Self-Exclusion Litigants
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:29 AM

Having self-excluded from blogging while abroad, Vice Squad is behind in all our standard obsessions, including self-exclusion. People who joined self-exclusion lists for casinos in Ontario have filed a class action suit. Their gripe is that the casino regulators were not assiduous in keeping the excluded gamblers away. If the authorities in Ontario catch a self-excluded individual trying to sneak into a casino, that person can be charged with trespassing.

Compulsive gambling experts tend to emphasize the personal responsibility of the gamblers themselves to overcome their addiction, and many self-exclusion programs declare that ultimately, it is the bettor's responsibility to keep away. Nevertheless, successful self-exclusion programs do require a credible threat of enforcement, and casinos may well have to be monitored to ensure that they put some effort into erecting and maintaining entry barriers aimed at those on the excluded list. Self-excluded individuals tend to be heavy gamblers, of course, and hence a very profitable clientèle for the casinos. So gambling establishments might have a financial interest in looking the other way when a self-excluded (former) patron walks in the door.

In other self-exclusion news, remember that fellow who wanted a self-exclusion litigant's name revealed? The court had only released the litigant's initials, and this other guy had the same initials, so people too lazy to look deeply into the matter kept thinking that the other dude was the self-exclusion litigant. (I can sympathize, being frequently confused by the unwashed masses with Japan Airlines.) The court rendered a Solomonic decision: the name of the original litigant would not be revealed (in keeping with the anonymity promised to those who place themselves on New Jersey's self-exclusion list), but the court officially affirmed that the "initial" gambler was someone other than the later complainant.

Labels: Canada, casino, gambling, self-exclusion

 
Making Self-Exclusion Work Better
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:40 AM

While Vice Squad is a big proponent of the principle of vice self-exclusion programs, the practice in US casinos leaves much to be desired. It seems to be relatively easy, for instance, for some self-excluded gamblers to return to a casino without much hindrance. A check of IDs for all gamblers, or a more universal use of smart cards that hook into gambling machines, might help to make self-exclusion programs more reliable.

One of the standard features of a self-exclusion program is that someone who has volunteered to join the excluded ranks is removed from the list of those who are sent promotional material. This is another area of slippage between theory and practice, apparently. The Illinois Gaming Board is fining a casino $800,000 for not sealing off the self-excluded from marketing appeals. The same casino received a $600,000 fine for similar activities two years ago. I would think that these significant fines will concentrate casino minds on providing a more effective barrier between their promotions and self-excluded gamblers.

Labels: gambling, Illinois, self-exclusion

 
Hey, I Am Not That Self-Exclusion Guy...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:19 AM

...I am a different self-exclusion guy. Recently, a man from Delaware wanted to remove himself from Atlantic City's gambling self-exclusion list, in part because he found that the privately-owned AC casinos also barred him from their establishments in other locales. There was a fair amount of media (and Vice Squad?) coverage of his case, which he lost, but the excluded gambler was identified only by his initials. It turns out that initials are not like fingerprints, one unique set per person. (Maybe fingerprints are not like fingerprints, either.) A man in Florida has same the initials as the fellow excluded from Atlantic City casinos -- and the Floridian is none too pleased about the publicity surrounding the case. Seems that people keep suspecting that he (the Florida man) is the current litigant -- though he is not. Those folks might be confused because, in addition to the eerie initial coincidence, the Florida man is a known gambler and a former self-excluder, having signed up for a one-year ban in 2003. How to end the confusion? The Florida man wants the court to release the full name of the litigant. But full names are not unique, either....

I like to think of myself as the Self-Exclusion Guy.

Sorry for disappearing under the blogoscope. My temporary relocation has made it hard to participate in Web 2.0.

Labels: gambling, litigation, self-exclusion

 
Anti-Gambling Legislation Successful!
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:07 PM

Um, well, except the legislation is not passed as an explicit anti-gambling measure. Nevertheless, public smoking bans are reliable in decreasing gambling (as long as those bans apply to on-site gambling venues). [Smoking bans put quite a crimp into bingo, too.] The most recent evidence comes from Down Unda (a curiously north-centric term), in New South Wales: "The ban on indoor smoking is ripping tens of millions from the pub and club industry, and poker machine turnover fell almost 20 per cent in hotels last month."

