No one is making this political besides you Mr. Christie. If the FNM had said they supported gambling I suppose we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It is OBVIOUS to even the slowest of the slow that you are pushing for a yes vote and it is APPEARING to those that use that lump three feet above their bottoms that you are "condoning illegality." Be a leader and say what you support. Stop being a coward and leaving what happens to the Bahamian public by saying, "well that's what YA'LL voted for." (don't blame me attitude) STOP BEING A PUNK!

By the way your dubious means of campaigning ("visiting each and every island") feigned by your objective of "making sure the government has no horse is the race" is seen for what it is too, a campaign for the yes vote.

Mr. Christie if you were appropriately displaying your feelings of being neutral you would have closed the shops in accordance with the current law on the books. If you were smart you should have closed the shops and give the addictive gamblers something to campaign for in a yes vote, as their withdrawal would probably make them pretty convincing campaigners. I assure you if Hubiggety was proposing to do this vote as you propose he would have closed the shops no matter who didn't like it, no matter the expense.

I STRONGLY ADVOCATE THE NO VOTE! Not for the proposed reasons of the FNM that the wording is not specific, but for gambling's current and likely amplified effect on society once it is legalized. Have you ever not eaten because your parents gambled away the money? Have you ever been evicted because your parents gambled away the money? Have you ever not been able to attend school because your school fee was in the pocket of the numbers man? We as Bahamians are a small country with few socioeconomic resources to help those who fall. I think it is ridiculous to compare our nation to the poor state of affairs in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and the like of other poor countries that allow gambling. Good for them, this is the Bahamas and we have to pay attention to Bahamian issues and their futuristic effects on OUR society.

You have said it all....fully endorse the above

PGC you should get on your knees every morning and thank the Lord you have an under educated voting block ... PGC do you guys ever sit around like elitest and laugh at the small man ??..The yes vote is already bought and paid for ,even if the majority vote no ,,you and your cohorts will tell us it is yes ,,,i thought you were alright PGC ,Just too soft hearted ,but it appears your as slimy as your cohorts ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The elites of both parties sit around and laugh at the uneducated.

I wouldn't go as far as to use the "Jackass" claim against the PM. Yet, PM let there me no mistaken that many Bahamians could easily view the PLP government to be so damn close to the numbers "bosses," that it is being talked all bout we little Nassau Town, as if the PLP government committing :"political incest," by hooking up too damn close for anyone comfort with the 'Vote Yes' campaign?

Amen!

http://tribune242.com/users/photos/2013…

PGC wants to build a financial dynasty ,like Tiger ,Ping dem ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,nation building might happen by accident but it isn,t their number one concern ..takes lots of money to turn a family member into beyonce even if its only in her ma,s mind ,,,,,,,,,,,Hotlanta ain,t cheap !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know what else just occurred to me? The way these questions are worded, they don't address the legalization of the number houses. Am I the only one just turning on the light on that specific caveat or is this well understood by others? I mean it addresses the webshops, but to my understanding the webshops are not the same thing as the number house. True/False?

Therefore if my renewed understanding is correct, whether there is a yes or no, the number houses are not and will not be addressed and thus will continue to be operated on an illegal basis. ? ? Can someone clear this up for me please, or is this what the FNM is stating?

Raynard Rigby wrote a good article about the referendum being unconstitutional

I'll have to check it out. Thanks.

I cannot wait until this is all done and the public makes a decision which I think will be YES. After this has passed and WE ALL realize the rate of social decay WILL BE THE SAME as before legalization what will be the story then? I have yet to see objective proof that legalization of numbers will cause a net negative on a society where it was ALREADY happening and entrenched in the economy.

I don't think having the same rate of social decay after the legalization of "whatever...gambling...number houses...webshops...whatever" as it was before is a positive indication that we're doing better as a society.

My biggest issue is that we're all so focused on this "vote yes" and "vote no" rhetoric that we've lost sight of what will happen if and when the decision is finalized. If gambling or whatever is legalized then what? If it is not legalized then what? What are the implications??

Btw, mr "Newcomer2012" if you want some objective proof that legalization of "numbers...gambling...whatever" will be a greater detriment to society, I suggest you take a look at Singapore. Singapore changed their gaming regulations a few years back to allow the public to gamble legally. The incidence of gambling among the poor has increased EXPONENTIALLY! Don't take my word for it...do a little bit of digging for yourself mr.

False argument...since gamlbling was made legal there, don't think it should not be characterized as an "incident". Local/public gambling may have increased but that study does not link that to an increase in illegal activity (such as robbery, violence, etc.). Singapore had a plethora of social ills before the public started gambling. And a noticeable increas in gambling by locals does not by itself create a adverse social impact. Objectivity would have led you to present a more balanced argument. Don't just focus on the parts that suit your subjective argument solely based on your opinion.

"The incidence of gambling" simply means "the occurrence of gambling." Is gambling not an occurrence?

There are many studies on gambling in Singapore, not too sure which one you're referring to. I never linked anything to "illegal activity." I made a connection between gambling and poverty. I'm not sure exactly how you interpreted what I wrote to mean anything else. If you're referring to my use of the word "detriment" then by it I meant harmful.

