It's not just MS -- conservative state legislatures (or, as often, legislators with conservative constituents, their own leanings notwithstanding) have made this mistake in most states with "riverboat gambling". They see the revenue potential, and want it (especially if a neighboring state is currently getting the money from their state's residents), but don't want "legalized gambling" in their state (of course ignoring the lottery as such and welcoming that - among other such sources). So they pretend that if it's on a riverboat, it's entertainment, but not if it's on land, then it's gambling.
Even without the risks of a business that must operate on water, as are demonstrated with the high waters now being experienced (some southern Indiana casinos have also been forced to close due to high water), they have thus imposed the additional expense of construction that this undoubtedly requires. I don't know for sure, but it seems logical that two identical casinos, one built on solid land and one that must be built to float in a river on a structure that complies with maritime laws and regulations, favors the land-based structure in cost alone. This is ignoring the tricky structures that must be built to create a link from the river-based building to the land-based buildings (often obvious, but sometimes done so well that you can hardly tell at what point you're going onto a boat).
If the structure is more costly (and its operation and maintenance consequentially also more costly), the profits of the business are less, and that means less opportunity for revenue for the state. Of course, states will just tax you more if you have less margin, or tax your gross instead of your net, so that the revenue to the state is not impeded by their own stupid decisions - and, of course, the business then passes that additional cost on to its patrons (duhh!) by offering games with higher "holds" for the casino. Instead of their decision to force gambling onto boats being LESS "bad" for a customer, their decision has created a situation where the customer is MORE likely to lose their money.
I agree that the head-in-the-sand attitude makes absolutely no sense, and in fact is counter-intuitive. Especially when riverboats start in a state, they are often REQUIRED to "cruise" the river (ie, leave the dock and go in a circle or two back to the dock!!!) if the weather permits -- which means that the poor citizens they (legislators) are trying to protect, having lost the money that they (the citizens) brought to lose, can't leave the boat until it re-docks -- and having nothing else to do (ie, there usually is NO entertainment on the boat except gambling, the entertainment, if any, is usually based on the associated land-based structures), they go to the ATM and usually lose more than they can afford. At least on land, they could exercise a small amount of discipline and go to their car and head home without any impediment.
So basing a casino on a riverboat that must actually entrap its patrons for a period of time (usually in 1.5 hour increments) actually favors the likelihood that people will lose more than they planned on, which is the "danger" of gambling that the legislatures supposedly were concerned about.
Of course, eventually, they not only realize that forcing the boats to cruise is stupid, and fix that part of the law, but many of them proceed to allow non-riverboat casinos as well - although usually with some new restrictions that are forced by lobbying by the riverboat owners, who don't want the competition. In Indiana, the land-based casinos are "racinos" (based at / attached to race tracks, which were somehow OK and were there first anyway). They have very interesting restrictions: a limit on how many live dealers they can employ, forcing them to use elaborate electronic roulette and blackjack machines that simulate live dealers, or poker-tek poker rooms, with minimal live personnel over-seeing them, which have both advantages and disadvantages, but certainly are less entertainment-like and more slot-machine-like from a patron's perspective.
On and on, it's another example of how "logical" our laws (on any matter) can fail to be when developed by politicians instead of statesmen.
If internet poker could be only done on a riverboat, it would get legalized much more quickly than will ever occur under current circumstances. It could then be rationalized as "entertainment".
Enforcement decisions are often equally irrational (or perhaps not). Home-based poker games, while usually illegal in most states, are usually not "raided" -- unless the host is making money by charging a rake to cover the cost of hosting, buying tables and chips and cards, and hiring dealers, etc. etc. At least in Indiana, these are (mostly) the home games that are busted. Admittedly, some of them have progressed far beyond the home game, and the "host" is really just running an illegal poker room -- but if this is the important distinction, why not just fix the laws to target ONLY those games, and leave the true home games (usually as much about a social gathering as poker) alone under the law.
Sigh...
--BG
=================
7a. Re: Lake Tunica
I wish no ill will on the folks who are being displaced from
jobs and such, but one must realize that Mississippi brought
ALL of this upon itself by the braindead decision to force
casinos to be build in places where natural disasters are
more or less a given.
Such constraints should be in violation of law anyhow.
Such restrictions have no demonstratable benefit to the
state and for that reason alone should not be legal.
Zoning laws were made to keep liquor stores and churches
apart, not to burden businesses with excessive costs and
risks.
So the next time you folks in MS vote, remember that the
hyper-conservatives amongst you are so blinded by their
ideals that they are more than willing to create situations
like this.
I just wish those morons would be the ones who have to pay
all the bills and lost salaries.
