trouble with drinking (another "vice" I enjoy), or gambling. People without it will cause trouble, one way or another, with or without alcohol, drugs, or gambling.

So, should "big brother" protect us all from ourselves by banning our enjoyment of things that can, when used in moderation, bring us a great deal of pleasure? I say that, unless those things can directly cause harm (like firearms), allow people to enjoy them. Coincidental with that freedom, however, should be stern punishment for those that abuse that freedom. This is the same way I feel, for example, about the privilege of driving a motor vehicle.

The exception here is that what I've said above applies to people with a good education, and a good understanding of the dangers of excess. That's where the government comes in. That level of education and social understanding doesn't exist among the majority of Thais. Therein lies the problem with legalizing gambling, or relaxing the strict "time margins" for the sale of alcohol. There is, unfortunately, no "quick fix" for this situation. I wish there were. But there isn't.

Add to that, on the gambling issue, the extent and depth of the corruption in government, and among the super rich here, and we have a sad reality that it just won't work here.

[Tony Clifton]

As I am sure there are heroin users out there that have been using for years, still alive and in control of their lives, I am also sure that there are countless millions who have lost control, that is one of the main reasons heroin was made illegal all over the world.

You can apply the same reasoning to gambling, but it`s not as ugly and more accepted, like alcohol.

I have never used heroin but I know that you can only take so much in a day, the same goes for alcohol, or it will kill you.

As for gambling, there`s no limit, until you are completely broke.

[onethailand]

I think there are a lot of issues that need to be raised before people can make an informed decision.

Yes, there needs to be some protection for people who gamble. The poll claims a lot of people are against gambling because it will create social issues - but before any legalization can take place, these social issues will obviously be addressed, such as limiting who can and cannot gamble.

For K. Noppadon to opine that "While the majority doesn't want casinos, hardcore gamblers badly do" is simply ridiculous - no one examined his methodology or his research sample - for all we know he surveyed a couple of hardcore gamblers and monks. He should let his research speak for itself without drawing silly conclusions by himself - as the head of a polling organization, he ought to know better.

[Old Man River]

I am, however, equally committed to the philosophy that people should have the right to do just about anything they want, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to others, or deprive others of their rights.

It's my belief that people who are predisposed to exceed will do so, whether legal or not. Over eaters will become obese. Is food "dangerous"? People who frequently drink themselves to unconsciousness (or extreme behavior), will kill themselves and/or cause trouble. Same with gambling.

The exception here is that what I've said above applies to people with a good education, and a good understanding of the dangers of excess. That's where the government comes in. That level of education and social understanding doesn't exist among the majority of Thais. Therein lies the problem with legalizing gambling, or relaxing the strict "time margins" for the sale of alcohol. There is, unfortunately, no "quick fix" for this situation. I wish there were. But there isn't.

Khun George, I agree with you on this (but not on Belichick, of course). People who want to gamble will, just as people who want to drink alcohol will. The only ones in Thailand who are against casinos are the ones who think that everyone should think and do as they do, the police who currently control the gambling dens and the loan sharks. Casinos will throw off tax revenue and will cost the police and loan sharks their gambling action.

[steveromagnino]

Khun George, I agree with you on this (but not on Belichick, of course). People who want to gamble will, just as people who want to drink alcohol will. The only ones in Thailand who are against casinos are the ones who think that everyone should think and do as they do, the police who currently control the gambling dens and the loan sharks. Casinos will throw off tax revenue and will cost the police and loan sharks their gambling action.

You are forgetting:

- the government already runs legal lottery which is dwarfed by the illegal lottery, we already have gambling

- the new 2 and 3 number lottery introduced by TRT did nothing to reduce the size of the illegal lottery that was ever documented but it did provide another source of funds for self promotion. The reasons are convenience, running credit plus better odds than the legal one

- many politicians including several of the banned 111 as well as Sanoh are the owners of the casinos surrounding Thailand in Cambodia/Burma etc; this is well known, i cannot remember which is the owner of Grand Diamond Suriya but which Suriya?