Yes gambling is already a part of our society and if it were to be legalized many agree that things would remain the same. My argument is simply that things need NOT remain the same. The status quo in this instance needs to be changed.

Daft is the man who's too quick to judge...

MartGM, there is no need to dig because the situation in Singapore is still different than here. The problem is there is a blurred vision to your analysis. You say "numbers .... gambling .....whatever" in your comment but it is wrong to lump them together as if it is the same thing when it is NOT. People dont "play numbers" in Singapore, they gamble in the casinos now. Also I agree with SDRFC an increase in incidents doesnt mean an increase in participants. Sad to say, but our "exponential" growth in gambling happened years ago under both govts and was the worst kept secret in the Bahamas. This is why it is so entrenched in the economy now. You did ask a good question, "what are the implications". But it really should be "what are the implications of bringing whats in the dark to light". We are not starting from scratch here. To say NO now is like being against the legalization of mirrors because you dont like the way you look, forgetting the obvious point that everybody sees you ALREADY.

I said "number...gambling...whatever" because no one, not even the PM knows what will if any be legalized. It was just to poke fun at the fact that we're having an extremely ambiguous referendum where no one seems to know anything but VOTE YES or VOTE NO.

Like I said before, Singapore is one of the more recent examples...and it won't be long before we begin to lobby and petition the government to include casino gambling. I suppose that's already being done now anyway ugh...

I'm quite indifferent to the idea of gambling, that's a personal choice. However, when I see children giving money to the "number man" to "buy numbers with their lunch money" the whole thing becomes a little...worrisome.

Regulate it, YES! Educate us about the implications of a "yes" or "no" vote, YES! Legalize it because if you don't 3000+ people will lose there jobs, BS! NO!

I Agree newcomer2012...what a freakin joke..LOL!! All of you hipocrites..

close the casinos then. if you r opposed to gambling dont be a 10 percenter. stick your d*ck in the ground and be unilateral on the issue. tell kerzner bahamar et al to get ta steppin then. you r either for gambling on your soil or not. you cant exclude one group over another. its called discrimination..home its called the bahamian way of doing things...smh"

Furthermore...it's hard to witness generations of future bahamians unborn even have to pay off all the debt incurred from a new airport, gateway road, other roads, electric transmission lines, etc all to facilitate "other" people coming to "your" land and gambling....win lose or draw, our children will still have make their beds serve their drinks fluff their damn pillows all with a damn smile. Liquor has devastated the bahamas more than any other drug or gambling.

Why do bahamians even pay the bcc any attention at this point in our history. Work to nuture principled minds not legislate from the pulpit.

The FNM leadership are clowns...they were set to legalize the number houses/gambling at some level as well. Wake up people. Minnis and Co. are just making noise for the sake of being the opposition party and as you can see, they take their title literally. They'll oppose just for the sake of a lights and camera...smdh.

SDRFC, I can see clearly from your post that the Prime Minister's "Jackass" comment was pointing in the wrong direction.

I am 'Concerned' about you my good friend. Where was Minnis on the illegality of web shops 5 years ago before defeat at the polls. Was he railing against them operating while he was an MP/Cabinet Minister of the government at the time or holdin inpromtu press conferenes as Hubert Ingraham readied the country for some sort of regularisation? If you believe he or the FNM are serious on their opposition, I suggest you take the 'jack' off of beginning of jackass and paste the ' ass' behind 'Concerned'. Stick to the issue don't throw your personal insults this way friend.

I wonder if the Prime Minister remembers his position on the Referendum in 2002, he is getting a taste of his own medicine

PGC is a fool. he can't lead. None of 'em do that very well. His approach to this is ridiculously flawed. They oppose just to oppose no matter what side of the house they are on. That's why they are all hippocrites...Minnis included. he never raised a voice in cabinet 5 years ago when the FNM govt. had drafted legislation to implement regularising gambling. People don't belive the hype and how the gin up the bahamain public for political gain.

I think Minnis is opposing the process, the wording of the questions and no explanation of how the government will regulate the industry and how will they determine how much money is really being made in the "web shops". And the actual true reason why The PM is rushing to get this done and the fact that he says he has no horse in the race but is obviously promoting a yes vote while saying the opposite. Not opposing the idea itself but the manner it is being done

Say what you want PM Christie but the only thing left for you to do in your government's endorsing the numbers "bosses" is for you and your cabinet colleagues to rush over to one them web shops for an official 'Vote Yes' campaign photo opt, standing right alongside them number "bosses."

http://tribune242.com/users/photos/2013…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxx…

I have learnt not to predict what the majority of Bahamian will support or vote for. As for me, I am just now getting to understand the consequence of my vote in the referendum myself. Total disclosure, I will be voting 'Yes', but this is not about me nor my vote. Just about how my understanding of what it means on both sides and how the PM realistically and responsibly gave a possible outcome and how it affect this country.

