Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookGAMING:
Idea floated to lower state gambling age to 18
Fri, Nov 7, 2008 (5:54 p.m.)
Sun archives
If Nevada could have instant access to millions of new customers in these hard economic times, would the state’s Legislature and governor go for the potential windfall of new business?
We may soon find out.
The ability to bring millions of new customers to Las Vegas if the state’s minimum gambling age was lowered to 18 was the reasoning behind the suggestion raised by a gaming industry lawyer in a question-and-answer session with regulators at Friday’s gaming law conference sponsored by the State Bar of Nevada.
State Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander and Nevada Gaming Commission Chairman Peter Bernhard were asked their feelings about changing Nevada’s gambling age limit from 21 to 18. Neilander said he would take the suggestion to Steven Horsford, the new Senate majority leader, and Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley.
Neilander warned that the proposal would undergo intense scrutiny from groups concerned about problem gambling and underage players.
Neither Neilander nor Bernhard said they supported nor opposed the idea.
There is some precedent for allowing those 18 and older to gamble in bordering states. The age requirement to play at tribal casinos in California and Arizona is 18.
The Nevada Revised Statutes say a person under the age of 21 years shall not “play, be allowed to play, place wagers at, or collect winnings from, whether personally or through an agent, any gambling game, slot machine, race book, sports pool or pari-mutuel operator; loiter, or be permitted to loiter, in or about any room or premises wherein any licensed game, race book, sports pool or pari-mutuel wagering is operated or conducted or be employed as a gaming employee except in a counting room.”
Any person who breaks the law is guilty of a misdemeanor and the statute also says that allowing someone who they thought was over 21 to gamble is no excuse for violating the law.
Because the prohibition on under-21 gambling is a state law, the Legislature would have to pass a law and the governor would have to sign the legislation if it passed to change the existing statute.
Neilander said he would mention the idea to Horsford and Buckley, who won reelection earlier in the week and will meet with the Nevada Legislature when it convenes in February.
Discussion: 20 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- MGM Mirage cancels CityCenter condo project
- District dozen hit jackpot with overtime pay
- House renews probe of U.S. attorney firings
- Analysis: Kruger’s roots run deep in Las Vegas
- Mother in police shooting case charged with abuse
- Rough economy produces silence at Daytona
- Man held in attempted sex assault in Henderson desert
- CES, porn expo sharing the Vegas stage
- M Resort licensing gets OK from gaming board
- CES opens Thursday in Las Vegas
Blogs
Politics: The Early Line
Reid's leadership style questioned (3 Comments)
Sports: Upon Further Review
Pacquiao favored to beat Hatton in megabout
CES 2009
CES pre-party swanky but practical
Sports: UNLV
The Mtn. will air hour-long Tark show Saturday (2 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Ensign says Dems blew it on Burris, says his recount was different than Coleman's
Neighborhood group lambastes proposed City Hall (1 Comment)
Now and Then
So this is what a squeaky wheel feels like
CES 2009
Who said nerds don't know how to party?
Calendar
Opportunity Boulevard Career Fair at Green Valley Ranch
(12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Green Valley Ranch)
- The Dennis Bono Show at Sam's Town (2 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
- Fallen Vegas at the House of Blues (9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Don McMillian at the Harrah's Improv (10:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Hokes Medical Arts at the Reed Whipple Cultural Center (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Will cocktail servers, dealers and other floor people be responsible for checking id's on 18-year olds who want to drink when they gamble? Seems to me, if you change one restriction, you have to change them both.
Wait a minute - lowering the gaming age? - why not just legalize prostitution as well - furthermore, Nevada could "legalize" child porn - it's already a multi-billion dollar "underground" operation. Let's sell heroin and oxycontin over the counter - no limits! Stop public funding of middleschools and high schools - if you can't read or write or pose naked at that point - what's the use? We can make Sodom and Gomorrah look like quaint, little Utah villages. The Mormons had it right with plural marriages - hey let's make that legal, too! What's with all the cops out there anyway? - too many! A free Uzi to all over 14 - that'll solve a lot of crime issues. Booze? Nothing funnier than a 5-year-old after a six-pack of Bud Light. See, all sorts of ways to increase our tax base - innovative, creative and community orientated. Public executions of all the lawyers - pack the new Oscar Goodman superbowl every Saturday and Sunday with thrill ridden, blood-seeking tourists for hourly hangings, electrocutions and beheadings - complete with orchestra and marching bands!