Of course, declines in gambling are always over-determined. Sure, there's the smoking ban, but there are also high petrol prices, wetter-than-usual-weather (which reinforces the smoking ban in that fewer bettors are desirous of stepping outside for a cigarette), internet-based competition, and (according to the linked article), high interest rates. This is the first time I have run across the claim that high interest rates deter gambling, but there does seem to be a certain logic to it.

Labels: Australia, gambling, poker, smoking ban

 
Self-Exclusion, Unabridged
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:03 PM

Vice Squad has something of a fixation with self-exclusion, those programs whereby problem gamblers (or people who fear that they might become problem gamblers) can volunteer to be barred from access to casinos. I have a short article in the Winter, 2008 Milken Institute Review on self-exclusion, arguing that parallel programs should be part of the mix when the currently illegal drugs are legalised. That article was a by-product of a longer paper that I let languish in an unfinished state. But now I have finished it, after a fashion, and posted it on SSRN, free for the downloading. The longer version isn't really all that much longer -- it's 20 pages. If that is too daunting, here's the rather tepid abstract:

Gambling jurisdictions around the world have adopted self-exclusion programs in which gamblers can voluntarily agree to be barred from further gambling. The popularity of self-exclusion stems from its aid in combating problem or pathological gambling, along with its non-coercive nature. To bolster the self-control of problem gamblers, exclusion programs combine physical inaccessibility and reward diminution: bettors are supposed to remain (or be kept) away from gambling sites, and the gambling winnings of excluded bettors can be confiscated. Other elements of program design that can affect the workings of a self-exclusion program include the duration of an exclusion, its revocability, and the breadth of gambling activities to which the prohibition applies. Self-exclusion or broader user licensing programs can be helpful for control of vices other than gambling. I argue that self-exclusion should form an integral component of drug regulatory frameworks that offer substantial improvements over drug prohibition.

The title of the paper is tepid too: "Self-Exclusion". But the ideas, well, they are revolutionary (in a tepid sort of way).

Update: There were some annoying ersatz characters at the beginning of the abstract on the SSRN page, so I just made a bid to remove them. We'll see if this works...

Labels: addiction, drugs, gambling, self-exclusion

 
Self-Exclusion is For Keeps in New Jersey
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:07 PM

Vice Squad is a longtime fan of self-exclusion programs, those voluntary lists gamblers can join to be barred from entering casinos or collecting significant winnings if they do happen to sneak by. [Self-exclusion could profitably be employed for many vices, even the currently-illegal ones, I maintain.] Nevertheless, there are many ways in which existing self-exclusion programs can be improved, and lots of tricky issues concerning the details of their operation. Two issues concern the length of time over which an exclusion operates, and how to ensure that people do not self-exclude in a moment of intemperance. Both of these issues were under review in a recent New Jersey court case, in which a man was hoping to remove himself from Atlantic City's self-exclusion list. He signed up for a lifetime ban -- New Jersey also allows gamblers to choose one year or five year bans -- which he claims he joined impulsively. The erstwhile gambler was particularly distressed to learn (once he self-excluded) that those corporate Atlantic City casinos would not just exclude him from their Atlantic City locations, but from their casinos worldwide. This is a common practice. The court refused to remove him from the ban, which I think is probably the right decision.

Nevertheless, there are two obvious reforms that can help. First, people considering joining a self-exclusion list should be warned that their action might spillover to other jurisdictions. Second, long-term bans should themselves require a waiting period. A person who approaches a casino about self-exclusion should receive an immediate short-term exclusion, but for a lengthy term, he or she should have to take further action at a later date. (See the Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, and Nower suggestion noted here.) This action probably should be arranged to take place at a non-gambling locale, to reduce temptation.

Labels: gambling, litigation, self-exclusion

 
Atlantic City's Gambling Decline
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:13 PM

Since legal casinos opened in Atlantic City in the late 1970s, gambling revenues went up every year -- until 2007. The decline continued through the first three months of 2008, with a 6.4% drop relative to the same period last year. In March, all 11 Atlantic City casinos reported lower gambling earnings than in March 2007. Part of the problem is surely the recent legalization and proliferation of slot machines in neighboring Pennsylvania -- though table game revenue is down, too, in Atlantic City, despite no direct competition on that score from the Keystone State.

