Vote yes on 50! Because who doesn't like craps and roulette :P

[wankel7]

Honestly, lets get rid of $5 max bets and bring in craps an roulette so we can actually have real casinos in Colorado:)

Yes on 50! :)

[DavidofColorado]

When I get old and feable I might care what happens in the gaming towns but for right now I don't and I am voting for it, because I do care about colleges.

I also think we should vote for 47 because my union sucks more than any union in the history of bent unions. 2% raise a year my ass!!!!

[FZRguy]

I voted no b/c I ride the roads around Black Hawk and we don’t need more gamblers in the canyon. Also, the mayor and city council of Black Hawk won’t answer questions regarding their questionable use of tax revenues. The tax benefit to community colleges is restrictive and the state would not be able to use the additional revenue for anything else, no matter the importance or urgency. If you want big time gambling, go to Vegas.

[Cars-R-Coffins]

The tax benefit to community colleges is restrictive and the state would not be able to use the additional revenue for anything else, no matter the importance or urgency. If you want big time gambling, go to Vegas.

78% for student financial aid for higher education does not sound restrictive to me.

Colorado's gaming limits have been in place for seventeen years, and the bet limit of $5 in 1991 equals about $3 today.

[AirAssault]

I voted no b/c I ride the roads around Black Hawk and we don’t need more gamblers in the canyon. Also, the mayor and city council of Black Hawk won’t answer questions regarding their questionable use of tax revenues. The tax benefit to community colleges is restrictive and the state would not be able to use the additional revenue for anything else, no matter the importance or urgency. If you want big time gambling, go to Vegas.

Great American value, me first. I don't care if the money will do great things, I only want less traffic on the roads when I go up there every few weeks...... :crazy:

They will come spend their money any way, may as well make it faster with larger bets plus roulette is fun.

[Airreed]

I voted YES, no more 2-5 Poker...I can't stand river biatches!!!

[~Barn~]

Yes indeed. Now let's just hope it passes, so the cities themselves can ponder the decision.

[RyNo24]

I will vote yes, I do not care if more people end up on the road around Black Hawk. There are plenty of other roads to go ride, and it helps the community colleges.

[Snowman]

and always remember, never bet the Big 6 or 8...

[Captain Obvious]

I don't understand the restrictions on gambling anyway. The govt feels Lottery is okay, and seems to be pushed by the govt, but other games of chance need to be restricted. It is all gambling.

I would only question what the govt will do with the money. In FL, Lotto revenue was promised to be put towards education. It was, but the govt ended the previous budgeted money that went to education, instead supplementing the old budgeted money with the new Lotto revenue.

[dirkterrell]

I would only question what the govt will do with the money. In FL, Lotto revenue was promised to be put towards education. It was, but the govt ended the previous budgeted money that went to education, instead supplementing the old budgeted money with the new Lotto revenue.

Yep, I was there when that fiasco went down. That's my main beef with 50 since it will allow the state legislature to do the same thing here and it will hurt the community colleges bad in slow economic periods. When that gambling money shrinks dramatically and the "normal" state budget has been shifted around after good economic periods to pay for other things, community colleges will be in a world of hurt. I'd be more inclined to support it if the money went into the general fund. I am not against the amendment as far as the gambling stuff goes. I heard someone arguing that it meant that there would be more drunk drivers on the roads there if this passed. I laughed. If that happens, then law enforcement can deal with it (maybe instead of hassling people trying to get to work on I-25).

Dirk

[Captain Obvious]

Yep, I was there when that fiasco went down. That's my main beef with 50 since it will allow the state legislature to do the same thing here and it will hurt the community colleges bad in slow economic periods. When that gambling money shrinks dramatically and the "normal" state budget has been shifted around after good economic periods to pay for other things, community colleges will be in a world of hurt.


Yep, it is like a large shell game, and people don't see that is what the govt will do. All for it if the extra money goes to education and increases the budget they have to work with. Not that improvements in spending can't be made with current budget, but if we will throw money away for other stupid, useless projects, why not throw money at kids. Maybe then, more will be able to point to Iraq on a map.

In GA, this is the problem with education. And it shows when you look at the public school graduates. Shame on the teachers though. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3674820)

[Scribbler]

I voted No on 50.

Sure the promise of increasing funding for Community Colleges sounds nice. However it still masks the point that the casinos really just want to move up to high stakes gambling for their own profits (like they're not doing well already).

While more money may make it into the community colleges, a lot more money will be taken out of the pockets of people who can't control their own gambling. I think this will cause more trouble than it's worth.

Additionally, I read through the amendment and see no provision to ensure that there will always be the same amount of lower stakes tables for those who don't wish to wager as much. Anybody who's lived or frequented any city that allows for higher stakes gambling knows that unless you're gambling during the middle of the day in a two - three hour window, good luck trying to find a $2-$5 table.

And too I remember when Colorado voted to allow gambling in certain counties, the only reason it was passed was because of the promise that it would always be low stakes gambling. I don't think we should allow the casinos to go back on that promise.

[Titus]

I voted yes on 50 thursday. early voting FTW!

McCain/Palin 08!!!

[Titus]

I voted No on 50.

Sure the promise of increasing funding for Community Colleges sounds nice. However it still masks the point that the casinos really just want to move up to high stakes gambling for their own profits (like they're not doing well already).

While more money may make it into the community colleges, a lot more money will be taken out of the pockets of people who can't control their own gambling. I think this will cause more trouble than it's worth.

Additionally, I read through the amendment and see no provision to ensure that there will always be the same amount of lower stakes tables for those who don't wish to wager as much. Anybody who's lived or frequented any city that allows for higher stakes gambling knows that unless you're gambling during the middle of the day in a two - three hour window, good luck trying to find a $2-$5 table.




That is a horrible reason to vote no on the amendment.

Yes casinos want to be able to allow higher stakes betting in their casinos. Why, because they are greedy evil corporations? no, it's because that is what their patrons want. By giving the people what they want, they will get more business & therefore make more profits, which is the drive of the American economy.

Nobody wants to play $2-5, the only reason it exists is because of the stupid $5 betting limit that is in place.

It is not the governments job to put a limit on gambling because some people can't control their own gambling.

The free market system works here just like anywhere else; if there is a demand for lower limit games, the casinos will provide them. But if there isn't, then the government has no business legislating that a lower limit game must be in place.

[wankel7]

I don't get the restrictive betting either. I have gambled in many places other than vegas. The one thing I have noticed. You can bet what ever you want. But no free booze.

Which makes me scratch my head on co gambling. You can drink your self stupid. But no way you can bet more than five bucks.

We have casinos and I understand they might not be the best thing for those small towns. So we should help it by having real gambling. And with the banning of smoking hurting the revenue this would help. I think the last thing we want is a depressed and faded gambling town.

Trafic on 6 causing a problem for going fast on that road? Really? With all of the amazing roads in the area why would anybody even ride this road?

And it is also the extra income we will be getting. Such as tax money from tourists, hotel revenue, and sales tax.

[FZRguy]

78% for student financial aid for higher education does not sound restrictive to me.

Exactly what I mean. I would rather see it go into the general fund and used where it’s needed most (including comm colleges).

[FZRguy]

Great American value, me first. I don't care if the money will do great things, I only want less traffic on the roads when I go up there every few weeks...... :crazy:

And talk about special interests…50 screams special interest.