For Some

Tomorrow, we the Council members who also reside in our seats as Board members for the Spirit Mountain Gaming, Inc. will be watching a presentation that basically focuses on a new sports bar. It is all part of the overall larger plan for our casino to remain competitive, what with Washington casinos already serving alcohol on the floor and such and our assumption, or maybe even fear, being that eventually a vast casino will be going up north of Portland essentially cutting into our market share. A few Council members have taken exception with the costs of the sports bar, though I don't see there being enough opposition to thwart it outright.
I was off in college during the late 1990's, and so I missed the protests which were supposedly lobbied against our casino's decision to serve alcohol in the first place. Evidently one of the most vocal opponents was a relative of mine. Given the history of Indians and alcohol, that there was fervent opposition to the initial decision is not all that surprising, and that is based on my own admittedly limited experience. A number of people whom I have spoken with that grew up in Grand Ronde can easily site stories of so-and-so being an alcoholic, of people passed out on the roadside in drunken stupors, and of "Wine Alley". I haven't experience what many of them did, but if half of what I've heard is accurate, then it would be hard to hold against anybody a reluctance to engage in a business that decades ago might have ruined families.
As somebody who supports the sports bar, and the decision years ago to begin serving alcohol at the casino, I often find myself in that rare position of actually seeming to understand completely where people are coming from, but still not agreeing with them from a policy standpoint. In other words, I agree in principle with what they have told me, but if given a choice to act upon my own convictions am still unmoved. Even after hearing what people would have to say, the bottom line, in this case my ability to make a policy decision, still remains unchanged. It must be one of the most difficult things about being a legislator, and proof positive that regardless of how much politicians claim to be uniters, some decisions really do have 50% support and 50% opposition, meaning that there is little hope of compromise as neither side will budge.
The big decision looming right now, and was brought up during Wednesday's Council meeting, is whether to amend our Gaming Ordinance to allow for those who are 18 years of age access to our Class II games. It would be a major policy shift for this Tribe, and nobody would be surprised that our Council is split on the decision. I am one of those Council members who would be more likely to support the change than others, but my conscience admittedly doesn't stop me from hesitating.
We refer to the business of tribal casinos as "Indian Gaming", the word "gaming" basically being a euphemism for gambling. But that is what it is. And gambling too is a vice, like alcoholism, one that wrecks families and ruins lives. For some. For some. I repeat those two words because they really are the operative words in this whole debate of selling vice, whether to a younger crowd and not. Some people can drink and gamble with minimal damage to their wallets and live. Others cannot. None of that changes that our cash cow, and generator of most of our Tribal services, is one of those vices that some cannot handle. So in essence, have we crossed the point of no return, and moving the age from 21 to 18 a minute detail, or is there really that big of a difference one that we should be mindful of in making this decision?
I don't know the answer. I do know that at 18 we can vote, we can enlist in the military and go off to war, we can access the state lottery, and when committing a crime we are charged as adults, the same as anybody 21 and beyond. That alone is nearly enough for me. But then again for every 18 year old I've met who is wise beyond their years and responsible, there is one who won't be at that level of responsibility if you gave them another 10 years. The real question is, who do we consider when making this kind of decision? Who is the "some" that we need to account for.
I have my own inklings. But I've been wrong before...