Labels: gambling

 
The Answer is "62"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 12:06 AM

The question is, what percentage of voters in each of two "J" locales chose to pull the lever against casinos in referenda yesterday? In both Jasper County, Iowa, and Jefferson City, Missouri, the magic 62 percent of voters said no to legalising these particular dens of vice. Jasper County is hurting from the closure of a Maytag factory, but residents -- that is, 62 percent of residents -- still were unwilling to pursue a casino for the Newton area. Actually, the Jefferson City referendum contained two separate gambling liberalisation questions. Both were rejected by, uh, 62 percent of the voters. That 62 is a sort of lucky -- or unlucky, depending on your point of view -- figure, no?

Labels: casino, gambling

 
"Poker is a Skill"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:41 PM

That's the title of an article by Michael A. Dedonno and Douglas K. Detterman in the current issue of Gaming Law Review (which appears, unusually, I believe, to be freely available on the web). The title is also the conclusion of the article -- a conclusion derived from two experiments involving computer-based Texas Hold-em. Two groups of (college student) subjects played hundreds (200 in the first and 720 in the second experiment) of poker hands. One of the groups, after many hands, was provided some instruction about good poker strategy. (In the second experiment, there were two rounds of instruction.) The subjects who received the instruction outperformed those who continued to play untutored. (It seems that the key to improving your play, at least if you are among the uninitiated, is to fold immediately most of the time, generally playing only when your starting cards are strong: "Most poker professionals recommend playing 15% of hands dealt [p. 36]." Sounds a bit dull to me.)

This result is not surprising (although I am not sure that students who receive my economic instruction outperform controls). The potential import of the study comes from the fact that the legality of poker in many jurisdictions rests upon a determination of whether poker is primarily a game of chance or a game of skill. The authors note that in a casino, about 25 hands of poker are dealt in an hour. Their second experiment, with 720 hands, is "equivalent to about 30 hours of casino play [p. 36]." The point is that it takes a rather large number of hands to firmly establish the superior performance of more skilled play. [Here's a paper (10 page pdf) by academic economists providing evidence that skill matters even among highly skilled poker players.]

Vice Squad took an unanticipated and hence unannounced one week blogging break, which coincided with some of finals' week and spring break. Apologies to the loyal Vice Squad reader.

Labels: gambling, poker

 
Antigua Roars Again
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:51 PM

In the WTO internet gambling case that seems to go on and on and on, Antigua and Barbuda is threatening to start ignoring US copyrights and patents by the end of the month if the US does not make some movement towards settling Antigua's WTO-validated complaint. US movies, music, and computer software would likely be copied and sold, at least until Antigua earns the $21 million it has coming in damages. The WTO would have to approve Antigua's self-help maneuver, but might have little grounds for withholding approval. The movie folks are concerned.

Vice Squad has let pass unmentioned the last couple iterations in the US-Antigua dispute. Our most recent relevant (to this topic, that is) post was last August; ironically, the US largely won the case with Antigua at the WTO, but has been stonewalling for years to avoid a reckoning on the small portion in which Antigua prevailed. The WTO is unimpressed, and likely will remain so.

Labels: Antigua, gambling, internet, WTO

 
Designing Slot Machines for Harm Reduction
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:32 PM

The designers of slot machines are amazingly adept at prodding gamblers to have another spin. Are there any modifications that can be mandated for slot machines that would lower the harms that arise when gambling addicts interact with these machines, without appreciably diminishing the enjoyment of recreational gamblers? (Such mandates would be consistent with vice policy robustness.) Maybe. A November, 2005 article in International Gambling Studies reported on an Australian experiment which tweaked three features of slot machines, alone and in combination: (1) the maximum rate of play; (2) the maximum bet size; and (3) the maximum value of banknotes that could be read by the slot machine's banknote acceptor. (Previously it has been shown that allowing slot machines to accept banknotes directly (instead of coins or tokens or some such contrivance) is a good way to increase the amount that gamblers spend. Allowing smoking, too, seems to help.) As it turned out, most gamblers didn't even notice the different set-ups of the machines. (Each gambler played a control machine and a tweaked version.) Another finding was that problem gamblers -- after they played, the participants filled out a standard survey designed to uncover troubled gambling behaviours -- received less enjoyment from playing, relative to non-problem gamblers. Smaller bet limits combined with lower denominations for bill acceptors didn't appreciably reduce gambler satisfaction. There was a small decrease in enjoyment associated with playing slower machines. Nevertheless, there was no difference in players' reported interests in continuing to play the control or tweaked machines. In some settings, problem gamblers preferred lower maximum bets, even when recreational gamblers did not -- as if the problem gamblers are sophisticated about their control problems, and appreciate machine alterations that help them combat those problems or lower the harm from succumbing.

