B) So people can either put their income into long term investments or short term consumption. The more investment, the more economic growth, etc. So ceteris paribus we’d rather see people limit consumption and maximize investment. Gambling is clearly consumption (though granted some irrational gamblers think they are investing), however it is not economically different from any other fleeting entertainment consumption. If casinos attract business, it must be the case that they offer better value than other competing income-sinks. Allowing free market in casinos increases standard of living, by making other purveyers of consumption goods work harder to keep customers.

I remember voting against allowing casinos back around 1995. I would vote the same way again. Even most of the small number of people who support drug legalization (all drugs, not just marijuana), think drug sales should then be regulated by the state, much in the same way alcohol is regulated (have to be 21, etc.). But if gambling (and by gambling I mean casinos) are going to be allowed, I think they should be treated the same way as alcohol is and drugs or prostitution would be if they were legalized: as vices with social costs that should be limited in certain ways.

This is not intended as a defense of the proposal discussed above, which would entail removing the license of one facility for the public reason of too few taxes and the private reason that the backers of the new casino in North County just have more political power than the current owners of the Admiral.