The following is written by Huntington Press senior editor Deke Castleman. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the company itself.
We wouldn’t go so far as to say that Nevada has considered lowering the legal gambling age from 21 to 18. However, the subject was broached in November 2008, when Thomas Smock, a lawyer for a slot manufacturing company, raised the question at a gaming law conference.
At the conference, Smock asked State Nevada Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander and Nevada Gaming Commission Chairman Peter Bernhard what they thought about changing Nevada’s minimum gambling age to 18. Both played it safe with this hot-potato issue -- mashing it, adding butter and milk, moving it around on their plates, and finally feeding it to the political garbage disposal, claiming they neither supported nor opposed the idea.
Subsequently, it received a flurry, though somewhat short-lived, of local media coverage. Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, both Las Vegas Democrats, said that they would oppose such a move.
Why?
Horsford said, "I don't think there would be much support at this point."
Buckley said, "I don't have a strong interest in changing the gaming age as a way of dealing with our budget problems."
Both their non-answers, it seems to me, have everything to do with their chances for re-election and nothing to do with the issue itself.
Steve Friess, author of a Vegas blog and podcast (and our book Gay Vegas), also queried Shelley Berkeley, the Democrat U.S. Representative from Las Vegas, about it. His comment: "I quizzed U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley about this last week while chatting for a different story. She’s opposed, too, but the normally articulate congresswoman couldn’t provide a clear explanation as to why, resorting to a trite, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’ and referring to her experience in the industry as guiding her view. Yet at one point she made my argument for me [Friess supports lowering the age] by saying, "Thirty is more mature than twenty-one also."
Obviously, the politicians know intuitively that this issue can’t do them a lick of good, thus they see, hear, and speak no evil. So it seems up to us to examine it.
First, the gambling age in most other countries around the world is, in fact, 18. These countries include, but aren’t limited to: Argentina, Uruguay, most countries in the Caribbean, Australia, the U.K., Germany, Holland, France, Mexico, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Macau (visitors) and many others.
In Britain, children of any age can play slot machines with jackpots of up to five pounds, while 16-year-olds may buy lottery tickets and scratch cards, and play the football pools.
The legal gambling age on most cruise ships is age 18 (except in American waters).
And, of course, on every Web-based gambling site, you only have to be 18 to play.
In addition, even in this country, the minimum age to buy lottery tickets is 18 in 40 states and the minimum age to gamble in casinos (at Native casinos that don’t serve alcohol) is 18 in 20 states. In Maine, you can play slot machines when you’re 16, fully five years younger than in the Gambling Capital of the World, and in four other states, you can buy pull-tabs and play charity bingo at age 16.
Clearly, many, if not most, jurisdictions allow 18-year-olds to gamble. And why not? After all, 18 is the age of majority, meaning 18-year-olds are legally adult. Eighteen-year-olds can: sign binding contracts, obtain credit cards and bank accounts, purchase a car or house, get married without anyone’s permission, purchase tobacco and other restricted products (like the gambling age, the legal drinking age in many places is 18), and vote, serve in the military, buy weapons, obtain a pilot's license, and on and on. In short, 18-year-olds are responsible for themselves.
A more telling argument is that 18-year-olds are old enough to be put to death for the crime of murder. In other words, they’re considered old enough by the justice system to fully understand the consequences of their actions and mature enough to control their emotions and make a rational decision even under intense pressure and in unusual situations.
Perhaps the most telling argument of all is that if people are old enough to fight in the military and risk losing their lives for their country, why aren’t they old enough to gamble and risk losing something as mere as their money as well?
These are some of the points that the Nevada politicians are either unable or unwilling -- or both -- to answer.
Yes, enforcement could be an issue, but perhaps no more so than enforcing the under-21 prohibition. Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and many others manage to avoid, mostly, damage from underage gambling.
And yes, if the drinking age isn’t lowered simultaneously, then the bartenders and cocktail waitresses will be spending an inordinate amount of time carding people (though that, perhaps, is more an argument to lower the drinking age than to keep the gambling age at 21).
And I know (and don’t disrespect) the argument that 18-year-olds who join the military become part of a highly structured and supervised environment with rigid policies and procedures. Recruits go through boot camp and are subject to a strict top-down hierarchy that (mostly) maintains command and control.
And, of course, there’s a whole contingent of "adults" who mourn Las Vegas as a true grown-up destination and who feel that anyone under, say, 21, or even 25 ruins the pleasures of a vacation without a lot of rugrats, even if they’re fully grown.
Still, and this is just one writer’s opinion, it seems to me that there’s a huge hypocrisy in this country when it comes to the ages of 18, 19, and 20. If the law says that people over the age of 18 are adults -- no longer children -- who are responsible for themselves, then why is it, exactly, that we also feel the need to protect this particular age group from itself?
Looked at another way, are 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old Americans dumber than average, while 21-year-olds are smarter than average? Do they miraculously become cured of whatever ailment we’re so afraid they’ll manifest up till the day before they turn the all-clear age of 21?
What do you say, QoDers? Want to weigh in with your own opinions on the subject? Perhaps we'll run a Reader Poll...