- it is widely believed that Chalerm operates a number of illegal casinos and a numbers racket in his native area across the river around Phrasijareun or however you spell that

- if Thais are not allowed to go inside the casinos, how will this reduce gambling action in the illegal games; every new game is always claimed to do this, and in fact people just IMHO end up gambling more than they did before; it is growth vs. switch

- no comment on tax revenue as no policy has ever been discussed; presumably a small fraction of total gaming and the rest to the licensee who would be a connected individual

There are plenty of people anti casino because they don't believe it will be transparent; same as the people anti privatisation. In theory a good idea, but let TRT/PPP type people do it and all the money flows to them, and not to the rest of us!

[Plus]

Gambling is not among all the urgent problems Thailand is facing at the moment.

I can't find any reason to believe that government sudden interest in it is completly innocent. If that was the case they would have commissioned a study to research all possible options and potential outcomes and present them to the public. Instead we have half a dozen self-contradicting proposals from different ministers that all souds like a done deal.

If done properly it might be benefitial to the country overall, but tell me who among those ministers is thinking of the country and not about the profits. Chalerm?

It's my belief that people who are predisposed to exceed will do so, whether legal or not. Over eaters will become obese.

Availability plays far greater role that you suggest. There aren't overeaters in Darfur, there aren't heavy smokers in Bhutan, there aren't alcogholics in muslim countries (certainly not on Thailand's level). Each one of these countries has the same percentage of potential abusers, it's just they are not given a chance.

[patsfangr]

Gambling is not among all the urgent problems Thailand is facing at the moment.

I can't find any reason to believe that government sudden interest in it is completly innocent. If that was the case they would have commissioned a study to research all possible options and potential outcomes and present them to the public. Instead we have half a dozen self-contradicting proposals from different ministers that all souds like a done deal.

If done properly it might be benefitial to the country overall, but tell me who among those ministers is thinking of the country and not about the profits. Chalerm?

It's my belief that people who are predisposed to exceed will do so, whether legal or not. Over eaters will become obese.

Availability plays far greater role that you suggest. There aren't overeaters in Darfur, there aren't heavy smokers in Bhutan, there aren't alcogholics in muslim countries (certainly not on Thailand's level). Each one of these countries has the same percentage of potential abusers, it's just they are not given a chance.

Are there, then, no members of the societies in Darfur, Bhutan, or Muslim countries who exceed safe and accepted boundries on any aspect of life? I have no factual statistics to support it, but my expectation would be that there is a percentage of people there who abuse "something" that causes problems for themselves, and/or their families. If it's not alcohol, perhaps it's some other drug. If not a drug, perhaps it's physical abuse of family members. Or are they all saints in these countries? Perhaps we should trash our western societies, and adopt theirs?

[dannyman]

ALL RIGHT ! THAI RUMMI. NO CHEATING/CHEKOHON !

[onethailand]

- many politicians including several of the banned 111 as well as Sanoh are the owners of the casinos surrounding Thailand in Cambodia/Burma etc; this is well known, i cannot remember which is the owner of Grand Diamond Suriya but which Suriya?

Suriya is not the owner of Grand Diamond. Another well known politician is the biggest Thai partner (hint: Nantida often sings there).

All but one of the casinos in Poipet have Thai partners.

if Thais are not allowed to go inside the casinos, how will this reduce gambling action in the illegal games; every new game is always claimed to do this, and in fact people just IMHO end up gambling more than they did before; it is growth vs. switch.

Exactly - which is why this so-called 100K entrance fee is ridiculous. It won't change a thing if that's the fee they intend to charge.

However - assuming a legal casino does not have ridiculous restrictions, it can reduce illegal gambling to an extent, but no matter what there will still always be a large market for the illegal games simply because credit is extended - there is no way around this unless the police suddenly become 100% straight arrows - you can draw your own conclusions there

I don't believe you will see an increase in gambling - if anything, perhaps a slight decrease. More important is to regulate the industry and put some controls in place, rather than trying to reduce gambling by any means other than through education.

Edited March 11, 2008 by onethailand

[Old Man River]

Khun George, I agree with you on this (but not on Belichick, of course). People who want to gamble will, just as people who want to drink alcohol will. The only ones in Thailand who are against casinos are the ones who think that everyone should think and do as they do, the police who currently control the gambling dens and the loan sharks. Casinos will throw off tax revenue and will cost the police and loan sharks their gambling action.

