news-record.com

Earl Jones didn't help his cause by advising a state Senate committee last week that, "We should not make public policy based on personal distaste."

Jones, a state representative from Greensboro, was arguing against a proposed ban on video sweepstakes, the latest form of electronic gaming plaguing North Carolina communities. Jones says the machines should be regulated and taxed instead.

The economic pitch can't overcome other objections. There are times when legislators do make public policy based on personal distaste. They did last week with approval of Susie's Law, named for a dog that was brutally abused in Greensboro. The story of the revolting act moved legislators to toughen penalties for abusers.

Personal distaste leads to public policy banning dog-fighting, public nudity and, yes, most varieties of gambling, with limited exceptions.

It probably hasn't occurred to legislators that if they regulated and taxed dog-fighting, they could help build an industry that would provide jobs and generate tax revenue. But they'd have to overcome their personal distaste.

The recent history of video gaming in North Carolina has put a bad taste in the mouths of many legislators. Nearly a decade ago, sheriffs across the state pushed to eliminate video poker because of the destructive impact that form of gambling was having on many families in their communities. The video poker industry had a powerful friend in Raleigh, however -- then-House Speaker Jim Black, who was in the industry's pocket for more than $100,000 in campaign donations and staved off efforts to ban the machines. He finally was forced to relent, and he ended up in federal prison for corruption.

Now, according to Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, the watchdog group that instigated investigations of Black, "Many of the same operators who were in the middle of the swirl of corruption scandals that ultimately sent former House Speaker Jim Black to prison are behind the reincarnation of video poker."

Video sweepstakes games aren't prohibited by laws banning video poker, but they should be. The Senate, ignoring Jones' plea, has moved to do that. The House should shake off Black's legacy for good and follow suit.

The pitch that video sweepstakes parlors provide thousands of jobs and could contribute millions in taxes to a revenue-starved state government should be rebuffed.

These parlors just suck in money that would be spent somewhere else and support other jobs. The players who are hooked on these games might have more to show from their spending than an afternoon or evening of dashed hopes.

The economic arguments of the video gaming industry are false. More to the point, legislators should repudiate the truly distasteful suggestion that North Carolina ought to fuel its fragile economy by encouraging more gambling, an enterprise that contributes little but trouble and heartache.