It was a deal the Lakewood City Council couldn't refuse. Like thousand-dollar bills lying on the sidewalk, begging to be picked up. Something for nothing.

Money's always tight in city government. So here's the plan: Bring in enterprises – casinos – that promise instant riches but whose only purpose is to separate Lakewood's citizens from their money. Then step in to scoop up a big share of the profits – $2.8 million a year, at last count.

That money comes at a price, but it's beautifully concealed. The little secret is that the casinos' come-on tends to con the desperate, the poor, the less educated (it cons others, too, just not as easily). Some players inevitably lose control and become problem gamblers.

Gambling does to personal finances what meth does to teeth. Gaming addicts typically run up catastrophic debts. They frequently turn to embezzlement or other kinds of theft. They frequently run their families into bankruptcy. They often lose their wives or husbands. A few commit suicide.

[More:]

But all that heartbreak is invisible – spread out around neighborhoods, concealed inside homes, teased out only with sociological studies that translate into percentages and other abstract statistics. If you know a woman whose husband shot himself over his gambling debts, or a man who lost his house because he bet away the mortgage money, the problem seems real. If you don't, the statistics may not mean much.

What isn't invisible is the money. Millions of dollars are impossible to ignore – and almost impossible to walk away from. Once a city government starts mainlining that kind of cash, its leaders get the shakes at the very thought of losing it. Never mind that every dollar was lost by somebody, and that problem gamblers lost far more than their share. Never mind that the money is dirty. Never mind that it amounts to a tax on the poor.

Gamblers aren't the only ones addicted to gambling. So are the cities that welcome casinos and tap into that dirty money. So are the casinos' owners and employees. Getting between them and the action is like getting between a crack whore and her candy. The reaction is exactly the same.

The people who've been circulating a petition to shut down Lakewood's four casinos are finding that out. They've got until this Friday to turn in 3,707 valid signatures, and every hour counts.

Last week, the pushback began. Three Lakewood casino workers suddenly materialized and started dogging the petitioners, accosting potential signers and giving them flyers that read "Urgent!! Do not sign this petition!" David Anderson, who's leading the initiative, says their interference has been intense.

The three have portrayed themselves as ordinary employees out to protect their livelihoods. There's no evidence to the contrary.

But when Tacoma faced the same issue in 2006, the public face of the pro-casino initiative campaign was also a group of just-trying-to-make-a-living workers. The finances of this group have remained mysterious; it never fully reported some of its major expenses, such as an opinion poll, to the Public Disclosure Commission. Some of the signature-gatherers turned out to be day laborers, not casino employees.

The man who ran that campaign later said that the "grassroots" group was actually a front for corporate casino money.

Don't be surprised to see a similarly deceitful opposition campaign in Lakewood if Anderson's initiative makes the ballot. In fact, the very claim that shutting down casinos robs a community of jobs is suspect. Yes, the casino jobs would go away – but the people who spend money entertaining themselves in casinos would spend that same discretionary money entertaining themselves elsewhere.

Unless they are problem gamblers, they are likely to do their spending at a restaurant, a movie, shopping or whatever. New non-gaming jobs would then be created with the same money.

It's true that the problem gamblers would take their money down the road to a casino-friendly town or reservation. That's the nature of addiction. The casino industry has always been content to pocket the losses of addicts. The question here is whether Lakewood is equally willing to profit off human misery.