You are forgetting:

- the government already runs legal lottery which is dwarfed by the illegal lottery, we already have gambling

- the new 2 and 3 number lottery introduced by TRT did nothing to reduce the size of the illegal lottery that was ever documented but it did provide another source of funds for self promotion. The reasons are convenience, running credit plus better odds than the legal one

- many politicians including several of the banned 111 as well as Sanoh are the owners of the casinos surrounding Thailand in Cambodia/Burma etc; this is well known, i cannot remember which is the owner of Grand Diamond Suriya but which Suriya?

- it is widely believed that Chalerm operates a number of illegal casinos and a numbers racket in his native area across the river around Phrasijareun or however you spell that

- if Thais are not allowed to go inside the casinos, how will this reduce gambling action in the illegal games; every new game is always claimed to do this, and in fact people just IMHO end up gambling more than they did before; it is growth vs. switch

- no comment on tax revenue as no policy has ever been discussed; presumably a small fraction of total gaming and the rest to the licensee who would be a connected individual

There are plenty of people anti casino because they don't believe it will be transparent; same as the people anti privatisation. In theory a good idea, but let TRT/PPP type people do it and all the money flows to them, and not to the rest of us!

Gambling already exists in Thailand and isn't going to go away. As you say, it is a big business despite being illegal. Actually, other than organized religion, nobody really cares that gambling goes on illegally, not the people who gamble, not the people who don't gamble, not the gambling dens, not the police and not the government. People may publicly speak against it, but then either do it themselves or look the other way when family and friends gamble. That being the case, at least casinos create jobs and provide some tax revenue.

[Tony Clifton]

...and unnecessary misery.

[Plus]

Are there, then, no members of the societies in Darfur, Bhutan, or Muslim countries who exceed safe and accepted boundries on any aspect of life? I have no factual statistics to support it, but my expectation would be that there is a percentage of people there who abuse "something" that causes problems for themselves, and/or their families. If it's not alcohol, perhaps it's some other drug. If not a drug, perhaps it's physical abuse of family members. Or are they all saints in these countries?

Are you saying that if they don't drink, gamble, smoke, or do drugs, then they must be child molesters or wife beaters? I fail to see the logic behind it. Reducing one vice doesn't lead to an equal increase in another, neither on personal nor societal levels.

[patsfangr]

Are there, then, no members of the societies in Darfur, Bhutan, or Muslim countries who exceed safe and accepted boundries on any aspect of life? I have no factual statistics to support it, but my expectation would be that there is a percentage of people there who abuse "something" that causes problems for themselves, and/or their families. If it's not alcohol, perhaps it's some other drug. If not a drug, perhaps it's physical abuse of family members. Or are they all saints in these countries?

Are you saying that if they don't drink, gamble, smoke, or do drugs, then they must be child molesters or wife beaters? I fail to see the logic behind it. Reducing one vice doesn't lead to an equal increase in another, neither on personal nor societal levels.

Not necessarily those specific social violations, Plus. But I am saying that people with addictive personalities will find something to become addicted to. It may even be a good thing, in some cases; but an additive personality will become addicted to something. The same is true of people who tend to exceed limits. They will find something to do that exceeds the norm. Again, sometimes a bad thing, sometimes a good thing. But there is no guarantee that elimination of alcohol, other drugs, or gambling, will end all evil in the world.

And, Tony, the misery is already here with the illegal gambling; which, as has been said in this thread is not going to disappear if casino gambling is legalized. I don't see that there will be any more misery for the poor than there is now. Legalized gambling will not cure all the ills of Thailand; and it will most certainly add coin to the pockets of the rich and corrupt who rule most business and government offices here. But, despite that, it would likely add jobs, and some "public show" money to good causes.

There are definitely positives and negatives that would result from legalized, restricted casinos. But, as I see it, the negatives are already here, and are not likely to go away. Why not get the benefit of the positives?

[Heng]

Having a high end type casino is no different from having 'high end' shopping centers, McMansion neighborhoods, car dealerships, or massage parlours. The poor have little or no opportunity to spend/waste any money on these things... but they DO get another place where they might have the opportunity to work and bask in 'free' air conditioning (except for in the neighborhoods thing... but they do get a chance to smell freshly cut grass there).