If the vote is no, there will be thousands of mothers, fathers, etc out of a job. They have made NIB contributions and if sufficient were made, can and will apply for unemployment assistance for the next 13 to 26 weeks! They can and will and get assistance from Dept of social services in the form of rental assistance, food stamps, lunch meal plans for their children. They can and will be referred to their local psychiatrist for depressive symptoms, adjustment disorder, and yes, suicidal thoughts. The Drs will treat with expensive medications, write in support of them receiving financial support and refer them to other treatment centers that are already overcrowded. Some of them will default on their loans and mortgages and can and will apply for the govt assistance for their mortgage. And that's not even talking about the children of these parents. But just do the math and the COST of voting NO might just be the tipping point for us. In terms of finances, the PM has no choice but to say what potentially could happen. He has no choice but to hope for the vote to be yes because the other way will be of biblical proportions. And here is a prediction for you, if the vote is no, in ten years the vote will change but the damage to these present workers would have already been done.

Our "No Horse In The Race" Prime Minister, is just trying to make those opposed to the vote yes campaign feel bad for not supporting the number's man. These people knew the business they are working for was illegal when they took the jobs. If the law comes knocking at the door, they know what time it is. I feel bad for the people i will be voting against in the vote yes campaign, i really hope that they will find gainful employment, but i refuse to be held hostage by this sympathy and not do what i think is right in our great democracy.

Who's plane is the PM going to use to go to all the other Islands the same planes the number men and his party used on or before 7th may 2012?

He goin to campaign, so yeah

rontom let me see if i understand you right.because thousands are employed this is ok.so lets just say i plant a grass fram employ a thousand people pay nib plus any other taxes.this makes it ok.if so let me know

You don't have to imagine this scenario. In the 80s thousands of Bahamians were involved in the drug trade. Why didn't we legalized drugs then? Drug dealers helped their communities and gave money away too!!

How does the vote count work?

Same as a general election where is goes by constituencies that voted a certian way.

Or is it by the total number for vs. against?

Can anyone tell me?

Thanks

Something the PM should have explained by now

I wonder how popular are "Web Shops" in the Family Islands?

I wonder if There is a NO vote for "Web Shops" will Number houses still operate? Question one is so misleading

The analogy with weed/marijuana is not appropriate because: a) we don't have a legalized farm selling the stuff to tourists and not Bahamians, b) marijuana has always been illegal for everyone in this country. But that is an aside. The issue here is 3000+ persons potentially unemployed. That is about one-third of the work force at Atlantis. That's almost 4 times the amount of persons who were laid off by Atlantis in 2009. Do you remember what that did to the dept of social services; to NIB? To the country--that was the reason why the unemployment benefit was extended by the then Fnm govt and that was only 800 persons!
Just think for a second what that would mean to the unemployment figure: we have a workforce of about 80,000. Our unemployment rate is above 12%. 3000 is 3.75% of the workforce. We are in a negative economic growth, which means that our country is spending more than its making to keep it running. This is playing with matches in a warehouse filled with gasoline.

So are you saying that we have "legalised" number houses? If so, you are contradicting yourself. Selling numbers is ILLEGAL and worse is being done under the guise of being a web shop selling donuts and surfing the web. Whether it employs 1 person or 1 million persons, those persons are being employed ILLEGALLY and cannot be recognised under our labour laws as "employees". There is no getting around it so it stands reason that anyone can just as easily set up a marijuana plant (which is ILLEGAL) under guise of selling "medicine", employ a few hundred people, pay NIB and give something to charity and according to our Prime Miniister because things are tough with the economy, that makes it okay. If that is the case, then we are sadly disillusioned. Further, I say again that as so many people who support this are saying that they want to do what the tourist do in our country, please think. At the end of the day, legalising number houses, still does not legalise gambling so it does not put our black selves on par with the tourists as we cannot take our black selves into any casino and gamble.

Again, that is a false equivalency to equate marijauna to gambling and again it's an aside to minimize the argument to that one. As for contradiction, you miss the point---instead of repeating I will just ask to read my post again.

Also, might I add the moral argument fails precisely for the point that gambling is allowed to take place in this country--whether it involves tourists and not Bahamians is irrelevant and if I were wanting to expose the weakness of that argument which, I find completely duplicitous, I would simply point to two simple things: public nudity and vulgarity. Both are against the law for Bahamians and tourist alike and is equally enforced in this country and rightfully so. And is a moral issue. Yet, when it comes to gambling, the Moralists are cherry-picking the issue they would condemn, recognizing that there are benefits of employment and financial spin-offs and also, more importantly, that if they go all the way with this argument of making ALL gambling and gaming in this country illegal for tourist as well, we would be worse than Jamaica.

But I don't want to argue that point because it is really too dishonest to take that moral stance. Arguing from an economic point is a stronger poise.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bahamas-…

WHICH ON OF THE BELOW REIGNS SUPREME IN THE BAHAMAS?

The Bahamas Lottery and Gaming Act Chapter 387 Section 50 Persons prohibited from Gaming

Or

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas Chapter III – Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom of the Individual. Section 26 Protection from Discrimination on grounds of Race, Place of Origin etc.

The Bahamas Gaming Association stands by the Ideology that all human beings who are 18 years or older should be treated equally in all sectors of the Bahamian Economy which is enshrined in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.