Province must step up, put out VLT fire

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/01/2024 (599 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It needs to be said from the outset that video lottery terminals (VLTs) are not like any other type of “gaming.” They actually kill people. Indeed, there is a reason why VLTs are commonly known as the crack cocaine of gambling.

Former Progressive Conservative premier Brian Pallister opined in 2019 that “Manitoba is the most dependent of all provinces on gaming revenue to pay for things like health care…” For the 2018-19 fiscal year, Manitoba reported $116 million in VLT revenues — far more than casinos ($74 million) and regular lotteries ($61 million).

Gambling proponents and various VLT stakeholders in Manitoba, then, have always maintained that a wholesale VLT ban will never work. For them, there is no sense even thinking about instituting such a policy measure because it can’t be properly structured, effectively enforced by law enforcement and, besides, addicts will always need their “gambling fix.” Skeptics also maintain that any VLT prohibition will only drive that activity underground and out of the watchful eyes of Manitoba governmental regulators.

Of course, the celebrated case of South Carolina’s successful abolition of some 34,000 video poker machines in 2000 clearly undermines those very arguments.

For those who may not know, the tipping point for the Palmetto state was the tragic death of a newborn baby from heat exposure — left in the back of a car on a sweltering hot summer day — as the child’s addicted mother played the VLTs for hours at a makeshift roadside casino.

After outlawed video poker machines from South Carolina started showing up in North Carolina, it, too, moved to ban its 10,000 machines. But even though a loss of hundreds of millions in state revenues was projected, the value of human life rightly took precedence.

Interestingly, civil society groups, including church representatives, the mental health community and concerned citizens, all rallied around the VLT prohibitions. They had all witnessed first-hand the horrific human toll from problem VLT gambling.

More to the point, the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association supported a ban because they didn’t have the police resources to properly monitor and regulate the deadly machines. Nor would they still have to involve themselves in often lengthy, time-consuming and morally draining investigations into VLT-related domestic violence disputes, petty crime and theft, financial fraud and embezzlement, or even devastating suicides.

Clearly, the argument of those who proclaim that a VLT ban is not enforceable is severely weakened when the ones who are chiefly responsible for implementing it are full-square behind the move. No, the real argument against a VLT ban is not that it can’t and won’t work, but that it will actually work too well.

The fact is a ban will drastically cut into the revenue stream of the Manitoba government (and interested parties) and force them to look for monies elsewhere. It could also have a marginal impact on Manitoba job losses. So it is this anticipated financial hit to their bottom line that really terrifies opponents of any VLT ban.

By the way, policing services in South Carolina today have had no problem enforcing their video poker ban as long as they have in place appropriate regulatory guidelines and penalties, sufficient staff and the requisite political backing of state legislators. Nor is there any evidence that former VLT gamblers migrated to other gambling alternatives once the machines disappeared.

It is simply not tenable, then, to argue that a ban on VLTs can’t work. It is already happening in the Carolinas, in 38 other U.S. states and in a handful of neighbouring Alberta communities. Closer to home, Winkler has had a complete ban on the machines since late 1990s (and Steinbach, though no longer, once prohibited VLTs for several years).

In fact, under Manitoba’s 1999 Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act, municipalities have the right to decide whether VLTs are actually welcome in their communities. And in a 2003 judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada — in a notable 9-0 ruling — confirmed the act did not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

No, the real problem with a VLT ban is not in its lack of effectiveness or enforcement. The critical impediment to its implementation lies in our politicians or, more specifically, in their utter lack of political will, addiction to gambling revenues and absence of moral fibre. After all, public officials are supposed to be in the business of providing citizens with a helping hand — not knowingly picking their pockets, creating multitudes of addicts, and destroying lives and families.

Accordingly, the government of Manitoba should stop listening to the Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Authority (LGCA) and start doing what is best for the people of its province. Indeed, it’s long past time for Manitoba’s political leaders to stop fiddling with gambling prevalence studies, responsible gaming gimmicks and covering the VLT licensing fees of businesses, and put out the growing VLT fire once and for all with a blanket ban on these dangerous machines.

Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.