Labels: Australia, gambling, harm reduction, robustness, slot machine

 
Saturday Night Bingo
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:12 PM

Uh, I mean, blog post, this is a Saturday Night Bingo blog post.

Bingo has been having such a tough go of it, of late. The smoking ban and competition from other types of gambling are taking a toll on the industry. But bingo is resilient. In Lexington, Kentucky, a judge has ruled that smoking can take place at bingo fund-raisers, on the grounds that the organizations that sponsor the bingo (such as high school booster societies) are private clubs, and hence exempt from the county public smoking ban. The prosecutor is resilient, too. While claiming that the judge's ruling is correct, the prosecutor says that citations will continue to be issued and the resulting cases prosecuted, even as he also seeks to have the county legislation altered to take make sure that bingo smoking can be quenched. Apparently not all of the previous citations were directly overturned by the judge's ruling, so the prosecutor intends to pursue those, according to the linked article: 'We're not going to give a bunch of people a free walk here...' No, mustn't allow a free walk.

In Triana, Alabama, city officials seem OK with charity bingo, even the electronic version that can be a far cry from the traditional game. But the county sheriff (another 'no free walk' type?) has taken to sending deputies to raid Triana bingo parlours, seizing money and machines in the process. So city officials have gone to court to try to put a stop to the sheriff's activities.

Speaking of non-traditional bingo....

Labels: bingo, gambling

 
Thailand to Legalise Gambling?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:52 PM

The Prime Minister of Thailand seems to have a soft spot for legal vice. He has recently indicated that he would like to legalise daily lotteries, and has followed that up by declaring that he will legalise casino gambling, too. Somehow, he does not show the same liberalising tendencies when it comes to the war on drugs.

[Update: Pete at Drug WarRant has more on Thailand's murderous drug war.]

Labels: casino, drugs, gambling, lottery, Thailand

 
Pro-Active Self-Exclusion
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:32 PM

A couple weeks ago I mentioned my article in the current Milken Institute Review concerning self-exclusion, those systems available in many casinos whereby you can bar yourself from the premises for some period of time. More than 11,000 people have signed up for lifetime bans from riverboat casinos in the state of Missouri. (The voluntary exclusion applies to all of the state's casino boats.) I think that buyer licenses or self-exclusion programs should be part of the regulatory structure when the currently illicit drugs are re-legalized.

I mention in the Milken article that self-exclusion programs do not have to be passive. Casino employees or representatives of the gambling commission can keep their eye on potential problem gamblers, and hold an impromptu chat with them. (Attendance records and betting information from frequent-player programs also can be put to use for this purpose.) This sort of pro-active mechanism is used at Dutch casinos, and many of those gamblers who are approached for a chat choose to self-exclude. I think that active self-exclusion (and involuntary exclusion for bad actors) might be a good idea when drugs become legal, too, as I note in the Milken piece:

Individuals who misbehave under the influence of the drug would have their licenses revoked, or be involuntarily placed on the excluded list. One could even imagine a requirement of annual evaluations for drug-license holders to determine how they are coping with the drug, and to counsel lower limits, complete self-exclusion or treatment admission for those whose drug use appears to be getting the better of them. That is, self-exclusion could be active, like at Dutch casinos, and drug sellers could be drafted into the activity of barring their best customers – a far cry from their current behavior.

When I first mentioned the Milken article, I noted an unfortunate typo in the second word. I just downloaded a pdf from the website, however, and I find that the typo has been repaired! (Somehow it hadn't occurred to me that this alteration was possible -- in a lifetime of typos, what is one more? -- so I did not contact the relevant authorities.) Bravo, Milken Institute Review!

