Platform : Gambling: ‘Make the Hazards Clear’ : HIGH VINES JR.: Minister and president of the Compton Interdenominational Ministers Assn.

In the final analysis, it causes more problems than it solves. There is the possibility and probability of increased crime activity, prosititution, unemployment and particularly an increase in the welfare roll. People who lose their money gotta live. They will either go on welfare or steal or whatever.

As a minister and clergyman, there is a moral issue here, but even beyond that it’s economics. It is a negativism. It is unfortunate, (but) the negative image of Compton that exists . . . would discourage gamblers from other areas. They are depending on a whole lot of money coming from gamblers that don’t live in Compton (whose City Council recently approved gambling). They were thinking of the Asian high rollers coming through.

MARK E. LEHMAN: Attorney, represents proponents of legalizing card-club gambling in West Hollywood

This is not a large-scale (card) casino. I don’t think it will have any negative impact on the community. It won’t have any more of an impact than a restaurant. The city has some serious financial concerns to address . . . we sorely need additional revenue.

It will probably have a positive impact. It’s a very nice card club. It’s very different from what you picture. It’s more like being in someone’s living room than being in Las Vegas.

I understand there are ramifications. In West Hollywood, we have a city that I respect and am proud to be part of. It has the most ambitious AIDS service programs in the nation. We have the Russian community that receives some great services from the city. Those services are going to have to be cut unless we find some other revenue sources.

JOHN G. CHAVEZ: Mayor of Pico Rivera, which will vote on a card club measure June 8

I have no problem with the moral question. It is up to the individuals themselves that have to weigh whether it’s a moral issue or not rather than for me to weigh whether it’s a moral issue for the general public.

Each individual personally has to guide themselves as to what they feel is moral. The law restricts certain activities, as far as money laundering, prostitution. . . . I feel there’s enough restrictions.

If there is a moral issues then why are we selling liquor? Why are we selling cigarettes? Why do we allow dance hall facilities?

DURAND F. JACOBS: Clinical psychologist, professor at Loma Linda University Medical School, executive director of the California Council on Compulsive Gambling

What we have here is a product safety issue. When governments engage in any kind of major activity, say, the building of a dam or the construction of a highway or deciding on a toxic dump, they’re forced to do an environmental impact study. But I believe (gambling) has built-in hazards. Government has a responsibility to make potential consumers aware that they may be harmed . . . and to help those who are harmed.

I don’t believe gambling is immoral. I’m not saying we should stop gambling, but I’m saying they should make these product hazards clear.

Our research has repeatedly shown that problem gamblers, who in California constitute 5% of our adult population . . . affect a lot of (other) people. Between 10 and 17 people are immediately impacted. It kind of unrolls. It’s those kinds of costs that keep building up.

LARRY GROSS: Executive director of Coalition for Economic Survival, an organization involved in affordable housing and other projects

I don’t think that’s the best way of achieving West Hollywood’s revenue needs. It usually ends up that those who can least afford to pay end up bearing the burden. A lot of times it’s lower-income people who end up participating. If you had a fairer tax structure, having those who haven’t been paying their fair share, such as the large corporations and the wealthy, then we’d be better able to generate the revenue that is needed. It’s somewhat of a sorry state for us, in this society, that we have to rely on people gambling to meet social needs in the city’s infrastructure.

I. NELSON ROSE: Professor of law, Whittier Law School; vice president of California Council on Compulsive Gambling

It is viewed as easy money, a voluntary tax. (And) once gambling has lost its moral overtones, no one is in a position to say gambling is morally bad. Once churches run bingo, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis. We are coming out of a period of complete prohibition. For the last 50 to 60 years, (gambling was) only in Nevada and a few race tracks. Now imagine you are the first liquor store (to have keno.) We’re now entering the real fantasyland stage. Entrepreneurs, instead of realizing that there is an oversupply, see it as endless easy money. (But) it’s the first one in that makes all the money.

I think that any industry has a responsibility to help solve some of the problems it causes, even more so when it’s a government acting as a private entrepreneur. California is one of the biggest gambling jurisdictions in the world, yet it contributes nothing to, for example, the California Council on Compulsive Gambling.