There's a big difference between legalizing gambling nationwide and simply authorizing 1-2 large Vegas type casinos to be built and run with restricted access.

p.s. my vote goes to building the casino(s) near the new airport... preferably on Romklao Rd. or anywhere on Sukapibal 3 Rd. between sois 127 and 184, or in Pattaya at the Ambassador, anywhere on Theprasit Rd., or perhaps at the motorway maintainence district.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Heng

[Old Man River]

Having a high end type casino is no different from having 'high end' shopping centers, McMansion neighborhoods, car dealerships, or massage parlours. The poor have little or no opportunity to spend/waste any money on these things... but they DO get another place where they might have the opportunity to work and bask in 'free' air conditioning (except for in the neighborhoods thing... but they do get a chance to smell freshly cut grass there).

There's a big difference between legalizing gambling nationwide and simply authorizing 1-2 large Vegas type casinos to be built and run with restricted access.

p.s. my vote goes to building the casino(s) near the new airport... preferably on Romklao Rd. or anywhere on Sukapibal 3 Rd. between sois 127 and 184, or in Pattaya at the Ambassador, anywhere on Theprasit Rd., or perhaps at the motorway maintainence district.

While there has been talk previously about Pattaya, my guess is also near the new airport. The PPP are reverting back to the TRT's plan to make this area a special economic zone. If it mirrors what was being put in place just prior to the coup, then decision makers over this area will not be elected for 8 years and all revenues will go to those controlling the zone. Hence, if you are in the new government and want to benefit from a casino, you put it in an area where you have complete control and wealthy foreign players have easy access to it.

[Plus]

.. I am saying that people with addictive personalities will find something to become addicted to.

Possibly, the problem is that people who are not addicted to anything at the moment will become addicted to gambling. People are societal animals, they give in to pressure very easily and genetically predermined addictions are not the only reasons why they become heavy drinkers or gamblers. Easy example - if heroin was legalised and available in every 7-Eleven, do you think the number of drug addicts would stay they same?

The fact is that everyone will become an addict if he consumes addictive substances, that's why they are called "addictives" inthe first place. Some might overcome their addiction easier than others, but many will be lost forever. The best way is to never start.

.. the misery is already here with the illegal gambling; which, as has been said in this thread is not going to disappear if casino gambling is legalized.

The argument is that the misery will increase.

[Daisy75]

I think it would be a great idea if they would take all the extra tax money the gambling will generate that they will get and fund a social security system with it. I guess that will never happen though..

[slapout]

All those precieved vices that have been declared illigal over time by nations thru out the world have not stopped them. when they have been declared legal, taxed and accepted as a part of the choices we can make, I can not see that the results have had a positive effect on society, health care, or other social services, including education. I guess I did not see a lot of negative effects when they were illegal and going on, so it looks like the people pushing for legallization are looking toward getting access to some of the monies involved. Doubt if there is a real accounting involving what are called vices anywhere in this world, not for public viewing anyway.

[patsfangr]

All those precieved vices that have been declared illigal over time by nations thru out the world have not stopped them. when they have been declared legal, taxed and accepted as a part of the choices we can make, I can not see that the results have had a positive effect on society, health care, or other social services, including education. I guess I did not see a lot of negative effects when they were illegal and going on, so it looks like the people pushing for legallization are looking toward getting access to some of the monies involved. Doubt if there is a real accounting involving what are called vices anywhere in this world, not for public viewing anyway.

Well, Slapout, if large amounts of income are reported, and taxed, even if they cheat, and don't report all of it, those tax dollars are, I must assume, used to fund various government programs. Some of those programs, no doubt, address issues such as health care, education, and other social services. Seems to me that must do some good.

Nobody is saying that the taxes from legalized gambling will wipe out all of the countries social ills. But that income would certainly diminish them. Regulation of a legal activity costs a great deal less than a real effort to enforce laws against an illegal activity. IMO, the tax revenue would significantly exceed the cost of regulation. That would result in a net government profit, rather than the net government loss of trying to enforce laws against the illegal activity.

Now, while I believe that to be true where all gambling is legalized, it's not likely to be as clear as that here in Thailand. Since the proposal here is only for legalization of casino gambling; and the consensus appears to be that Thais would be excluded from casinos, there would be no reduction of the need to enforce laws against all other forms of gambling among Thai citizens. But just how much is actually spent by the Thai government now to enforce those laws? A few token "raids" for show? I'd say there's still a net profit there for the government from the tax revenues to be gleaned from casino gambling.

