SE MISSOURI OPPOSED BOATS IN MOATS

If the decision about Missouri's riverboat casinos that aren't on a river -- the boats-in-moats issue -- had been left up to voters in the 8th Congressional District, there would have been a far different result than the 55 percent statewide voter approval of Amendment 9 in Tuesday's balloting.

In every county of the 8th District, which covers all of Southeast Missouri and a good-sized chunk to the west, voters against boats in moats outnumbered those who favored allowing games of chance on riverboats that aren't in rivers. The statewide vote, of course, legalizes the practice established by the Missouri Gaming Commission that was later ruled unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court.

But in largely rural Southeast Missouri, the message was clear: Folks in this area would rather have gambling confined to the rules that were in effect when riverboat casinos first came into the state. In some counties, the margin was 2 to 1 against boats in moats.

Even in Pemiscot County, which is as far south as you can go and still be in the Show Me State, voters rejected the boats-in-moats concept. Pemiscot County is the home of one of Missouri's riverboat casinos at Caruthersville. Of course, the Caruthersville operation is the only one in the state that has abided by the rules all along. Casino Aztar not only is on the Mississippi River, it also is capable of river excursions.

Now that the boats-in-moats issue has been decided, mostly by pro-gambling voters around St. Louis and Kansas City where huge gambling investments were at stake, the gaming commission can move on to other issues. One likely push by the casinos will be to have the $500 loss limit removed, granting gamblers the right to lose their entire bank accounts during any given visit to a Missouri casino. (By the way, it no longer seems appropriate to keep up the illusion of "riverboat" casinos, since they hardly exist anymore. Like Las Vegas and Atlantic City, Missouri now is officially a land-based casino state.)

Last week, in its annual report to the Legislature, the gaming commission brought up another idea that seemed to put the horse well behind the cart. The commission suggested that the Legislature might want to fund a study of the economic and social impacts of problem gambling in the states.

Oh, now we're concerned about problem gamblers? It seems like this would have been useful information when the gambling forces were stumping the state to get voter approval for casinos (a total of three votes to get everything, including games of chance and slot machines).

State Sen. Ronnie DePasco of Kansas City agrees there should be a study, but he wonders if it isn't too soon. After all, it usually takes up to seven years before problem gambling gets serious enough to warrant state intervention.

Why wait? There are plenty of gambling operations around the country that have been around a lot longer than seven years. They surely have valid information that could help guide Missouri's gambling overseers.