Casino Watch Focus has reported on the dangerously deceptive Greyhound Amendment and with the election right around the corner, its critically important that voters see through the deception. Whether you are a dog lover or one looking to curb excessive gambling, you should vote No on Florida Amendment 3 There are two reasons for a No on 3 vote and they are intertwined.
The first reason to vote No on 3 is because it will result in a radical expansion of gambling. As previously noted, Circuit Judge Karen Gievers calls it outright “trickeration,” because the decoupling issue is largely misunderstood by the public at large. Right now, the only way these tracks can offer slot machines and other forms of gambling is if they operate a full racetrack. This bill doesn’t simply stop dog racing. In fact, it doesn’t stop racing at all, as races from other states will still be simulcast to the tracks. However, the need to house a full track and care for the greyhounds in the proper and well regulated manner the law provides for today will no longer become necessary to have that other gambling. This effectively means that tracks can operate as freestanding mini casinos and the only requirement is they simulcast races from other states.
The reason we don’t see a massive expansion of these mini-casinos now, is because it takes very qualified operators to raise and care for the dogs and maintain the space necessary for such races to physically occur. Absent the need for an actual track, its infinitely easier for a “greyhound” parlor to start up, because it can simply fill the building with slot machines and provide a few TVs for simulcast dog racing. It has been claimed that this could lead to the largest expansion of gambling in Florida, and it’s easy to see why. If you would ordinarily be opposed to gambling expansion, then don’t be deceived. This bill won’t reduce gambling by stopping dog races as you think. It will expand gambling in the worst ways.
The second reason to vote No on 3 is because of the wellbeing of the dogs involved. At face, the amendment seems to get rid of dog racing as previously discussed, but its clear racing will still happen. In this scenario however, the amendment will have negative impacts on the dogs. This is precisely why over 90 dog adoption agencies are voting No on 3. The following article, Guest Opinion: A No on 3 Vote is a Yes to the Best Interest of Greyhounds, comes from an avid dog lover and greyhound enthusiast. It is incredibly informative and explains from a dog lover’s perspective why a voter would want to oppose this amendment:
As one who has adopted two retired racers, I was initially torn when I saw this amendment. A ban on racing sounds like a good thing on the surface to a dog-lover.
Shouldn’t all dogs be spoiled like mine with couches for beds and baskets of chew toys? My first clue that this might not be the case came in my email inbox. I received my usual newsletter from the Greyhound adoption agency that we had used. The email stated their opposition to the amendment.
Quite frankly, I was shocked that this volunteer run organization, who put our family through an extensive adoption process which included thorough home visits, vet background checks, multiple references and intense education, was now explaining how the claims made by the proponents of the deceptive ban and Amendment 13 were unsubstantiated. They, along with 90+ adoption agencies, are in opposition to the amendment and encourage a “NO” vote.
After receiving the email, I went on a quest myself to find out more facts….
She goes on to outline very key points that dog lovers will want to learn, including the fact that there are absolutely no provisions in the amendment for dealing with the 8,000 or more greyhounds that will be displaced when live racing is banned. Please click on article to get all the information and share as much as possible.
For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION