Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission (LGCC) Chairman Richard Nathan last month quoted Colorado Speaker of the House Alec Garnett as promising that the legislature would “look more seriously, more in depth … more concretely on our responsibilities for responsible gaming.”
Peggy Brown, president of the Problem Gambling Coalition of Colorado (PGCC) responded by saying, “That’s the best news I’ve heard in 20 years. To say the state is going to take a more active role in responsible gaming is beyond comprehension.”
She added, “Most people know me as a tough, old broad, but you got to me. You know, I don’t think that people have a concept of how many lives that statement is going to affect in Colorado.”
After the meeting, she commented, “We’ve swept this under the carpet since we legalized gambling in 1992, and we have not dealt with the social consequences. It’s time to do it right.”
In 2019 the Centennial State legalized sports betting, which brought with it a torrent of advertising that tempts the computer user to bet almost without thinking.
Yet when the legislature passed the enabling legislation, it set aside $130,000 annually for problem gaming programs.
This as problem gaming consultant Brianne Doura-Schawohl told CDC Gaming Reports, was “a salary, $130,000, not a program.” She refers to a 2016 study that ranked the state 37th in “per capita funds dedicated to problem gambling services.”
She added, “Colorado is already working from a deficit. They’re starting six feet under, at 37th of 50 states in 2016, then they legalized a form of risky gambling, sports betting, which has twice the rate of gambling problems, with no safeguards and no funding. They have a long way to go, and $130,000 isn’t going to get it done—$500,000 isn’t going to get it done.”
The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) recommends that at least 1 percent of gross gaming revenue be directed toward problem gaming programs. If that formula were applied last year, Colorado would have spent $2.25 million.
Colorado is asking how much it should actually apportion.
Keith Whyte, executive director of the NCPG told CDC Gaming Reports, “It’s astounding that Colorado got into this space without answering that question [about how much money is enough for problem gaming programs], but it’s good we’re asking it now.”
But Peggy Brown puts it this way: “How much is it going to cost? I get asked that all the time. I don’t know. But how much is a human life worth?”
The current legislative session runs through June 8 and advocates for more funding for problem gaming programs are hoping lawmakers will reconfigure the state’s tax structure to allocate more than $130,000. Speaker Garnett was quoted as saying “It’s probably too early to get into anything specific,” adding “But I’m committed for this session.”
The Colorado Division of Gaming’s director Dan Hartman wants the agency to take over running all self-exclusion programs and apply them to all forms of gambling, including casinos, racetracks, sportsbooks and the lottery.
Nathan agreed, saying, “If you have someone with a problem, and you know they have a problem, and they exclude, to have the person next door grab that mailing list and market to them—we have a responsibility to have a say about that,” Nathan said. “I wouldn’t shy away for a minute from trying to link our operators together, and we can be empowered to do just that.”
