View this post on the web at [link removed]

Among Missouri’s ballot measures, most of the attention has been focused on Amendment 3 [ [link removed] ], which would overturn the state’s abortion ban. I’ve written about that too [ [link removed] ]; it’s hugely important.
But there’s another amendment that we need to focus on: Amendment 2 [ [link removed] ], which would legalize online and mobile sports gambling in Missouri.
In large part because of efforts and lobbying from FanDuel and DraftKings, there are 30 states in the country that have legalized mobile sports gambling [ [link removed] ] since a Supreme Court ruling in 2018 gave states the right to do so [ [link removed] ].
Across those states, what we’re seeing is consistently frightening [ [link removed] ]:
Gambling addiction is up.
Debt is up, credit scores are down, and bankruptcy is up. This is especially true among men and among younger people.
Legalized mobile sports gambling hasn’t generated nearly the tax revenue that its advocates promised it would [ [link removed] ].
Making it easier to gamble—which we’d be doing, by essentially giving everyone a casino on their phones—leads to higher rates of domestic violence and higher rates of suicide.
The goal of more funding for education is worthy, but it isn’t worth the costs. We have much better ways to fund education.
Vote No on Amendment 2. Much more detail below on why this is so important.
Please forward this article to any Missouri voters who might not know about Amendment 2, or who might be on the fence.
Gambling is not inherently bad
I have no problem with gambling; in fact, I actually gamble pretty often. In college, I wrote an article [ [link removed] ] about how I grew up gambling. I play in a few regular poker games. I’m in two fantasy football leagues. I’ve been to Las Vegas just about every year since I turned 21.
I’m mentioning this to establish that I’m not a gambling abstentionist, nor do I think it should be banned outright. There is some good that comes from gambling, beyond just the fact that (in moderation) it can be fun.
Casinos employ 750,000 people [ [link removed] ] across the country and drive tourism [ [link removed] ]. The history of tribal gaming is complex, and its benefits are wildly uneven in their distribution [ [link removed] ] among the nation’s 574 federally recognized tribes [ [link removed] ], but Indian gaming has generated huge revenues, employment, and population growth [ [link removed] ] in and around Indian country.
For Missourians, Amendment 2 [ [link removed] ] would basically change two things:
It would legalize sports gambling.
It would legalize mobile and online gambling.
For lots of reasons I will get into, mobile gambling would be dangerous for Missourians. But even beyond that, it’s also highly extractive.
Unlike traditional casinos, which in Missouri employ more than 6,000 people [ [link removed] ], mobile sports gambling platforms—namely FanDuel and DraftKings—create no local jobs. They invest in no local infrastructure. FanDuel is based in New York City and DraftKings is based in Boston; beyond a pretty modest tax, there’s no reason to think that any of the profits will stay in the state either.
There’s a reason that FanDuel and DraftKings are spending well over $10 million [ [link removed] ]—so far—to get this amendment passed.
The “Yes” campaign has talked about millions being invested in local education, but even that is suspect. In states across the country, legalized mobile gambling isn’t generating the tax revenues that were promised [ [link removed] ].
And beyond that, it’s creating all kinds of other issues.
If sports gambling isn’t legal, won’t people do it anyway?
Of course. A United Nations report [ [link removed] ] claims that $1.7 trillion (!) is gambled illegally on sports every year across the world. In the United States alone, it’s around $60 billion [ [link removed] ].
So yes: gambling on sports is happening regardless of whether or not we want it to. That’s a very real problem.
But making gambling easier for people—that is to say, creating legal avenues for people to gamble—does make people more likely to gamble. People very demonstrably gamble more and are more likely to engage in other dangerous behaviors when they are near casinos:
“A casino within 10 miles of home has a significant effect on problem gambling and is associated with a 90 percent increase in the odds of being a pathological or problem gambler.” (Source [ [link removed] ])
“If a respondent had no casinos within 30 miles, he or she had a 2.7% chance of being a problem gambler; if one casino, a 3.9% chance; if six or more, a 6.2% chance. The authors estimate that at least part of this effect is causal.” (Source [ [link removed] ])
“The negative changes [of nearby Indian casinos] include about a 10 percent increase in auto thefts, larceny, violent crime, and bankruptcy in counties four years after a casino has opened, and an increase in bankruptcies within 50 miles of a new casino.” (Source [ [link removed] ])
Is the same thing happening with online gambling? Yes. We’re seeing exactly the same sort of impact happening [ [link removed] ] now that people can gamble on sports without even leaving their couch:
The average credit score [ [link removed] ] in states that legalized sports betting decreased by 0.3 percent — and by one percent, three times the average, in states that allow online sports betting. These might seem like small shifts, but they represent averages for entire state populations. This implies that a relatively small group of intensive users — “problem gamblers” — are suffering major damage to their credit scores, dragging down the overall average… Meanwhile, states that legalized sports betting saw significant increases in bankruptcy [ [link removed] ] filing rates and debt collections. Debt consolidation loans went up 8 percent by dollar value, and auto loan delinquencies increased 9 percent.
As this article hints at, the damage that mobile sports gambling is doing is not evenly distributed:
There’s variable data on this, but men are between 2× [ [link removed] ] and 7.5× more likely than women [ [link removed] ] to have a gambling problem. I couldn’t find good data for this in the U.S., but in the United Kingdom, 94% of gambling revenue comes from men [ [link removed] ].