Labels: drugs, gambling, licensing, self-exclusion

 
Self-Exclusion
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:46 PM

Just a few days ago I called for the US military to set up a self-exclusion system for the slot machines that it operates on some of its foreign bases. (No word back yet -- apparently they have higher priorities.) But this whole self-exclusion thing is really catching on. Check out the fine article (available from this page after free registration) in the current Milken Institute Review. The author notes -- oh, wait, I am the author. I note that self-exclusion systems typically combine two features, physical unavailability and reward diminution. In the case of casinos, the physical unavailability is supposed to come about when the casino bouncers prevent you from entering their fine establishment, or even have you charged with trespassing (as happens in some jurisdictions) when you try to evade your voluntarily chosen personal ban. Reward diminution occurs when you find, once you have managed to slip past security, that you will not be allowed to collect large jackpots. I don't think that self-exclusion systems currently work all that well in US casinos -- the system is better in the Netherlands -- but I think the general notion of self-exclusion holds significant potential. In particular, I think that when the currently illegal drugs are legalized, some sort of self-exclusion system -- perhaps licenses for drug users, and a chosen purchase limit -- will (and generally should) be part of the mix.

The Milken Institute Review article starts off with a delightful anecdote (by golly, it is delightful) about famed poet and opium addict Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who tried (unsuccessfully) to set up his own self-exclusion system by hiring goons to bar his entrance into pharmacies. (At the time in the UK, opium was legally available without a prescription.) When Coleridge really wanted opium, however, he would fire his agents on the spot, leaving them befuddled as to whether to obey the previous or the current Coleridge.

It is embarrassing when you make an error on the second page of a long publication. How about the second word? Somehow in the relating of this delightful anecdote, Samuel Taylor Coleridge was rendered, in large font, as Samuel Tyler Coleridge. Sigh. [Update: the wonderful folks at the Milken Institute Review corrected the typo, without bidding!]

Vice Squad has spoken about self-exclusion occasionally in the past, and hopes to speak more in the future -- assuming physical inaccessibility and reward diminution do not kick in.

Labels: Britain, gambling, licensing, Netherlands, opium, robustness, self-exclusion

 
US Military Gambling
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:17 PM

Stars and Stripes has been investigating gambling on US military bases abroad. It turns out that in places like South Korea and Germany, there are slot machines located on-base:

The U.S. Army and Air Force generated more than $83.6 million in revenue via 1,191 slot machines in South Korea in fiscal 2007, according to data provided by the Army’s Family MWR [Morale, Welfare and Recreation] Command and the Air Force Personnel Center.

The Army, which also runs the machines on Navy facilities in South Korea, earned the lion’s share: about $73.5 million with 927 machines. As a comparison, the Army’s 1,550 machines in Europe, including machines the service runs on Air Force and Navy installations, brought in $38.5 million during the same time period.

South Koreans are not supposed to gamble on US military bases but it appears that some of that revenue did come from officially-ineligible Koreans. Some of the revenue comes from military personnel or family members who gamble pathologically.

At least one congressman wants to put an end to on-base gambling. I have some sympathy for that point of view, but I also have another suggestion. Require every person who wants to gamble at an on-base facility to have pre-committed to a daily, weekly, and monthly (and possibly annual) total bet limit. Rig the slots so that they only operate when the player inserts his card into the relevant card reader, so that the previously recorded betting limits can be enforced electronically. (That is, the betting limit cards are like "frequent player cards" that casinos use to track betting and to target freebies.) A gambler who is afraid of his own susceptibilities to addiction can then choose low limits, or even totally self-exclude by not acquiring a card with limits in the first place. This voluntary system is not foolproof, but it is helpful. If this suggestion is seen as too tepid, then the limits can be chosen by the military.

Back in 2005, the New York Times explored some of the problems associated with gambling on US military bases abroad.

Labels: addiction, gambling, Korea, military, self-exclusion, slot machine

 
Pinball
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:52 PM

Today's trip back to cold Chicago on Southwest Airlines provided an opportunity to read up on the Pinball Hall of Fame in Las Vegas in Southwest's Spirit Magazine. The fine linked article mentions that pinball machines were illegal in New York City well into the 1970s, until a live demonstration by a pinball maestro in an NYC courtroom led to the recognition of pinball as a game of skill, and hence, legalization. Pinball machine production peaked in the early 1990s, with some 100,000 machines being produced per year. Now the sole remaining producer makes about 10,000 machines annually, and many of those go to private residences, as public locations have turned away from pinball towards video games.

