Yesterday I discussed an online poker bill in California that is so poorly written it is even opposed by those who are pushing for online poker in the state. In case you think that California is alone in its legislative ineptitude, let me assure you that they have plenty of company. Take Rhode Island, for instance.

Rhode Island is the state best known for being near other states that are better known. It also apparently has idiots in their legislature. That’s not surprising. In fact, I’m surprised when I find a politician who is not demonstrably stupid, corrupt or dangerous to society.

Anyway, Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri vetoed a bill yesterday that would have allowed voters to decide whether the state’s two current slot parlors can become full casinos, including offering table games. The plan for a voter referendum was nixed because, according to the governor, it was missing “critical financial information” and took too much power away from the individual communities.

So in other words, the bill is so poorly written that, according to Carcieri, it’s not even ready for the issue to come to a vote. Massachusetts begins debating a proposal for casino expansion today, and as soon as it was learned that they may go ahead with the expansion, the current Rhode Island bill was written. Proponents of the bill think it is important to get casinos up and running as soon as possible in order to avoid losing business to their neighbors in the Bay State.

Governor Carcieri told the lawmakers that there is no rush and that they should take the time to craft a good bill. “While some would argue the threat of gaming in neighboring states requires immediate action,” he said, “I believe the advantage of already established venues allows us the time to develop better information.”

Among the information that needs to be developed and included in the bill is how the revenue from the casinos will be split. The current bill does not specify how much money will go to the state. Carcieri also said that a statewide vote on the matter would take power away from the residents of Newport and Lincoln, where the casinos in question are located.

The governor’s veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote by state lawmakers, which is a possibility, but it is more likely that they will have to start over and write a new bill.

Casinos in Connecticut are struggling to make money and are searching for ways to keep their business alive. That isn’t exactly a surprise. You can take that first sentence and replace “Connecticut” with any other state and replace “casinos” with virtually any other type of business and it is still accurate. Everyone is hurting right now, with the exception of labor unions, government employees, and political activists that are helping shape government policy.

Casinos are among the hardest hit by recession, though, because when people begin to tighten their wallet, trips to casinos start being cut out of the budget. Even President Obama told people not to go to Vegas anymore, which didn’t exactly please their Chamber of Commerce.

In light of all of that, casinos are looking at new ways to make money. Some in the Connecticut casino business, such as Rodney Butler, the owner of Foxwoods Resort Casino, are suggesting a reduction in the legal gambling age. Currently you need to be 21 to gamble in the state of Connecticut. The proposal would reduce the minimum gambling age to 18. Others within the casino industry, such as Mohegan Sun casino owner Lynn Malerba, disagree.

Malerba is chairwoman of the Mohegan Tribal Council and chief of the tribe. Through a spokesman, she stated that she believes that “the difference between a gambling age of 18 and a drinking age of 21 would make such a change very difficult to implement and manage.” Malerba indicated that changing the gambling age to 18 would only work if the drinking age was also lowered to 18 due in part to the fact that gambling and drinking tends to go hand in hand within casinos.

I imagine Malerba is worried about potential lawsuits if the casino staff serves alcohol to minors. Currently anyone allowed admission to the casino is legally allowed to drink so there is no problem. In addition, are 18 year olds going to be interested in visiting a casino if they can’t drink? I don’t think so. That brings up two possibilities then. Either reducing the gambling age would not attract new business because the 18 year olds would not go to the casinos knowing they can’t drink, or the casinos would have to be lax in their carding of guests. Many bars have a reputation for not checking ID’s frequently, which makes them popular with minors. However, a casino caught doing that could conceivably be fined, face legal action or even be shut down.

And while we’re on the subject, saying that 18 year olds are old enough to gamble with their money but not old enough to order a beer is just ridiculous. Society needs to determine at what age a person is an adult. Different states have different rules on that. The legal age of consent ranges from 16 to 18, the drinking age used to range from 18 to 21 depending on the state, but that changed with the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which effectively changed the minimum age to 21 in every state. You must be 18 to buy cigarettes in most states, though in some it is 19. In most city, county and state law enforcement agencies you must be 20 or 21 to join. You must be at least 21 for a federal law enforcement job. However, in every state in America you may join the military at the age of 18.

Does any of that make sense? Now I support a state’s right to set their own age limits rather than having it all done federally. That will cause a difference in the ages from state to state. Can we at least get some consistency within the state borders, though? Why do we have some states where you can have sex at 16, join the military at 18, join the police department at 20 and drink alcohol and gamble at 21? If you’re 18, you’re mature enough to go off to a foreign land and risk your life defending America but not mature enough to have a beer while you’re there? Oh, and you better not play poker in the barracks, either. I also think it’s crazy that we have cops who are not legally allowed to drink arresting people for underage drinking.

So what should the age be in Connecticut? It’s something to think about.

“I understand that America is a mess right now. Unemployment and the economy are in a dismal state. It is my number one priority to solve these problems and fix the economy. But people, don’t spend money! Save it! Stuff it under your mattress! Keep it away from the greedy banks and don’t spend it on frivolous things! Hoard your money because you’re going to need it!”

Obviously, saying something like that would be terrible for the economy and is the exact opposite of what the country needs. It’s also a loose paraphrase of the words of President Barack Obama. Throughout his year in the White House and even before, Obama has made it clear that he’s not a fan of capitalism, taking every opportunity to portray businesses as greedy, people as being in need of handouts, and the government being responsible for taking care of the people. That would be fine, except that he is the president of a country that has a Representative Republic system of government and a capitalist form of economy. His attitudes are not only counterproductive, but also downright dangerous for both.

The most recent of many examples of this is Obama’s criticism of Las Vegas and people who visit the city. Obama recently said that people saving money for college shouldn’t waste their money on gambling in Vegas. Last February, he made a similar remark about companies that received TARP funds, saying that it was irresponsible for them to take trips to the Sin City.

