recreation dollars spent on a speedboat, for example, largely generate orders for more
speedboats. Accordingly, while most entertainment or recreational dollars contribute to a
positive multiplier effect legalized "gambling dollars" result in a net negative multiplier
effect. This negative impact apparently occurs, in part, because approximately two-thirds
of the gambling dollars are not recreationally-oriented, but are spent by a compulsive
market segment reacting to an addictive activity--probable or possible pathological
gambling--as delimited by the American Psychiatric Association. AM. PSYCHIATRIC
ASS'N DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 615-18 § 312.31
(4th ed. 1994). Opponents also note that gambling dollars spent in a legalized gambling
facility are usually reinvested in more gambling facilities--which just intensifies the
socio-economic negatives associated with gambling activities and "reduces the national
income" even further.

5. Are Tribal Games and Slots “Fair” to Patrons?

.............Issues have arisen involving how "slot machines" are programmed and whether
the astronomical odds are "fair" to patrons. "The Insiders" for Gambling Lawsuits: Are
the Games "Fair" and Will Casinos and Gambling Facilities be Easy Targets for
Blueprints for RICO and Other Causes of Action?
, 55 MERCER L. REV. 529-593 (2004)
(lead article). See also Subpoenaing Information from the Gambling Industry: Will the
Discovery Process in Civil Lawsuits Reveal Hidden Violations Including the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act?
, 82 OREGON L. REV. 221-294 (2003) (lead
article). Coupled with pandemic regulatory failures, these issues of "fairness" have been
exacerbated. The Failure to Regulate the Gambling Industry Effectively: Incentives for
Perpetual Non-Compliance
, 27 S. ILL. U.L.J. 221-262 (2002) (lead article). See also
Follow the Money: Gambling, Ethics, and Subpoenas
, 556 ANNALS OF THE AM.
ACADEMY OF POLITICAL & SOC. SCI.,85-97 (1998) (invited article).
.............The Office of the Inspector General reported in 1993 to the U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI) that 32 percent of Native American gambling operations were being
conducted in violation of federal statutes/regulations. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEP'T OF INTERIOR, AUDIT REPORT: ISSUES IMPACTING IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT (1993). Thereafter, the National Indian
Gaming Commission (NIGC) arguably suppressed numbers that indicated in November
1996 that 84 percent of Native American gambling facilities were openly operating
illegally or in violation of federal statutes/regulations. NAT'L INDIAN GAMING COMM'N,
REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE INDIAN GAMING
REGULATORY ACT (Nov. 1996). Other reports suggested that there were more than just
isolated instances of crime and corruption caused by Native American gambling
activities.
.............Furthermore, the implicit goals of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA) to enhance the lives of all Native Americans were not being realized, as the large
majority of Native Americans remained in grinding poverty as the 21st century began.
See, e.g., U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, INDIAN PROGRAMS: TRIBAL PRIORITY
ALLOCATIONS DO NOT TARGET THE NEEDIEST TRIBES 1 (1998). Accordingly,
policymakers have suggested that future legislation should not disproportionately enrich
isolated tribes. Instead, Native American gambling should operate for the benefit of all