Beyond the hint in the information about the New York City ban, the article explicitly notes that early pinball machines often involved gambling. Indeed, the relationship between pinball and gambling profoundly affected the design of pinball machines. (Here's an article with lots of apposite info that I draw upon below.) Pinball machines have come in many flavours over the years, including some that were mainly for gambling purposes, some that could easily be adapted for gambling, and others that did not directly facilitate gambling, but could be used for that purpose via side bets by competing players or high score monetary bonuses from the till of the host establishment. The institution of free games for high scores was motivated in part to reward pinball players without violating anti-gambling statutes that rendered cash payouts illegal. Possibilities to win extra balls were developed to avoid anti-gambling laws that extended to the provision of free games. And flippers, virtually a defining feature of pinball machines for more than 50 years, were helpful in promoting the idea that pinball is a game of skill, not chance, and hence exempt from anti-gambling laws.

Of course, pinball has an addictive quality that might surface even without monetary stakes. The author of the Spirit Magazine article notes that after his girlfriend dumped him, he had a fling with a pinball machine -- one that was obsessive, but does not seem to be entirely negative: "I tragically played that machine for hours and hours, week after week, mourning my loss and perfecting my skill. I became…not to brag or anything, but I became truly great."

Labels: addiction, gambling

 
There is a Limit
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:30 PM

Just how much casino expansion can take place in the US before existing casinos begin to see a drop-off in their business? Today the New York Times has an article pointing out how gambling in the Catskills region in New York is doing poorly, partly as a result of competition from all those new slots in Pennsylvania. And yet a leading analyst of the gambling industry is quoted as saying 'The demand for gambling seems to be insatiable.' Well, insatiable sounds a bit too strong. Tomorrow's New York Times (ah, the magic of the web) reports that for the first time since legal casino gambling came to Atlantic City, revenues fell by 5.7% in 2006 [correction: 2007] at the resort's eleven casinos. But Pennsylvania took in significant revenue from its initial flurry of slots -- many more will come on-line soon in the Keystone State -- so other states are taking notice. Will they notice Atlantic City and the Catskills, too?

From yesterday's USA Today:

The USA had a record 767,418 slot machines and video poker games in operation on Jan. 1, up 6.4% from a year earlier, according to Casino City Press, an industry publication. The nation now has slots in 37 states — up from 31 in 2000 — and the equivalent of one machine for every 395 residents.

The trend will accelerate in the next few years. More than 100,000 new slot machines already have regulatory approval or could get it this year.

This related article in USA Today provides some information about a venerable Vice Squad topic, the workings of slot machines. In the course of reading the article, we learn that an icon of our youth, "I Love Lucy," (in re-runs, of course, we aren't that ancient) has now been co-opted to draw in electronic gamblers. Someone has some splainin' to do.

Labels: gambling, slot machine

 
Save British "Bingo"?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:55 PM

As the loyal Vice Squad reader knows, the British bingo industry is facing hard times, in part due to the smoking ban and to competition from lower-taxed forms of gambling. Also, the bingo halls do not hold the same number of slot machines that used to grace their premises. The Financial Times tells of the growing pressure to reduce the tax burden on bingo. The government is sympathetic, it seems, but are bingo's problems deeper, perhaps even reaching to the name of the game?:

...the government believes the industry faces endemic problems - including an ageing customer base and competing leisure and gambling activity - that taxation relief, on its own, cannot cure.

According to one industry analyst, bingo companies need to apply radical surgery to their industries, including rebranding the pastime in a way that sheds the "bingo" tag.

In Vice Squad news, I am back in Chicago after two vice-free days in Ann Arbor, which I want to "rebrand" as Annushka Arborka.

Labels: bingo, Britain, gambling, solipsism

 
Ringing In Another Set of Smoking Bans
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:52 AM

Chicago and Paris join the public smoking ban club today; in Paris, the city authorities are distributing "pocket ashtrays" so smokers won't throw their butts on the ground. (Another new law further reduces the Paris-Chicago cultural divide: dogs are now welcome to the outdoor sections of Chicago restaurants.) The Illinois smoking ban does not exempt casinos, so some fiscal authorities are already budgeting for reduced tax revenues from existing casinos -- though the plans to expand gaming in Illinois continue to develop. Fort Worth's new smoking ban does not extend to bars -- and in a last-minute alteration, bingo parlors (a Vice Squad obsession) are exempt, too. Speaking of bingo, in New York, as of January 1, you can organize a fun bingo game in a senior center without fear of imprisonment -- just don't let the players smoke.

Labels: bingo, Chicago, France, gambling, Illinois, smoking ban