It’s no surprise that an anti-capitalist wouldn’t realize that trips to conferences and junkets in places like Las Vegas are an important part of the process of obtaining and retaining clients. But at least in that case he was criticizing the spending of money by companies that had received money from taxpayers. In his recent comments, he criticized private citizens for spending their own money.

Lawmakers and businessmen in Vegas are understandably furious and many have vowed to support whoever runs against Obama in 2012. They recognize that his comments and policies are bad for Las Vegas, the state of Nevada, and the country as a whole.

While the entire country has a dismal unemployment rate of 10% — you know, the catastrophic number that Obama said we would reach if he didn’t get to pass his “stimulus” bill – Nevada is even worse, at 13%. You should also note that both are conservative estimates that don’t count people with part-time jobs, those who have given up looking for work, and those who work on a temporary project. And with unemployment that bad and Nevada’s tourism industry struggling, the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the country (with the exception of George Soros and Al Gore), is telling people not to visit Las Vegas and not to spend money in their casinos, which just so happens to be the biggest industry they have in the state. Real responsible, Mr. President.

People of the United States and the rest of the world, spend your money as you see fit. You should of course be responsible, but if you have the disposable income to take a vacation, I can think of no place better than Vegas. Of course, as I’ve said countless times, you should never wager money that you can’t afford to lose, but if you can afford to lose it, Las Vegas would be happy to have it.

As the recession that Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner won’t admit exists shows no sign of getting better, states are looking at ways to make more money. Right now, most states are hemorrhaging cash and every little bit of revenue is needed. For that reason, Iowa and Kansas are the latest to look at their current gambling laws and discuss whether they need to be changed.

Right now lawmakers in Iowa are considering expanding their legal gambling by expanding the areas where it can occur. Currently casinos can only offer gambling on the gambling floors. The new legislation would allow gambling to occur in other rooms in the casino. The advantage would be that casinos could open poker rooms and start hosting major poker tournaments, which in theory could be a big source of revenue for the state. So it seems that in 2010, the politicians in Iowa finally realized that poker is big and involves a lot of money. In related news, the state legislature has said that they believe that the Internet is starting to catch on. If only there was a way of making money off of the Internet…

Meanwhile, Kansas lawmakers are basically asking for a do-over. In 2007, the Democratic-led Congress passed a law to bring in four state-owned casinos. As early as 2008, they realized that they wrote a terrible law that gave no incentive for anyone to actually buy property, build a casino on it, and open the business. Basically, the state charges way too much upfront for everyone involved and in a bad economy, no one is willing to risk paying that money. This is why Democrats should never try to have anything to do with business or economics. They simply have no understanding of either.

As a result of the bad bill, though the casinos are legal in the state, none exist. Last year, the lawmakers realized that they badly needed the casino revenue due to the recession, but were unwilling to take the time to discuss changing the law because they were too busy dealing with the recession and trying to find ways to help the economy (no, I’m not making this up). So now that, according to the federal government, the recession is over, they want a do-over.

Some Republicans are against amending the law. Republican House Speaker Mike O’Neal said that “they got the deal they wanted. They can live with the deal they got.” The Democratic response was something along the lines of, “Look, we’re Democrats. We always write terrible bills. That’s what we do! (It’s also why we don’t bother reading them). Don’t hold that against us. Let us try again and I assure you we’ll come up with a good one this time!”

The proposed changes in the law are aimed at making it more affordable for companies to come in and start up a casino. Among other things, there would be a drop in the investment that is required of developers from $225 million to $100 million. There is also a fee that must be paid up front to the state for the privilege of allowing the state to run your casino. That fee would drop from $25 million to $11 million. Another change would be to give the developers a larger cut of the profits from the casinos.

It will be interesting to see if the Kansas lawmakers do end up rewriting the gambling bill and if so, whether it will bring any casinos to the state. If not, they can always try again. If at first you don’t succeed…

Last Friday, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed a new smoking ban into law that outlaws smoking in all bars and restaurants. The new law will take effect in May 2010. Similar smoking bans already exist in other states, such as Florida and California. Smokers have predictably called the legislation discrimination, saying that it tramples on their right to smoke wherever they please. Like is often the case, these people have no idea what is a “right” in our country and what is a privilege. I’ve read the US Constitution many times, including the Bill of Rights, and smoking is never mentioned. The anti-smoking crowd points out that they have a right to eat food without choking on someone else’s cigarette smoke, but they aren’t right either. The truth is, each establishment has the right to choose whether or not they want to allow smoking. A smart restaurant separates the smoking and non-smoking sections in such a way that smoke from the smoking section won’t bother people in the non-smoking section. If they do not, non-smokers have right to refuse to eat there. But I digress. For the record, I think smoking is a filthy habit and I can’t enjoy eating a meal when someone else’s smoke is in my face. Plus there is still that believe, though unproven, that second-hand smoke can cause cancer.

As is often the case, though, the new legislation does not affect everyone equally. Lobbyists are very good at getting new laws to work to their benefit. As a result, cigar bars and casinos are exempt from the smoking ban. As a result, some believe that casino business could increase. Smokers enjoy smoking as a social activity, and if they can’t do it at their local bar but can at a casino, why not go to the casino? And while you’re there, you can always try your hand at blackjack.

Some employees of casinos have complained about having to inhale smoke all night at work and are likely unhappy with the exemption, but there are now plenty of places where they can work in a smoke-free environment. Only time will tell if the ban significantly increases the business of the casinos, because it’s unlikely that smokers will go there instead of a restaurant to eat, but they could take away a lot of business from bars. Of course, while that’s good for the casinos, it’s not so good for the bars. We’ll keep you posted.