"why not just legalize prostitution as well"
I'm not sure if I want to actually respond to your post, or let it stand as a response to itself.
Anyway, I disagree with that child porn thing. Everything else if fine, except you left out pot you freekin' moron.
"Nothing funnier than a 5-year-old after a six-pack of Bud Light."
Yes there is. "George Bush is a great president". See! Now that's funny!!!
Get em started younger, for sure. Thousands of new addicts will ensure a steady stream of income for Nevada. And, of course, help the casinos make more money. Sounds like a plan then.
Just what Las Vegas needs, teenagers in the casinos...in my opinion, no way.
The majority of adults can't handle their gambling habits, give our teenagers 3 more years before they are given an avenue to screw up their lives.
I anticipate being berated on this post, but I feel compelled to write it regardless.
I do not agree with allowing young individuals to gamble or drink at a younger age, but why is it OK to send them in to harms way and possibly make the ultimate sacrifice to their Country at the age of 18? Is it not the least bit hypocritical to allow them to make the decision as to whether or not to fire at the "enemy", to take a life, yet mandate that they do not have the judgement as to whether or not to have a drink or place a bet on this weekends games?
We allow young Men and Women to serve in the military, to cast a ballot in elections deciding the leaders of our Country, to drive vehicles on our roadways, which can also be a life and death scenario the way some people drive, to hold jobs, to buy weapons, to obtain a pilot's license, and the list goes on. Do individuals between the ages of 18 and 21, generally speaking, have the maturity to responsibly handle drinking and/or gambling? Maybe not. But is it fair to ask them to place their lives on the line serving in the military, and then tell them they can't be trusted to handle having a drink, or placing a bet?
I know people will say I'm not comparing apples to apples, but am I really that far off? Ask a twenty year old who is in the military, or holding a full time job while going to school, and trying to make a contribution to society what he or she thinks. With all the rights we grant to younger individuals, and the responsibilities we ask them to share, why do we knee jerk a reaction based on the actions of the few to penalize the many? Should we try prohibition again because of the few idiots out there, well over the age of 21, who insist on getting behind the wheel when they can barely even walk to their vehicle? Should we outlaw gaming based on the few who go in over their heads and lose everything they own due to their own irresponsibility?
Just a little food for thought.
I think anyone above who agrees with taking away the rights of 18 year olds, are then not mature enough yourselves to make those decisions. I love to play cards and gamble but, that doesn't mean i am as dumb as some of you may be to throw all of my money away. I keep a very controlled bankroll and know my limits and yes i would love the opportunity to go to Vegas and gamble. But, i can't due to the fact that theirs a card in pocket, depressingly doesn't say 21. I am still going to college and i know exactly what i want to be when i grow up, but yet im not mature enough to play cards because some guy says i can't well thats foolish!
Elmatt91, I believe your post, no matter what your intentions, made a case for leaving the requirement at 21 years of age.
First and foremost, gambling is not a right. The gaming industry and casinos as a whole are heavily regulated and monitored. The gaming commission has a thing called the "Black Book", which denies certain individuals entry into any casino. Also, any casino can remove you from their premises at any time, for any reason, without cause. Do you think that would be legal if gambling were a right? And regardless of any of that, those under 21 years of age are not legally allowed to gamble now as it is, how are your rights being taken away?
Second, noone goes to a casino thinking to themselves that they are going to lose everything they own. Gambling can be a compulsion, and an addiction, which for some people, can be a huge uncontrollable problem. Noone knows beforehand how they will handle winning, losing, or the thrill and rush of the bet.
Lastly, as far as the age versus maturity issue: Did you bother to read what you wrote? "I am still going to college and i know exactly what i want to be when i grow up". You yourself, by stating that, are in essence admitting that you have yet to grow up. How is that an arguement to have the legal gaming age lowered? Additionally, you write "because some guy says i can't well thats foolish". What Guy? You are of the belief that one individual has set the legal gaming age at 21? And even if you are not of that belief, that you merely made that statement as a generallity, shows a lack of maturity, and the inability to make a valid arguement which negates the current age requirement.
A message to everyone against this happening.
If a person is old enough to fight for their country and risk losing their life, they should be old enough to gamble and risk losing their money as well!
