LIMIT ON LOSSES FOR GAMBLERS STILL MAKES SENSE

When Missourians voted to allow riverboat gambling, they made their decisions based on some limits and safeguards established both to protect gamblers and to control the scope of gaming activity. For example, casinos are limited to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. In most cases, gambling must be done on cruising riverboats, although exceptions already have been made. And gamblers were given some protection from the amount of money they could lose each time they went on a riverboat. That limit was set at $500, although there is no limit on winnings.

Casino operators have said from the start that the $500 limit is a problem. For one thing, nearby states don't have the limit, and gamblers tend to go where there are the fewest rules. Iowa casinos experienced a surge in gambling activity after that state removed the loss limit that was supposed to protect grocery and rent money, as well as life savings, from being squandered.

But the casinos went along with the limit, because the main objective was to get a gambling toehold in Missouri. The casino owners knew, from extensive experience in other states, that the rules can always be changed down the road. Sure enough, with only a handful of riverboats in operation and several waiting for approval, voters were asked to allow slot machines after the Missouri Supreme Court decided they weren't allowed by the original authorization from voters. Now the staff of the state's gaming commission -- which is charged with making sure Show Me gambling stays on the up and up -- has issued a report making a case for eliminating the $500 loss limit.

For one thing, the report says, it is tough to police the limit, because gamblers find innovative ways to skirt the rule. What it boils down to, though, is lax enforcement. Gamblers want to keep gambling after they have lost $500, and casinos want gamblers to keep on rolling the dice and placing bets. So what's the harm?

And don't forget the all-powerful argument for gambling: It produces revenue for state government and offsets the need for taxation. Removing the limit, the argument continues, would bring in more revenue for the state from gambling.

The limit protects casual gamblers, and it should be left in place -- at least until Missourians decide for good reasons it should be changed. There are good reasons to have the limit -- the same ones the state's voters had in mind when they approved riverboat gambling. If, at some future time, there are compelling factors that indicate the limit is no longer useful or needed, voters can take another look. That time might come when local school boards and city councils adopt resolutions in favor of dropping the limit in order to get more gambling-revenue benefits.

Until then, the paid staff of the state's gambling overseers ought not to be so blatant in their efforts to cater to powerful gambling interests.

And Missouri taxpayers might like to see some, if not all, of the gambling revenue used to reduce taxes, rather than having the money -- all from gamblers' losses -- spent on new and expanded programs.