The net result of legalized casino gambling, despite the obvious and unfortunate corruption that would line the pockets of the unscrupulous (i.e., all of the "investors"), would still be flow of funds to programs beneficial to the Thai people.

[Tony Clifton]

Legalizing gambling here would be like opening the floodgates for the huge underground economy. I mean look at the poor state of the police force, also powerless against powerful figures, , who honestly thinks that money laundering won't reach record levels?

[Plus]

Well, it will work only if the idea is to tax the gamblers who currently spend their money in Cambodia.

If the open casinos here, there's a good chance that the number of gamblers will increase. That will, of course, bring more tax income, but, don't forget that this money would have been spent elsewhere - including on education and healthcare. If you channel this money through casinos, how much will be lost in the process? 70%? 90%? There are so many mouths to feed before this money reaches it's final destination.

[Heng]

If most of the revenue is being mined/stripped from tourists and foreigners, it's still a win win (we get the revenue, and you're having a good time) situation. As it is, a lot of people move here and lose their shirts... there's no reason why we should send them home with their pants or their socks.

[slapout]

patsaf; I really do not assume anything ( you may if you want) when politics or people involved in poltics have their hands on public monies. Reference the 3 digit lottery which was going to fund many welfare programs etc. Seems the (tax) money was diverted, siphoned, stolen or misplaced, and is still being traced. The legal lottery in Thailand has been shown to have been manipulated over many drawings at least twice over the past 9 years. Special investigative groups,have never found lottery officials and others involved to be responsable, even for the magnets found on wheels. What tax or special revenue monies are going to education and other social services in Thailand, would probably be hotly debated by the village people whose sons are in temples for a education, as public schools are too expensive or not avaliable to them. I believe that legal casinos in Thailand will quickly move Thailand from second to first place for corruption in Asia. The trickle down effect does not seem to work in Thailand as it was orginally forecast by the beancounters etc. Just goes to show Thai's are right when they say farong do not understand Thailand.

[patsfangr]

Well, it will work only if the idea is to tax the gamblers who currently spend their money in Cambodia.

If the open casinos here, there's a good chance that the number of gamblers will increase. That will, of course, bring more tax income, but, don't forget that this money would have been spent elsewhere - including on education and healthcare. If you channel this money through casinos, how much will be lost in the process? 70%? 90%? There are so many mouths to feed before this money reaches it's final destination.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, Plus. It appears that you're saying that the money that gamblers would spend in legal casinos "would have been spent elsewhere - including on education and healthcare". Huh? The gamblers will

have spent their money on education and healthcare, if they don't have a casino??? What am I missing in your words?

[patsfangr]

patsaf; I really do not assume anything ( you may if you want) when politics or people involved in poltics have their hands on public monies. Reference the 3 digit lottery which was going to fund many welfare programs etc. Seems the (tax) money was diverted, siphoned, stolen or misplaced, and is still being traced. The legal lottery in Thailand has been shown to have been manipulated over many drawings at least twice over the past 9 years. Special investigative groups,have never found lottery officials and others involved to be responsable, even for the magnets found on wheels. What tax or special revenue monies are going to education and other social services in Thailand, would probably be hotly debated by the village people whose sons are in temples for a education, as public schools are too expensive or not avaliable to them. I believe that legal casinos in Thailand will quickly move Thailand from second to first place for corruption in Asia. The trickle down effect does not seem to work in Thailand as it was orginally forecast by the beancounters etc. Just goes to show Thai's are right when they say farong do not understand Thailand.

I understand and appreciate your point, slapout. I have allowed that it's a virtual certainty that corruption will take a huge bite out of the revenues that pour into the casinos. I still believe, however, that there would be a significant amount of money that would be spent on worthwhile programs, if only to keep up appearances. But I will acknowledge that this is the opinion of a newcomer (2 years) to this horribly corrupt country. So I could be wrong.

[Shogu]

The misery will increase? There will become more addicts?

I don’t believe this, in Holland (where I’m from) both gambling and the use of certain types of drugs are legal and there are no more addicts in Holland than there are in any other country in Europe!

Every time you enter a casino you need your passport and the government can keep you from coming in if you are addicted. The drugs use amongst Dutch teenager is lower than that of any of our neighboring countries…simply because it’s just not that interesting when you are allowed to use it.