This newspaper has been firmly opposed to casinos and racinos in Maine. We have said it's a poor substitute for economic development, runs contrary to our interest in preserving the image of Maine and has the potential to cause social problems such as gambling addiction.

Only two forms of legal gambling have been approved in Maine: the state lottery (worse than a casino because it's state-sponsored fleecing) and the racino in Bangor, which slipped in under the voters' radar the year that the Sanford casino was soundly defeated.

We have also been against the bill to allow the Passamaquoddy tribe to open a casino in Washington County (the bill failed) and have so far editorialized against the proposal to allow a casino in Oxford County that is a referendum question on the November ballot.

Yet ... we are beginning to soften on this issue.

First, Hollywood Slots has been operating in Bangor since 2005, and we have not seen Bangor become Las Vegas-east. Gamblers, both casual and serious, have good reports, and no local officials have raised any loud complaints.

Second, a casino such as the $100 million one proposed for Oxford County would -- if promoters live up to their promises -- bring jobs, jobs with benefits and reasonable salaries; jobs that in many cases could be filled by people who don't qualify for highly-skilled work and are often those most in need of a good job now that manufacturing is in decline. It's not the perfect or even a good form of economic development, but in these days any new business that brings jobs, tax revenue and a ripple effect in the local economy is tempting to accept.

We know of many people who head down to Foxwoods for a fun weekend of gambling, shows and dining and appear to come back satisfied their money was not wasted. Even the slim chance of winning at slot machines or a poker table is no worse that wasting $20 on a movie and popcorn when the end turns out to be boring and stale (pick your order).

Yet, we cannot back off our objection that gambling is based on the very concept that the business succeeds by others failing. Casino proponents argue that "gaming," as they prefer to call it, is just another form of entertainment. For some that is true; for others, it becomes an irresistible attraction to gain an easy buck with next week's grocery money.

Anyone who gets around to Maine convenience stores and waits behind someone who has driven their beater to the store to buy $20 worth of worthless lottery tickets can see for themselves that state-approved and state-sponsored gambling can be a sad and degrading spectacle.

And make no mistake about it: If the Oxford casino is approved by voters, the state will effectively be a partner with its developers. When the state gets 39 percent of the proceeds of an operation, that goes well beyond the realm of "taxes" and turns the state into a collaborator with a big stake in the casino -- and a big stake in taking home the money that people spend and lose by gambling.

In the end, the cons still outweigh the pros: Maine and gambling don't -- and shouldn't -- go together. While it's become a closer call, the call still goes to a "no" vote on Question 2.