 Why does the author think the casino owners will actively support the gaming commission's recommendations for regulation?
Is <A NAME= Gambling's would-be federal regulators--the National Gambling Impact Study Commission--went to Las Vegas this week to hold hearings. Tuesday's overpowering show of force by the Nevada gambling aristocracy has had at least one audible effect on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. This effort has largely succeeded, because Vegas is still the dominant image of American gambling, if not the dominant reality. Today's panelists tell the commission that kids are starting to gamble too young and are getting addicted too easily, that compulsive gambling appears to be increasing as gambling spreads, that gambling marketing may be designed to addict customers, and that the industry exploits problem gamblers by allowing them to draw repeated credit card advances from ATMs on casino floors. The commission won't (and can't) take any grand stand against gambling. Instead it will opt for small, targeted policies, concentrating on compulsive gambling. The commission may recommend that gaming taxes be used to underwrite treatment of pathological gamblers and that insurance companies be encouraged to cover gambling addiction. Similarly, the commission will try to reduce gamblers' access to cash by limiting the size of ATM advances and prodding casinos to remove the machines from their floors. In short, it will treat gambling as a tobaccolike vice. If the comments of the pro-industry commissioners can be believed, the industry will happily endorse such a report. Gamblers don't quite accept the cigarette analogy--though commission member Bill Bible, a former chief of the Nevada Gaming Commission, did concede that gambling was like alcohol--but they're happy to sign on to the specific measures. It has already established a (mostly) independent center to fund research into pathological gambling. Casino owners will avidly lobby Congress and state legislatures to enact the recommendations into law. It medicalizes the problem of compulsive gambling, blaming it on psychological abnormality rather than industry machination. In exchange for losing a few compulsive gamblers, the casinos will (falsely) appear more concerned with the health of their customers than with profits. What the commission ought to be investigating is whether the gambling industry has become so powerful that it's politically untouchable. As long as the commission just nibbles around the edges, the casino operators and state lotteries will be happy to indulge it. Talk about quick defeats: The first sign I see outside the MGM Grand ballroom all but declares that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission has already lost. The sign reads: "National Gaming Impact Study Commission." People who own casinos are not "casino owners," they are "gaming visionaries."
 They'll support the regulations because focusing on compulsive gamblers, makes the problem seem like a medical one.
 They'll support the regulations because focusing on compulsive gamblers, makes the problem seem like a medical one.  They'll support the regulations because it makes them look good in the eyes of the public.  They'll support the regulations so they don't lose their liquor licenses.  They'll support the regulations to pacify the Focus on the Family groups.