RICKHLV, your counter arguments to matt, and your overall arguments are simply retarded. The fact that matt said when I grow up has nothing to do with his mental capacity/responsibility, he merely used the phrase to refer to a period of time when he will no longer be attending college. Unless you belief all of the Freudian crap about the subconscious, your comment about "when I grow up" is just a mangling of his words to make a convoluted point.
But anyway I digress. Rick, your knowledge of the Constitution astounds me. Every person actually does have the right to gamble, much as they have a right to free speech and to bear arms. Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I will translate for narrow minded people such as you Rick: Any right not denied by the Constitution is retained or given to a person/the people. Since gambling is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, I should have the right to gamble. However, much as new laws have restricted gun buying policies and sales of assault weapons and freedom of speech (is it legal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater?), our government has restricted the rights of a person to gamble to age 21. However, it does not mean we still do not have the right to gamble. Your point about the black book has nothing to do with ones right to gamble, as casinos are private enterprises and can thus obviously throw anyone they want out, much as a gun store could throw people out (but it doesnt mean the 2nd amendment doesn't still apply).
And no, no single "Guy" set the age at 21, but rather the government as a whole did, which is really quite retarded. I do not need the government protecting me from myself" if I am old enough to vote, old enough to go to war and decide whether or not to pull the trigger, and am old enough to be imprisoned/put to death for the crime of murder (meaning that I am old enough to fully understand the consequences of my action in killing someone and that I am mature enough to control my emotions and make a rational decision in an intense/ pressure filled situation), then I should be old enough to spend my money the way I want to, old enough to gamble, understand odds, the fact that I could lose money, etc.
To me it would seems that emotion and immaturity would play a much greater role in a murder than it would in gambling (think about it, if an 18 year old robs a liquor store for the $500 in the register and gets scared and gets the hormones raging and shoots the guy at the register, I think he is a lot more immature and emotion plays a bigger role than in the case of a 20 year old who loses $5k at the casino), but when is the last time you ever heard of an 18 year old murderer getting a prison sentence less than 10 years?
The bottom line to me is that we need some consistency in our laws. If you are going to tell me I'm not mature enough to gamble, then I'm not mature enough to go to prison for life or be put to death. To be able to suppress emotion in a highly volatile situation and act 100% rationally is a lot more difficult to do than to quit gambling when you are down $. Likewise, it is a lot more difficult to understand the consequences and possibilities of enlisting in the army, to know that you can emotionally deal with killing another man and not shut down, etc. than it is to gamble. Yet I can enlist in the military at 18, I can be executed at age 18 (and often younger these days), but I can't gamble or drink? Something is wrong with this country.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but here goes:
I'm going to assume that you are under the age of 21 years old. Two reasons I make that assumption. Your staunch defense of gaming under the currently set age of 21, and your use of the term "retarded" in describing both my comments, and the age requirement. Not that I mind my opinions being critiqued, but the use of certain words, such as "retarded", shows a certain level of immaturity.
You call me narrow minded, as if everything I wrote was staunchly against the rights of those under the age of 21. I would assume that you read my first post of the 11th of this month at 12:05pm, as almost every arguement you made appears to be plagiarized from that comment. But in an immature fashion, you would rather selectively argue my comments to elmatt, because they give you a basis for proclaiming the wrongs suffered by those under 21 years of age. Not that it really matters, but I am probably one of the most open minded people you could ever meet. I personally can recall being under the age of 21, while I was serving in the Navy, and feeling the same resentment of the 21 year of age restrictions. I would come home to Las Vegas to see my family when I was on leave, and wasn't able to gamble or drink, at least not in the casinos, and it bothered me quite a bit, but I survived.
Mayhaps gambling is easier for some people to quit than say, drinking, but unless you've had a gambling problem, and a drinking problem, I doubt you're qualified to to factually make any claims as to which would be easier for one particular individual to cease. Nor, I believe, is a comparison between committing a violent crime inclusive of the use of a handgun, the penal consequences, and gambling, a logical arguement of anything closely resembling apples to apples.
The bottom line to me is, the Casinos are pondering the idea of lowering the legal gambling age, NOT because they suddenly believe those under the age of 21 can handle gambling now, but rather, they are a new pool of fish with funds for the taking. And no matter how much we debate back and forth, it more than likely will never happen.
