By Brian Blanchard
Dane County D.A

Americans don't have to justify their legal entertainment choices to anyone. And surely there is some justice in the chance for American Indian tribes finally to benefit from a special status that has historically brought them cynical mistreatment, not opportunity.

DE JOPE REFENDUM TALKBACK READ/RESPOND: Vote Yes Editorial READ/RESPOND: Vote No Editorial WISC-TV Editorial: Casino Debate Grows In Complexity & Importance WISC-TV Editorial: Casino Report, Handling Flawed WISC-TV Editorial: Casino Stakes Increase VIDEO Dejope Debate: The Agreement DeJope's Revenue Sharing Not Yet Legally Binding? Latest On DeJope Casino Debate What Will De Jope Referendum Say? DeJope Casino: Hurt Of Help Local Business? DeJope Casino: Will It Hurt Madison's 'Image?' DeJope Closer To Becoming Full Casino Who Ends Up Winning Big With A Local Casino? WEB SITES NoDane Casino.com YesOnThe Agreements.org READ MORE Story Archive CASINO STUDIES Casino Benefits: Northstar Study: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 Anti-Casino: Thompson Study: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 OP-ED Brian Blanchard Send your Letter To The Editor to NHeinen@ channel3000.com

But I am voting "no" on the Dane County casino proposal Feb. 17, for two reasons.

First, casino gambling in Dane County would create problem gamblers - resulting in shattered lives and families, defrauded relatives and businesses, lower worker productivity, weaker community involvement, and greater poverty for the children of problem gamblers.

Second, money generated by a casino for public purposes would not nearly make up for the increased costs a casino would generate for the public.

The first point - the damage done by commercial gambling - is clear from the vantage point of the district attorney's office.

Most people visit casinos for diversion and a shot at a payout, and lose only some disposable income. But a percentage of every day's casino earnings comes from people trying to make up for yesterday's losses, running up credit debt, spending rent money, and convinced by slick ads and glitzy surroundings that they are a draw or two away from the big ticket.

A routine call to police in Sauk County or Milwaukee County, each of which has a casino, is a report of a stolen wallet. When the "victim" gives an unlikely statement, officers have a good hunch: He has blown the paycheck at the slots or the blackjack table and now decides that he needs a police report to back up his lies to relatives or creditors about where the money went.

In Milwaukee County, prosecutors handle numerous cases each year in which someone has stolen more than $100,000 from an employer due at least in part to large gambling losses. We have also seen such cases here in Dane County.

Think about the impact of a six-figure embezzlement on a business and also on the family of someone who suddenly owes that amount in restitution. We do not need a new, local opportunity for problem gamblers to squander their own and others' money.

My second point relates to net costs for the public. Advocates promise money for city and county governments, but there is no reason to believe that government officials over the next 25 years will use casino revenues to alleviate the many public costs created by problem gambling.

Remember what happened in Wisconsin to the tobacco settlement money, supposedly collected to offset health problems and to prevent new generations of nicotine addicts? The proposed casino is being sold as a painless way to plug public budget holes, but there is pain in a business that preys on the poor, hurts families and creates an unhealthy political environment driven by big gambling dollars.

Casino payouts will not make it to defrauded business owners or to pay for all of the "back end" costs in the wake of personal and business bankruptcies, divorces, civil suits and criminal investigations and prosecutions. One University of Illinois study plausibly suggests $3 to $7 in hidden costs for every dollar of gambling revenue.

Some say it is puritanical to oppose one more casino in an age of pervasive gambling that began with the state lotteries and is now just a mouse click away from anyone. But the explosion of both legitimate and illegitimate gambling opportunities across the country in recent years does not require this community to embrace a major new gambling operation.

No one can reasonably doubt that an intensely marketed casino, conveniently located near two interstate highways in a growing county, is going to contribute to many problem gamblers every year, many of them local people.

Is it anti-Indian to vote against a Dane County casino? No, there is nothing to suggest a racist motivation by casino opponents. Arguments against casinos have nothing to do with who profits, but instead focus on the costs those profits create for others.

A Dane County casino would not likely create a "sin city," with greatly increased prostitution, extortion or organized crime. The experiences of other Wisconsin counties suggest that the costs here would be more mundane but still tragic: the steady dribbling away of money that many gamblers cannot afford to spend.

No one can predict the exact percentage of gamblers who would not know when to walk away from the slots. But problem gamblers run through the money quickly, and a significant share of them will then write bad checks, forge checks, commit credit card fraud or identity theft, embezzle from employers, or otherwise victimize others before eventually hitting rock bottom after getting caught.

Economic development built on gaming is poor public policy. Please join me in voting "no," for the good of Dane County for generations to come.

Brian Blanchard is the Dane County district attorney.