It makes sense if you buy into the premise that a large subset of frequent alcohol users would make the switch to marijuana in a legal setting.

Alcohol use benefits casinos' bottom lines. Marijuana doesn't have the same wallet loosening effect.

The casinos are indirectly profiting from alcohol's prevalence, so it makes sense they'd defend it.

> Marijuana doesn't have the same wallet loosening effect.

Perhaps Mr. Adelson needs to improve the quality (and price) of the restaurants in his casinos.

The fact that he's doing good business doesn't mean he's not a punchable slimeball. He's stated publicly that he's doing this because he's "anti-addiction". A casino magnate. I suspect there's a special place in hell for those practising hypocrisy at this scale.

It's personal for him, as he had a child who died from a drug overdose.

However, I think Tvert's point is well-taken. Los Vegas casino magnates aren't exactly in a position to preach about abstinence or vices.

For a few million investment in NV he could own the new market.

Someone as wealthy as that can afford to throw a few million dollars in funding against something that makes them feel cranky, it's hardly unusual.

People's business positions often inform their moral judgments that they justify after the fact.

Unless he's heavily involved in the import of illegal marijuana.

Maybe? Honestly, I'm pretty dubious about the investment value of lobbying, full stop.

But regardless, do we have literally any evidence that his a drug baron? That seems like a hell of a thing to put out there on the basis of "he opposes marijuana legalization."

I feel like he's one of the last people you'd suspect of being involved with drugs. Adelson is already a major player in a spectacularly lucrative industry, so it'd be pretty insane to go into hardcore felonies when his legal business might actually have better margins.

The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.

> The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.

They also had to pay $50 million dollars the previous year to the government as a settlement for money laundering, and has been in hot water for allegedly paying bribes to secure casinos in China[1]. Their business isn't exactly squeaky clean as it is.

[1]:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/in-filing-casino-...

Absolutely - I wouldn't for a minute assume casino organizations are clean, especially abroad where they might feel safer from domestic prosecution. I just don't think diversifying into unrelated and personally-criminal activities would make much sense.

You think casinos have no involvement in illegal activities because they are already making enough money? Maybe I watch too many movies but that sounds bizarro-world to me.

I think already-rich casino magnates don't get involved in totally unrelated serious crime like importing drugs.

I'm fully aware that the casinos used to be shoulder to shoulder with the mob, and have done plenty of shady things. I guess I just meant that it would be stupid to diversify so riskily - in movie terms, it'd be like a hacker starting a sideline in gun running.

People are not rational. Drugs and legal gambling have a history.

What about the tax implications?

If these are "donations" to non-profits, wouldn't this reduce one's tax liability.