I never intended to say that casinos were lowering the gambling age b/c they believe 18 year olds can handle it now. I understand 100% that it is an economic thing to the casinos, but as an 18 year old, it is more than that to me. Do you know why the age of majority is 18 in America? Well actually we chose the age randomly back in the 1700s, so let me rephrase... Why has the age of majority REMAINED 18? The answer is that in over 95% of humans (might even be 98%...I forget the exact % that I learned in Psychology) the brain is fully developed by age 18, meaning that the brain chemistry is where it will be for the rest of your life (excepting of course new memories and thus expanded neural networks, etc.). Therefore, any immaturity that exists in most 18 year olds will either exist for their entire life, or may be changed by experience.
Therein lies the argument of most people on this board against lowering the gambling age... "Well, if someone has to be 21 when they gamble, they have been an adult for 3 years, so they will have more experience and will be more responsible when it comes to gambling!!" Ehh.... not so much. You see, psychology teaches us that in order to truely learn to avoid something, that specific thing has to affect us or someone close to us. If its illegal for you to gamble from age 18 to age 21, you won't have a personal negative experience with gambling, and your friends won't either, since they are the same age as you, and odds are that if your parents have a gambling problem, you would've already had a negative experience within the first 18 years of your life.
So essentially... nothing is gained from having the gambling age at 21 instead of 18. People aren't more mature, they don't have more personal negative experiences to dissuade them from gambling, and if anything, that extra 3 years of itching to gamble might hook them even worse.
The same argument pretty much applies to the drinking age too... except it is easier to violate the drinking law than it is the gambling law. Don't believe me? Look at Germany. You are allowed to drink at age 16, and w/ parental consent, you can drink even earlier. Kids regularly drink wine/beer w/ dinner. And to make matters even worse, some of their roads have no speed limits. Yet, Germany has less car crashes per 1000 citizens than we do, less fatal car crashes per 1000 citizens than we do, less alcohol related accidents per 1000 citizens than we do.
Our stupid restrictive laws actually increase usage of the substances/things we are trying to outlaw. Cigarettes are considered "cool" because you have to be 18 to buy them, thus kids/young adults associate them w/ maturity. I personally think you should let a kid get drunk at age 10... the hangover will dissuade him from alochol forever. And let an 8 year old go gamble if he wants... lose all his allowance at Craps. Then when he wants that video game, he'll remember what he spent his money on.
I have a general question to everyone opposed to this law: Do you yourselves gamble or not? I see all of these people blaming gambling for ruining peoples' lives, saying its not the individual person's fault, blah blah blah, raise the gambling age, do away with gambling, its evil, etc. So essentially, you are saying you blame the action rather than the doer of the action... ok I can understand that.
But then I'm sure you watch Jerry or Maurie or any of those shows and hear about some dirt poor couple who have cheated on each other 10 times and think to yourselves "Dumb Rednecks". Why don't you blame the action (sex) for the problem in that case? After all, sex feels good, way better than gambling for most, and it can cause people to do stupid things, but because you engage in that action (as does 99% of the world), you would find it absurd if I started saying "Sex is evil, let's ban sex or raise the age for sex to 25".
And you are right... it would be absurd because government has no right to say when/where I can exercise my rights unless I would be infringing upon the rights of others. Having consensual sex doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, and neither does gambling at age 18.
"Sex is evil, let's ban sex or raise the age for sex to 25"
I think that's already the law in Utah.
John, the law in Utah states that you can only have sex with someone under the age of 25 if they should happen to be one of your 20 wives, and then it's OK if they are over the age of 13. At least according to Warren Jeffs anyway. JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!
Sand, I would like to comment on a couple of the things in your last post. One thing that evoked an immediate reaction in my mind, was the subject of blame, and responsibility. Does a Casino forcefully induce an individual to gamble? No, they merely cater to those who have that desire. I think TV does a better job of enticing some people to gamble by televising things like the WSOP, and showing the millions of dollars that can be won. What they don't talk about is the tens of thousands of people that for the most part, lost thousands of dollars each trying to get there. But I drift from my point. Who is truly responsible for an individuals wins or losses in gambling, and whether or not they can cease at a reasonable point before they lose all their money? Can the Casino massage the odds? You bet they can, and do. There's is hardly a game of chance in a Casino where the odds are not hugely in their favor. But even taking all that into consideration, who made the choice, of their own free will, to walk into that casino with cash in hand to begin with? In my humble opinion, this is indicative of a greater problem which is beginning to envelop our society as a whole, the lack of taking personal responsibilty. The "It wasn't my fault, someone, or something, or my upbringing, or whatever made me do it" attitude.
