New Hampshire Public Radio's The Exchange interviewed Governor John Lynch on December 4th, 2012, as he was about to finish his four terms in office. Here are Governor Lynch's wise thoughts on whether New Hampshire should legalize casino gambling:

Listen here to Governor Lynch's clarity and passion as he explains why he opposes casinos for New Hampshire.

(Takes a few seconds to open the mp3 sound file).

I'm still opposed to expanded gambling. I worry about it for a number of reasons.

I worry about it in terms of proliferation. Now, the legislature might say today, 'Well, me might have one or two... but over time, over time, looking over 20 years, what will happen is the state will enter into another downturn, another recession.

There will be a need for more revenue. And guaranteed, people will say, 'Well, we already have a casino in Salem or Hudson or Seabrook. Why not put one in Loudon at the Speedway? Or put one in the North Country?" They're already talking about that, by the way, this time around. Or put one in Manchester, or Portsmouth. And over time, we'll have more casinos, more expanded gambling. And you won't be able to shut it off. So I worry about that.

I worry about the influence in Concord, and there will be a lot of influence. All you need is the owner of a casino - which does deliver maybe tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to the state - to take a position on a bill. A say, well, "If you don't pass this bill, or veto this bill, I'm going to have to lay off 1000 people." [Like the railroad barons?] Everybody will be down there saying "Oh please don't lay off 1000 people, please don't pull the casino. We will accept your position on a bill." And that pervasive influence will even get worse. So I worry about that.

The other thing that would happen is that our brand as a state will change. Connecticut, they don't even spend money on marketing anymore. Because their brand is determined by Foxwoods. And I don't think that's the kind of state we want to be. We want to be a state where we control the brand, not somebody else does.

We also don't have any regulatory agency, so I think it's a bad idea.

Let me go back to what I said earlier. New Hampshire is acknowledged as one of the most livable states, safest states, best state in the country in which to raise children. I don't think we should go forward with a structural change that could negatively put those metrics at risk. And I think expanded gambling would.

[Question about level of passion in his statement and evolution on the issue]

I have seen how the efforts in the legislature have ramped up, driven by out of state forces. And they've ramped up considerably over the last 2-4 years. And that really leads me to worry about the influence in Concord.

[Question about the Senate Democrats considering downsides but wanting to fund services]

I'm not opposed to expanded gambling for moral reasons. I think if people want to go to Foxwoods, that's fine. As you know, there will be now 2 or 3 casinos in Massachusetts. I'm opposed to it for these other reasons, which I think will have a negative impact on the state of New Hampshire, long term. Now if all we're worried about is what will happen in the next couple of years, then the decision might be different. But I think we have to take a long term perspective on this. Long after we're [out of] office, and for me that's going to be sooner rather than later. But I really worry about the impact on New Hampshire over 20 or 30 years.