The attempt by Nevada Assemblymember Jim Wheeler to reduce the state’s gambling age from 21 to 18 gained attention upon announcement, but it is not causing significant impact in the state legislature.
Both the casino industry and the Assembly members are questioning the necessity of this law, essentially suggesting “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.”
Wheeler’s motives rooted in fairness
One of the initial queries regarding the legislation was its potential economic advantages for the state by permitting the younger age group to gamble. However, it appears that this was not a factor in Wheeler’s underlying motivations.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Wheeler proposed Assembly Bill 86 as a result of being unable to answer a question asked by a veteran.
The veteran questioned why an individual aged 18-20 can serve their country and participate in combat but is prohibited from gambling. Faced with no satisfactory explanation, Wheeler proceeded to draft a bill addressing this issue.
Multiple sources say NV gambling bill has no support
A bill aimed at reducing the gambling age has been introduced in the Silver State before. Given that many other states and tribal nations already offer casinos to those aged 18 and over, this concept isn’t entirely outlandish.
In the past, when this concept was proposed, most people in the casino industry typically stayed neutral. However, this time, numerous industry representatives were swift to reject the idea.
Virginia Valentine, the president of the Nevada Resort Association, expressed her opposition in a conversation with a local news outlet. She said, “We are not aware of any compelling benefits from doing this, yet there are uncertain risks. Absent a clear policy rationale, we are opposed.”
Tony Alamo, Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, reiterated Valentine’s sentiments to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
“No industry representatives have expressed a desire to eliminate this. Everyone is satisfied with the age limit being 21 years.”
Change would come with little economic upside
Wheeler admitted that a major concern with the measure is the additional effort required by Nevada casino employees to verify identification, in order to determine whether a patron is eligible to consume alcohol or not.
Wheeler believes implementing this would require additional effort from the casino staff. However, others argue that the increased effort and risk of exposure to underage drinking does not provide sufficient benefits to justify it.
Richard Velotta wrote an article for the Review-Journal in which he voiced opposition to the measure. He highlighted that most people aged 18 to 20 typically don’t have much disposable income. Therefore, he argued, the economic advantages of the law are negligible.
It seems that Wheeler’s proposal is at a standstill, as no one has identified potential benefits for the state and the law itself has a considerable number of drawbacks.
