If you missed my brief appearance on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell last night, I’ll give you a quick recap. I was part of a panel that talked about the Terence Watanabe case, which was news because his attorney talked to Good Morning America.

I’d prepared some factoids about a previous high-profile attempt to use “the intoxication defense” to get out of paying a marker, the Leonard Tose case. You can follow the link to read his obituary which has what I think is the most germane element of the case to this discussion–he lost.

I also reviewed my research into the proportion of bad credit decisions that casinos make. I’ll excerpt the appropriate blog post here:

For fiscal year 2008, gamblers wagered about $232.4 billion dollars in Nevada casinos. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the correct credit number is ten percent of all money wagered in Nevada casinos. In that case, we can say that Nevada casinos extended about $23.2 billion in credit during fiscal year 2008.

According to the Nevada Gaming Abstract, in that year casinos statewide reported a total of $132.1 million as “bad debt expense,” i.e., uncollected markers. That seems like a lot of money, and it is. Compared to annual gaming revenues of about $12 billion for that period, though, it doesn’t look so big (”only” 1.1 percent). Next to the estimated total credit play, $23.2 billion, it’s tiny: 0.56 percent. Just over one-half of one percent of casino markers end up as bad debts…. Only a small percentage of markers end up unpaid, and it seems that casinos do a pretty good job of due diligence before letting players sign markers. Of course, a few high-profile cases gives a much different impression.

I thought I was prepared to offer an intelligent contribution to the discussion. As it turns out, the conversation was more about feelings that facts. I got the first word–Jane asked me what I thought of the case. After acknowledging that problem gambling was a serious issue for many people, I offered that in this case, because of the amount of money lost and the length of time over which it was squandered, there was an element of personal responsibility involved.

I’d barely gotten the words out of my mouth when one of the other guests interjected, “I don’t agree with that at all! The casinos were pouring him booze! He was an addict!” and continued an emotional tirade. Then someone interrupted him with a screed for personal responsibility, while Jane chimed in that we’re “a nation of addicts.” It was more about expressing our emotions and a priori assumptions than talking about the legal merit of the case or the bigger economic and social questions it raises. There were a few good callers, though, including one who asked a sensible question: if Watanabe had won, would he have given the money back since he wasn’t responsible for his actions?

Anyway, I’m glad that the Internet provides a forum where someone like me who doesn’t like to argue can just put some research out there and let people use it as they see fit. I’d really like to see that bad debt estimate become more widely known, because it puts the whole issue into perspective. Unfortunately, we only hear about the most sensational cases, and usually without any context.