Referendum Question 2 on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot would authorize the operation of an unlimited number of slot machines at Bangor Raceway and (if approved there) at Scarborough Downs. Since slot machines are responsible for generating 70 to 80 percent of gambling revenues in a conventional casino, this would amount to the construction of a casino on the grounds of each of the two racetracks, converting them into “racinos.”

It appears that a major driver behind the initiation of Question 2 was concern that a Foxwoods-style casino might be approved in Maine (Question 3) and that large-scale casino gambling of this type would devastate the state’s harness-racing industry, as it has in other states.

The polls show a steady decline in support for Question 3 in recent months. This, in itself, is a hopeful sign for the future growth of Maine’s economy and the preservation of the health, safety and quality of life of this state. It also suggests that it is time to take a closer look at whether the racino proposal can be justified on any basis other than providing a defense against a casino.

On the surface, the racino idea appears to offer some advantages, at least in comparison to the tribal casino proposed in Question 3. First, the racino facility (or facilities) would be smaller than the casino and would be located at a venue (or venues) where parimutuel betting already takes place. Also, the racino legislation would not lock the state into a long-term deal as Question 3 would.

On the other hand, the business proposition attached to Question 2 fails a financial cost-benefit test by an even wider margin than that in Question 3. The legislation (www.state.me.us/sos/cec/elec/pets02/pets02-1.htm) sets aside 11 percent of slot-machine revenues to subsidize the harness-racing industry and the fairs which provide many of the racing venues, but the only financial benefit offered to the general public is the 13 percent of the revenues allocated toward prescription drug assistance and support for scholarship programs.

The proposed tax rate of 13 percent is far less than the gambling taxes paid by racinos in other states. For example, the nearby state of Rhode Island has had a full decade to experience both the benefits and the social costs of slot-machine gambling. According to Christiansen Capital Advisors (www.cca-i.com), the two racinos in Rhode Island paid gambling taxes of $158 million in 2002 on revenues of $298 million, or 53 percent of revenues.

In Maryland, the subject of taxes on slot-machine revenues at racetracks has been the subject of vigorous debate in the legislature this year. In March, the Maryland Senate passed a measure that would set the tax on racino revenues at a similar rate of 51 percent of revenues.

One reason that other states have imposed high taxes on racino revenues is that slot-machine gambling has an unusually high negative social impact. In fact, slot machines have been called the “crack cocaine of gambling.” According to the Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery (www.addiction-recov.org/qandagam.htm), problem gamblers who regularly play these machines appear to progress into pathological gambling much faster than problem gamblers who only gamble at horse races, or other games that do not offer the same kind of continuous “action.”

The legislation behind Question 2 recognizes the importance of gambling disorders and allocates a token amount to “addiction counseling services.” Several states have found mandatory loss limits to be the most practical tool for limiting the damage caused by these disorders. However, Section ?921(2) of the bill states, “A licensee is not required to impose a limit on the amount of time or money spent by an individual playing the slot machines on the licensee’s premises. A licensee has no civil or criminal liability for the amount of time or money spent by an individual playing slot machines on the licensee’s premises.”

The cost of disordered gambling is not limited to the affected individual. It also places a large financial burden on the rest of society. This includes increased police, court and jail costs, business losses (lost productivity, absenteeism, unemployment), bankruptcy, welfare payments, cost of addiction treatment and therapy, misuse of household monies, and costs related to divorce and suicide. Some of these costs are paid in the form of actual tax increases, some as increases in the cost of insurance, and some are paid involuntarily by the family, friends and employers of problem gamblers, as a hidden tax.

In the recent study “Casinos in Maine: A Costly Choice” (available at www.state.me.us /legis/lawlib/casino.htm) it is estimated that these costs amount to around 90 percent of gambling revenues. Because of Bangor’s central location in the state, nearly all of the social costs of a racino there would be paid by residents of Maine. Because of this, each $13 of benefit to prescription drug and scholarship programs would be generated at a cost of $90 to the taxpayers of this state.

The voters of Maine should reject both gambling-expansion initiatives. Vote no on Questions 2 and 3.

Douglas Muir is a retired federal employee, having worked for more than 30 years in the field of statistical analysis of scientific data. He and his wife moved to Kittery upon his retirement in 2001.