Youths and college students—many of whom, it should be noted, are not 21 but are finding ways to gamble anyway—are more likely to gamble and much more likely to develop a gambling problem [ [link removed] ].
Black people are twice as likely as White people [ [link removed] ] to be gambling addicts.
I’ve written about how hard it is to be a young man today [ [link removed] ], and how we need policies to help them. Young men are hit hardest by legalized mobile sports gambling. Amendment 2 will hurt young men especially; it’s the exact opposite of what we need.
Gambling is a legalized narcotic. Just ask the American Psychiatry Association
Prevailing wisdom is that people will find a way to satisfy their vices—drinking or gambling or whatever else—regardless of any policy decisions. Empirically, that is untrue. We’re seeing that in states across the country.
Gambling is, clinically, a legalized narcotic. The American Psychiatry Association has a list of “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders” that includes a lot of the culprits you’d expect: alcohol, meth, opioids, and more. Gambling is the [ [link removed] ]only [ [link removed] ] addiction that isn’t directly related to substance use [ [link removed] ]. Why? “Gambling disorder is similar to substance-related disorders in clinical expression, brain origin, comorbidity, physiology, and treatment.”
2.5 million Americans—1% of the adults in this country [ [link removed] ]—are severe gambling addicts. As many as eight million more are considered problem gamblers lower in severity.
To the extent that you buy the “Yes” campaign’s claims on its website that the amendment will raise tens of millions [ [link removed] ] for education—and as I noted above, you should be skeptical—even if we do raise that kind of money, we’d be creating all sorts of other issues:
Raising revenue this way will disproportionately fall on the backs of men, of young people, and of Black people. It will also, invariably, fall on the backs of addicts, for whom having access to a casino in their pocket will make it that much harder to quit.
With demonstrated increases in bankruptcy [ [link removed] ] and debt [ [link removed] ], it seems impossible to believe that we won’t have to start spending more on social services.
As I wrote about last time [ [link removed] ], Missouri’s professional sports teams are asking for, and are likely to get, $1 billion in taxpayer support to build and rebuild their stadiums [ [link removed] ]. If the state were serious about increasing teacher pay, as the “Yes” campaign claims [ [link removed] ], they could do it now.
Gambling leads to higher levels of domestic violence and suicide
Beyond just the financial losses, and the impact you’d expect that to have on individuals and their families, there are profound and wide-reaching impacts of gambling and gambling addictions.
Problem gambling leads to increased rates of domestic violence [ [link removed] ]. Study [ [link removed] ] after [ [link removed] ] study [ [link removed] ] demonstrates this relationship; according to one study [ [link removed] ], 25.4% of problem gamblers reported having perpetrated severe domestic violence. It’s a problem well understood to such an extent that many of the resources for recovering gambling addicts include resources for domestic [ [link removed] ] violence [ [link removed] ] too [ [link removed] ].
Problem gamblers are [ [link removed] ]far [ [link removed] ] more likely to have suicidal tendencies [ [link removed] ]. Specifically, problem gamblers are 5-10× more likely to attempt suicide than people in the general population, and between 48-70% of Gamblers Anonymous members have contemplated suicide. Of any addiction, gambling has the highest suicide rate [ [link removed] ]. [ [link removed] ]
Is mobile sports gambling responsible for domestic violence and suicide? Of course not. Those are challenging, multifaceted issues with a million different causes.
But we have seen what’s happening in other states: people are gambling more than they can afford, and more people are developing gambling addictions [ [link removed] ]. And the morbid reality is that by passing Amendment 2, all things held equal, rates of domestic violence will go up, and rates of suicide will go up.
Let’s fund education with the casinos that we have
Traditional, in-person casinos in the state are doing plenty well, because it’s great to be in the business of legalized narcotics. An obvious example: Philip Morris, the tobacco company, was the single best-performing stock over an eight-decade period [ [link removed] ] between 1925 and 2007. If you bought $1,000 of Philip Morris shares in 1925, you’d be a billionaire today.
I bring this up to say: casinos can afford to pay more in taxes.
In 2023, Missouri generated about $400 million in tax revenue from casinos [ [link removed] ], which pay a tax rate of 21% [ [link removed] ]. That is, for context, not actually that high relative to other states [ [link removed] ] with legalized gambling. In Rhode Island, the rate is about 61%; in West Virginia, it’s 53.5%; in Pennsylvania, it’s 54%; in Kansas, it’s 27%.
Read the website for the Yes on 2 campaign [ [link removed] ]. They’re claiming that it’s all about education funding. So if that’s what they care about, I’ve got an easier way to do it: tax the casinos more. Every 1% increase in the tax rate on casinos would generate an additional $20 million or so in tax revenue—more than Amendment 2 even claims it’s likely to generate.
No need to bother with Amendment 2, which is so obviously harmful. If you actually care about education funding, let’s just tax the casinos 1% more instead.
Feel free to share this post with someone who might find it interesting. And if you don’t live in Missouri, share this post with someone who does. (If you’re reading this email because someone sent it to you, please consider subscribing [ [link removed] ].)

Unsubscribe [link removed]?