Recently, there have been attempts in my home state of Maryland to legalize slot machines. This effort, undertaken primarily by Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich, has so far been successfully fought off. However, as the state is forced to make more and more funding cuts to important programs, slot machine legalization is gaining a great deal of momentum as a way to ease the budget crunch.

I think Governor Ehrlich and others who favor the legalization of slot machines should be reminded of the famous economic saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." While the legalization of slot machines and other forms of gambling may seem like a great way to bring in a large sum of revenue and ease budget crises, there are other negative side effects that come along with such a legalization that must be considered.

I accept Ehrlich's contention that additional revenue will pour into the state because of gambling, but is gambling a good or legitimate way to acquire these funds? Gambling attracts people who think they can benefit the most from economic games of chance: senior citizens and people on fixed incomes. These are the people least able to afford to lose money meaning that the added state revenue incurred from gambling comes from the lowest economic bracket of society. The outcome is a regressive tax. Instead of a progressive tax on the highest economic rungs of society funding education and other services that the state provides, gambling takes it from the lowest. Through the institution of slot machines or other forms of gambling, we are further impoverishing people who are barely clinging to a decent livelihood as it is.

Putting aside the unfairness and immorality of regressive taxation, gambling itself is also basically immoral. At its core, it is simply a higher form of cheating. Instead of making money through hard work and perseverance, gambling allows you to make money through luck. It is dishonest and immoral. By legalizing gambling, we are sending the wrong message to children. We are saying that it's okay to take shortcuts in life. Instead of promoting education and family, we're promoting monetary comfort through chance. We are also saying you can promote something positive (social service) through something negative (gambling). To put it another way, the ends justify the means. This Machiavellian reasoning places political expediency ahead of basic morality.

Besides promoting the wrong values, gambling also degrades the quality of living in regions surrounding casinos or other institutions of economic chance. Using FBI data, Tyler J. Garvis' tells us in his paper "Gambling: What are the odds?" that after gambling was introduced in Atlantic City, larceny increased by 467 percent over the first nine years. Since nobody would want to live in such a crime-infested area, an increase in law enforcement would be required. Jarvis found that Illinois calculated these costs when deciding whether to permit gambling in Chicago and estimated that it would cost approximately $100 million to pay for the added security. If all of this money is going to pay police, one can seriously question how much additional revenue gambling is really contributing to the state.

In addition to the cost of law enforcement, we must also consider the personal costs. Gambling can be very addictive, and legalizing gambling promotes this addiction. According to Dr. Susan Walker of the University of Maryland, the people most prone to becoming pathological gamblers are men with histories of depression, alcohol abuse, tobacco use and illicit drug use. These people are already struggling with problems. Do we really want to add to their hardships a gambling addiction which disrupts personal and family relationships? Doesn't the state have a responsibility to promote people's well-being, not downfall?

There is no doubt that Maryland and many other states are currently facing fiscal problems with a weak economy and the on-going occupation in Iraq, but the solution to these problems is not legalizing slot machines or other forms of gambling. Legalizing gambling is a quick fix to a long-term problem. It is taking a shortcut and attacking the problem superficially instead of directly. We are making the state budget dependent on gambling in the same manner that addicts are hooked on gambling. Instead of looking for an easy solution, Maryland and other states should learn to become more fiscally responsible.

Sidman can be reached at mrsidman@amherst.edu