3912                                                      VETOES

fraternal lodge organizations and private clubs. The bill failed
for want of a constitutional majority. A similar bill failed in
1973.

In my view, a fair reading of this legislative history (with
the knowledge that in Maryland slot machine bills are not
ordinary legislation) leads to the generally accepted conclusion
that, except for antique slot machines and in other very limited
circumstances, mere possession of slot machines is currently
prohibited on both sides of the Chesapeake Bay. From a practical
standpoint, effective enforcement of § 264B must be against
distributors and transporters of illegal slot machines. Because
Senate Bill 774 establishes a legal basis for possession of slot
machines in Maryland, it makes enforcement of § 264B against
distributors and other transporters extremely difficult.
Distributors and transporters could always assert a defense that
they are holding the machines for lawful purposes in this State.
Rather than tightening Maryland's slot machine law, this bill
creates a large loophole and seriously undermines its
effectiveness.

As partly reflected in this veto message, governmental
attitudes towards gambling have fluctuated over the last 5
decades. We have prohibited slot machines but established a
State run lottery and permit betting at State licensed
racetracks. Even with comprehensive and tight regulatory
controls, the accessibility and extent to which gambling is to be
legally permitted is a matter of degree and requires a balancing
of interests with a subjective judgment as to the type of
environment in which we wish to live and raise our children.
While gambling is unquestionably a component of modern life, in
excess it can become a compulsive disease with undesirable
personal and societal results including the potential for
corruption.

The allure of the instant payoff of the traditional one
armed bandit is legendary and, because of adverse personal and
societal effects, it is not an accident that it and similar
mechanical devices operating solely on the basis of chance are
illegal in Maryland and most other jurisdictions in the United
States. My view is that the round-the-clock uncontrolled slot
machine activity permitted under this legislation, is far more
pervasive than that allowed at periodic carnivals, bazaars, bingo
games, or at raffles (even if held on a daily basis as seemingly
authorized under American Legion v. State, 294 Md. 1 (1982)).
Aside from the substantial difficulties in law enforcement that
would be presently created if I signed the bill into law, it
would be next to impossible in future years to rationally
distinguish and limit slot machines to those counties and those
organizations covered by Senate Bill 774. Slot machines will
again become a local political issue. Even assuming that the
reintroduction of slot machine gambling in Maryland is a
desirable social goal (which I do not), the local regulatory
approach suggested by this bill invites uneven law enforcement