The Editor, Sir:

I read your editorial titled 'Cut the hypocrisy on casinos', which appeared in The Sunday Gleaner of November 16, with some amount of unease.

I found the tone of this editorial unfortunate. Why cannot The Gleaner advocate for casino gambling without scoffing at persons who would not wish to see this development in Jamaica?

Why is it necessary to refer to such persons as "the country's assorted self-appointed protectors of morals"?

In a democracy, people have a right to advocate for the type of society that they would like to live in, and this extends to those who would not like to see large-scale casinos, for whatever reason.

You advised the Prime Minister to "remain firm and be led by the logic, which, in this case, is the prospect for economic development and lifting large numbers of Jamaicans out of poverty".

Legal brothels

If this is the only consideration, your newspapers should follow the logic and equally advocate for a change in the law to facilitate legal brothels. This, no doubt, would help to diversify the tourism product and increase the earning capacity of large numbers of Jamaicans.

Let us not be hypocritical where this issue is concerned either; prostitution is already widespread in Jamaica. Many countries have a sex industry as part of their tourism product. If economic development and lifting people out of poverty are the only (or main) consideration, why not legalise marijuana and other elements of the drug industry?

There clearly exists a huge foreign market for these products.

Not by itself

I would suggest that if you are uncomfortable with the suggestions above, 'the prospect for economic development and lifting large numbers of Jamaicans out of poverty' are not the only objectives of this society.

The argument for casino gambling, which you have advocated, is not by itself persuasive. The logic of the situation would require additional arguments. I invite you to make these arguments.

I am, etc.,

P. GORDON

pjmgordon@hotmail.com

Kingston 6