Dear Editor,

I’ve never been in favor of gambling, but after reading yourarticle Sunday I’m wondering if I am missing something.

Maybe I don’t have all the info, and I hope you can help me fillin the gaps. Bottom line: How does allowing gambling to thrive helpMississippi?

I remember hearing the gambling industry saying the economicimpact of casinos would wipe away the financial issues for ourpublics schools systems. Last year, The DAILY LEADER reported manytimes on the financial shortfall for Mississippi publicschools.

I see the attempt in allowing casinos to rebuild inland as a wayto give in a little it at a time.

If we could measure the marriages destroyed by gambling, thefamilies destroyed by gambling, the careers destroyed by gambling,and the lives destroyed by gambling, would gambling still be thesalvation of our coastal region?

If I understand Gov. Barbour and you (and others) correctly, themain reason to allow the casinos inland is the money they generate.However, it hasn’t solved our educational system’s financialissues.

If the appeal of the gaming industry is financial (despite itssocial drawbacks), then where do we draw the line? If prostitutionor pornography was a “viable economic alternative” and ourgovernment of Mississippi was looking into depending on it the waywe are now apparently dependent on the casinos, would you supportprostitution or pornography the way you are supporting the gamingindustry?

I just don’t see it. Call me naive, but I cannot see how we canadd up the pros and cons of gambling and still vote to keep it inMississippi. What am I missing?

Thanks for allowing me to share my opinion.

Tommy Brogan,

via e-mail