Pastor Hestick, for example raised the issue about crime rates rising in the wake of the establishment of casinos. Most likely his main source for this information would have been a paper done by Dr. Earl Grinols of the University of Illinois (UI).

In a paper entitled "Casino gambling causes crime" – published in a 2000 issue of "Policy Forum", a UI Institute of Government and Public Affairs publication – Grinols states "…evidence is converging to show that casino gambling causes significant increases in crime." According to Grinol, while crime rates showed no significant increase for three years in communities where casinos were introduced, they rose drastically after the third year. In his paper, he also argues that the potential benefits to society brought by casinos are often outweighed by the toll in social costs.

Mr. Grinols suggests taxation as a way of countering the potential social costs of casinos, but it is doubtful that that can be applied successfully here.

In Guyana, any increase in armed robbery, rape, extortion, or money laundering – however delayed or incremental – would be adding fuel to an already volatile situation. It would be foolish economic policy at best to endanger potential investment in less controversial sectors by betting on the hope that the ill social effects proven to be associated with casino gambling somehow do not manifest themselves here.

There are other differences between Guyana and Illinois of course. One is that the implication of Grinols’ article was that the research was done on casinos wherein access was granted to the general population in the communities into which the casinos were introduced.

It has been stated by President Bharrat Jagdeo in his meeting with Pastor Hestick and other representatives of the religious community that he would never allow widespread gambling in Guyana. Of course what is meant by "widespread" is yet to be defined, and even subsequent to that definition must be the consideration of whether even greatly restricted gambling can have the sort of social costs as less regulated gambling.

"It is an open question," states Grinols in his article, "whether casino gambling can be offered in a way that allows citizens who could gamble without harm to do so while at the same time preventing the creation of problem and pathological gamblers and the social costs already discussed. If casino gambling cannot be offered in ways that cause it to pass a cost-benefit test, then banning it (as was done until recently) is preferable on economic terms."

Whatever one's position on this issue, the decision to establish any casino operation in Guyana needs to be supported by research, consultation and ultimately the consensus of the parliamentary system.

Indeed, whether the outcome of the decision taken is "Casino" or "No Casino", the introduction of this bill has the opportunity to show Guyanese and the world that our parliament – noted flaws notwithstanding – can make a decision based not on narrow partisan interests but the sort of conscientious bipartisanship that has been sorely lacking in that institution.