The next thing that came to my mind was your statement about the age frame of psychological and physical development. You are obviously correct in the physical development time frame, but let me ask you a question. On any given night, if you were to walk in to one of the Ultra Lounges such as Tao, or Christian Audiger, how many People do you see over the age of about 30 participating in the loud, obnoxious behavior? By what I've witnessed, very few. Is this because we narrow minded old farts aren't allowed to go, or is it maybe because we no longer have a desire for that type of behavior. Don't get me wrong, I still love to have a good time, but not like that. Do I believe that all individuals under the age of thirty behave in that loud obnoxious manner? Definetly not. But most people do tend to "mellow" with age. Maybe that's not a sign of maturity, but it is a sign that we do change as we get older, even beyond the time that we are at full physical development. Also, are most younger individuals well behaved, and what some people may define as "acceptable" in a public social setting? Probably, but as usual those that are intelligent, well behaved, and posess a greater maturity level are restricted because of those that are not. And believe me, I know that this in many circumstances is not fair, but you'll find that no matter your age, life can be unfair at times.
Rick, I would say that the "mellowing" you are talking about comes as a result of learned experiences. Eventually, one realizes you don't need to get trashed and act like an ass in order to have fun. You also get tired of the hangovers and the really really late nights. Again, it is experience. Initially, all these clubs and drinking seem like a cool thing to do and make people seem like they are mature or w/e, but eventually you realize its not necessary.
Remember Rick, it's not like you never went to clubs and now continue not to go to them, you intially did go to them and eventually grew to dislike them; learned behavior.
Unfortuately, as humans, we learn best from experience, so it really doesn't matter what age you set for anything, dumb/irresponsible people will still do that action. In most ways however, 18 is better than 21 or 25 or any other age for gambling b/c at least they will only be pissing away spending money. As you grow older, you have more $$$ and less years of work left in your life. If you have to lose it all at some point, its better to do so when you have less money and more time. Would you rather giveup the lead in a baseball game in the 2nd inning or the 9th inning?
As far as the personal responsibility thing, I agree 100% with you, that was the point I was trying to make.
As far as the government goes, if they really want to "protect" me and my fellow 18 year olds from our "immature" decision making, perhaps they should warn us about the bullcrap propaganda that is military TV commercials. Perhaps they should stop using slogans like "be all you can be" designed to make those who do not enlist in the military feel inferior. Perhaps they should stop waving promises of 20k enlist bonuses in the faces of us immature" 18 year olds.
But I'm only 18, so I guess according to my government, I'm too immature to get it (unless I committed a crime or enlisted in the military, and then I am 100% mature). I guess I'm too immature to figure out why I can't risk $1000 of my hard earned money to win $500,000 , while I can risk MY LIFE to win $20,000.
I have read through all of the posting here and just have a couple of observations and/or comments. Personally, I am ambivalent on the subject of lowering the gambling age to 18. But the comparison of military service to gambling is exceptional poor if not completely non-comparable. The military is a high structured environment with many layers of supervision and rigid procedures. Gambling has none of these attributes. To the best of my knowledge you are not required to go through gambling "boot camp" before being allowed to gamble. Additionally, there is no direct and constant supervision while gambling unlike in the military. Gambling is a recreational pursuit and military service is a vocation requiring a good deal of training.
I think the real question here is does a person 18 years of age have a high likelihood of possessing a maturity level that will allow that person to recognize when the recreational pursuit of gambling has become an addiction. Generally speaking, probably not, and when you are talking about changing laws you must think in generalities and what will benefit the masses. And yes, there will always be exceptions. This is why hospitals restrict small children from going into the area of a hospital where people are recovering. This is an area where there is a high likelihood that you will be exposed to a contagion. Most small children, in general, would not have time in their lives to have built up the immunities to ward off potential exposures. So to "play it safe" hospitals restrict entry.
I am sure the tobacco industry could supply copious amounts of data indication the best ages to apply a vice and achieve an addiction. I am also sure that the data would indicate that the younger the person the better the chance of achieving an addiction. Why tempt it, 21 for gambling and drinking is probably best left as is.
i would like to say all of these arguments are mute points. as long as a 18 year old has access to the internet and their bank account they can gamble on any kind of sports book or online casino. im 18 and i have lost 1.5 grand in poker. i realized i was losing to much and i stopped. but really guys gambling is only a click away.