GAMING:

Idea of lower gambling age will be getting gentle push

Regulator says he’ll pass it along to top lawmakers

Tue, Nov 11, 2008 (10:59 a.m.)

Nevada’s top gaming regulator says he’ll ask state legislators whether they have any appetite to lower the minimum gambling age from 21 to 18 as a way to drum up state gaming revenue during the recession.

Lowering the gambling age was suggested by a gaming industry lawyer in a question-and-answer session with regulators at Friday’s gaming law conference sponsored by the State Bar of Nevada.

State Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander and Nevada Gaming Commission Chairman Peter Bernhard were asked their thoughts about changing Nevada’s gambling age limit from 21 to 18.

Neilander said he would take the suggestion to Steven Horsford, the new Senate majority leader, and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley.

The question was raised by Thomas Smock, an attorney for Aristocrat Technologies Inc., a slot machine manufacturer.

Contacted Monday, Smock said he wasn’t representing Aristocrat when asking the question, but thought the discussion was relevant because of the economic downturn.

“I personally feel that this is a way that additional revenue could be generated, and if that means keeping our teachers employed and not cutting the state budget any further, I think it should at least be discussed,” he said.

The public has long debated the age of adulthood, and Smock pointed out that 18-year-olds are allowed to vote and serve their country in the military.

Neilander warned that the proposal would undergo intense scrutiny from groups concerned about problem gambling and underage players.

Neilander and Bernhard said they neither supported nor opposed the idea.

There is some precedent in bordering states for allowing those 18 and older to gamble. The age requirement to play at most tribal casinos is 18 in California. In Arizona, 18-year-olds were allowed to play, but in 2002 voters approved a gambling expansion initiative that changed the age limit to 21.

Nevada law says a person under the age of 21 years shall not “play, be allowed to play, place wagers at, or collect winnings from, whether personally or through an agent, any gambling game, slot machine, race book, sports pool or pari-mutuel operator; loiter, or be permitted to loiter, in or about any room or premises wherein any licensed game, race book, sports pool or pari-mutuel wagering is operated or conducted or be employed as a gaming employee except in a counting room.”

Any person who breaks the law is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The statute also says that thinking someone is over 21 is no excuse for violating the law. Smock said he plans to forward demographic information to Neilander and Bernhard showing that there are about 12 million Americans 18 to 21 years old who could be allowed to gamble if the law were changed.

Because the prohibition of under-21 gambling is a state law, the Legislature would have to pass a bill and the governor would have to sign the legislation to change it.

Neilander said he would mention the idea to Horsford and Buckley, and will meet with the Nevada Legislature when it convenes in February.

Richard N. Velotta can be reached at 259-4061 or at rick.velotta@lasvegassun.com.

Discussion: 2 comments so far…

By boftx

11/11/08 at 11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Whenever an age-limit related topic comes up we inevitably hear "if they're old enough to die for their country they're old enough to blah" where "blah" is the topic at hand. I disagree with this statement in part.

I will agree with it so far as only those who actually serve in the military are indeed old enough to partake in all adult activities. But I do NOT think that drinking, gambling or even voting should be granted to those under the age of 21 otherwise. One has only to look at the auto-insurance industry to see empirical proof that males under the age of 25 or not the most responsible of people.

I say let members of the military at any age enjoy all the benefits of the country they are serving, but make all other wait til at least 21.
By sandlansd

11/18/08 at 7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

How about a better argument boftx ... if you are old enough to be held legally responsible for your actions and are old enough to be put to death/jailed for life for committing a crime, and are old enough to earn money, support yourself, and pay taxes, shouldn't you be declared legally responsible enough to gamble?

The whole military argument is just plain stupid. In fact, some of the most irresponsible people I know are joining/have joined the military. Look at the average IQ of a military member vs. the rest of society... or any other measure of intelligence and you will find that our most responsible and intelligent citizens are NOT members of the military (for the most part). Many members of the military have no mind of their own when it comes to important issues... look at election results, in most elections over 80% of the members of the military vote for the candidate who supports a war/ allocates more $ to defense/ advocates more military action, even if that military action would be unjustified and downright wrong. Now you are telling me that you want those people gambling/voting while the 19 year old intellectual who abides by a strict system of moral values and votes based on those principles to be stripped of his voting rights and denied the right to gamble?

Your argument is downright stupid and represents the views of any aging person... you want rights for young people when you are young, but once you get passed the age of 21... Let's raise the age necessary to do everything in this country.

Newsflash... people have fewer accidents as they get older b/c they become more experienced drivers... NOT b/c they are reckless/irresponsible at age 18. And another thing... I don't care if you raise the age to 30, people will still drive fast at first and be somewhat irresponsible b/c when you get something new at any age, it is COOL and you want to test the limits. Eventually however, it becomes a normal part of life to you, and you get used to it, and slow down a bit and become safer. Also, you hear peer stories about accidents, have some friends/classmates die in a car crash, and it affects you b/c it personifies what can happen, shows you that you aren't invincible. If we raise the driving age to 30, you will still feel invincible in that car when you first climb in.

And you know what boftx, maybe 18 isn't the perfect age, but then what is? 21? 25? 35? Where does it end? An 18 year old may be slightly less mature than a 21 year old, but not enough that it really makes a difference. The bottom line is that experience is what matters, no matter what age you set something at. And remember, the purpose of these laws is to protect a person/society from harm, and lowering the age from 21-18 really doesn't have any effect on that.