Cardinal Way: Civility Rules encourages constructive dialogue on difficult issues. Last week we ran two competing essays on so-called “skill games” or “gray machines” — one in favor, one against — and then asked readers: Should these games be treated as gambling machines or just a type of video game? How should we weigh the interests of small businesses and potential customers against the hazards of gambling and other social interests? Here’s how readers responded.
You can also still weigh in on a previous question about taxes.
The electronic games you sometimes see in convenience stores are often called “skill” games, although there’s much dispute about whether any skill is involved. They’re also sometimes called “gray” machines, perhaps because they have occupied a gray area of the law.
However, there wasn’t much gray in how readers responded to our recent Cardinal Way essays about the games, which once were legal in Virginia, but now are banned — but could become legal again if the General Assembly passes legislation that is advancing through the legislature.
Most readers saw them in stark terms — either these are harmless games that should be allowed or these are gambling machines that should be banned.
“No skill is involved,” wrote Tommy Dodson, in replying to our questionnaire about the games. “Gambling should only be allowed in licensed casinos or Rosie’s Emporium.”
Brenda Gray explained why she considers the games to be gambling: “They pay like gambling machines.” Ruth Cassell agreed: “The result of playing these games is the same as slot machines or other gambling. The ‘games’ win big and the players ultimately lose, become addicted, and act desperately.”
Michael Watson saw the games quite differently. “They are entertaining and bring income to small convenience stores that need help to survive. The removal of these machines are again politically motivated. Please let them remain in place.” If these games are banned, he said, “then Rosie’s which takes no thinking needs to be erased also.” It seems likely that Watson has played some of these games. “I love the skill of winning,” he said.
Tiffany Wells wrote in as another aficionado of the games. “I think they should be treated as a video game. The games were fun but also kept me out of trouble. I loved playing them in my spare time. I really miss them honestly.”
How should we weigh the interests of small businesses and potential customers against the hazards of gambling and other social interests?
Cassell was worried about gambling addiction: “The social interests of individuals — security, health and well-being — must be prioritized over profits and business interests. If not, then the current/future customer base, workforce and tax base of a community impacted by addiction and social diseases related to gambling and desperation (losing money they don’t have to lose; losing secure housing; losing jobs) will no longer be there to support the business or community. This type of revenue is short-sighted at best and negligent at worst.”
Where Cassell saw the potential for gambling addiction, Wells saw the potential to make money. “Actually it helps out people that are down to their last dollar that might need to have a few more dollars just to get through the week. I know it helped me out a lot.”
Michael Gale took a more libertarian approach. “If they pay out money after putting money in at risk it is either gambling or investing. What really is the difference?” he wrote. “What are the hazards of gambling? Cancer? Lost mental capabilities or visual acuity? What are these social interests? Sticking noses into other people’s biz because they’re doing something some people disapprove of? If people want to play games and lose money, under what part of our right to pursue happiness does the legislature get a say? Tax it or not. But don’t regulate it.”
Perhaps the grayest response was from Rebecca Guilliams. She agreed that these games constitute gambling. “They are gambling machines just like slot machines in casinos,” she wrote. She said she didn’t gamble but has friends who do. “Why should they have to travel out of our community to do so? Since Virginia has opened its doors to gambling why should only the casinos profit from it?”
The Senate version of the bill to legalize and tax these games has passed out of one committee and is now pending before the Senate Finance Committee. The House version has yet to be heard.
We still have commenting available on the two essays we ran about the governor’s tax package. You can read the essays for and against at Cardinal Way.
