David Strom opposes gambling expansion

Now here is something I wouldn't have expected: Anti-tax advocate David Strom opposes expansion of gambling in Minnesota, currently being touted by Governor Pawlenty as free money to help get the state out of debt. Strom opposes gambling because he says chronic gamblers cost society more money than they pay in:

What are the costs associated with more gambling? With gambling comes more crime, bankruptcies, suicides, social service costs, illnesses, family breakdowns and, of course, huge business costs as employers have to cope with addicted employees.

Earl Grinols, an economist at the University of Illinois, did a cost-benefit analysis of gambling that showed that for every dollar in added benefit to society, gambling imposed costs of more than $3.

Every pathological gambler costs society at least $10,000 a year.

Interesting. I would've expected Strom not to care about this, because by eliminating social services to gambling addicts, much of these costs could be taken off the state's ledger and placed on society's or the individual's. I guess even your most hardened ideological opponents can surprise you sometimes.

I have something of a conflicted NIMBY/libertarian attitude about gambling. I believe all froms of gambling are stupid, including the lottery. As the saying goes, they're a tax on people who are bad at math. While I enjoy a friendly poker game now and again, I don't gamble much. However, I'm not, in principle, opposed to it. But when I think of plans that would turn Minneapolis into Atlantic City, I am not happy with that idea. And I think most metro area residents would agree that they don't want a casino in their city.