I’m writing in response to the Sept. 24 letter by Bruce Sanford, “More racinos? Place your bets.”

I’m one of the people he refers to as “stupid” who voted for legalized gambling. I think if Mr. Sanford had done his homework, he would be aware that the casino in Oxford is owned by Maine people, but will be managed by a professional casino management company in Las Vegas (which is common practice). You know “the crime lords of lost wages” that Mr. Sanford refers to.

He also refers to the casino as a “den of fast women” and “full of smoke and dope.” Most of the people that frequent casinos are slot machine players who are senior citizens, and unless Granny’s scooter is supercharged, don’t count on any “fast women.” And smoke? This is Maine. You can barely smoke outside any more, so I highly doubt that smoking will be allowed in a building.

Oh yeah, the “dope.” You can bet (pardon the pun) that Grandma’s bridge club won’t be dropping acid on the bus before arriving at the devil’s den. If you want to drive a stake into the gambling “vampire,” start with the lottery. Casino games have much better odds than that scam.

I’m tired of all the scare tactics the liberals use to sway voters to their side.

Remember the Bangor racino? We were told that it would bring prostitution, drugs, foreclosures and high crime. What it did bring was quality entertainment, jobs, tax revenue and a buffet that can only be described as “epic.”

Tim Duchaine
Standish 

This November, Maine citizens will once again be asked to expand casino gambling in Maine — not by one facility, but by up to three.

This would bring the total casinos in Maine to five. Unbelievably, this would make Maine the casino capital of New England, having more authorized casinos then all the other New England states combined.

How could we in the course of one year go from one to five facilities before the Oxford casino has even been built? The fault lies to a great extent with our own Legislature failing for many years to pass gaming regulatory action to suppress and govern casino expansion.

However, the Legislature is poised to pass sweeping regulatory gaming legislation and will make the move come January as the administration is behind it and the Legislature has bills to take care of the problem.

The worst thing we can do is pass Questions 2 and 3 and flood the market with three more casinos, as it would render any regulatory fix by legislators worthless. We should be regulating this expansion and not allowing the casino operators to dictate the terms.

I am not opposed to the conservative expansion of gambling, but even I am taken aback at the notion of five casinos in Maine. I prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude with Oxford alone and allow it to get off the ground as Maine’s first casino, before I am prepared to pull the plug and let them all set up shop anywhere they choose. Stop the madness. Let’s get some smart gaming structure in place. Vote “no” on Questions 2 and 3 before it’s too late.

Tom Davis
Waterville 

I have to say it irks me to read Dennis Bailey of Casinos No! throwing around the word “scam” in reference to the claims made by the Oxford casino supporters, especially after the scam he pulled on Eliot Cutler in the last election.

I am really not that interested in, nor do I give credence to, what he has to say. Furthermore, I wonder what that says about the Casinos No! organization when its spokesman has such little integrity. I may be the only guy in Maine who feels this way, but I wouldn’t, no pun intended, bet on it.

Gary Sprague
Lewiston 

In reference to “In Maine, gambling landscape a free-for-all” (Sept. 25), the story says a bill regulating gambling in Massachusetts would raise about $25 million to fund social services and public health programs such as Gamblers Anonymous.

What are they going to do? Run into a meeting and put five bucks in the basket? What a joke.

Claudette O’Brien
South Portland 

Compassion now out of fashion in U.S. public life? 

A recent column by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times rekindled a concern that I have been suppressing.

Until recent history, Americans have enjoyed government led by lawmakers who have compassionately tried to make sure that the common perils of life are mitigated by social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Is compassion now out of fashion among members of the U.S. Congress? Has modern conservatism become a radical movement that intends to dismantle the kind of society that we value so highly?

Is a new ideology — a new principle of governing — at work here? And are we, the grass roots of society, ready to stand still for it?

Shame on us if we let that happen.

Stan Cohen
Bridgton 

Why won’t Congress back president’s jobs bill? 

I can’t believe that there is such a lack of congressional support for the American Jobs Act.

I am even more surprised that the American public isn’t rising up in defense of an act that would help the economy get moving again and create very much needed jobs,

Republicans are putting politics ahead of our country and our people.

Lois Treacy
Frye Island 

Death penalty too risky to be used, even for guilty 

A Jonah Goldberg syndicated column you published (“Why death penalty opponents can’t win the debate,” Sept. 24) offers a disturbing defense of capital punishment.

He dismisses instances of Death Row inmates being cleared of all charges as times when the death penalty shouldn’t have been used in the first place.

According to Goldberg, the punishment is valid and even necessary for inmates who are guilty of their crimes without any doubt.

However, the whole justice system is based upon the fact that no jail time whatsoever should be required for individuals who may not be guilty.

Unfortunately, there are rare cases when inaccurate verdicts are made, and even one unwarranted execution is a devastating mistake that couldn’t be erased.

Conor Beck
South Portland