Over the next few weeks, voters in Maine have a lot of thinking to do. They have to decide whether to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain; Charlie Summers or Chellie Pingree; Tom Allen or Susan Collins.

These are all hard choices. But while choosing between individual representatives will be a tough decision, I’m betting that many Maine voters are wrangling over the Oxford casino issue.

Not me, however. I have always been against casinos. I grew up in southern Rhode Island, 12 miles from the Foxwoods casino in Connecticut. I watched as Foxwoods changed the physical and societal landscape, and I don’t want to see that happen to my adopted state.

Maine and casinos just don’t go together. And this year, despite the bad economy, I’m sticking to my guns and lodging yet another “No” vote on the casino referendum.

I am voting based partially on my disdain for the gambling culture. I also don’t believe our state’s symbols such as lobsters, lighthouses, rocky shores and pristine wilderness jibe with a casino culture. The two are oil and water. Polar opposites. And, as a voter, I don’t want to do anything that could ruin Maine’s reputation as a haven from the rat race.

There are many reasons to vote against a casino. The example of gambling mecca Atlantic City is one. It’s a sponge for the seedy element. Another is gambling addiction. I’ve known people in Rhode Island who lost their businesses and marriages because of their gambling habit, fed so conveniently at Foxwoods. Crime, pawnshops and prostitution are other negatives.

The overarching culture of greed is still another reason to keep casinos out of Maine. Have you ever walked through a casino? I think you can actually see the dollar signs pulsating in people’s eyes. Either that or it’s the blank expression of one whose life is on a downward spiral.

But if reminders of what casinos foist upon their patrons won’t win you over, maybe a little logic from my college days will do the trick.

I learned about a principle that says if something is truly good, you can have lots of it and it’ll still be good. We’ll call it the extrapolation theory, since I can’t remember the actual term. Take ice cream shops, for example. It would be absurd to require a statewide referendum since everyone would agree that a town could have as many ice cream shops as it wanted. Employing the extrapolation theory, you could agree that there could be an ice cream shop in every town in Maine without affecting Maine’s character.

Now, try to insert “casino” for ice cream shops. Would it be OK for Windham, Standish, Casco, Naples, Sebago or Bridgton to all have casinos? No, we would all balk at that proposal, because that would change our culture forever. And if it’s not OK for all towns to have a casino, then it must not be suitable for one town to have one either – even if it is out-of-the-way like Oxford.

When you consider the casino issue in this manner, it’s easier to see why casinos and Maine don’t mesh. Plainly put, if you don’t support a casino in all of the towns in Maine, especially the town in which you live, then, logically, you can’t and shouldn’t support a casino anywhere.

Am I oversimplifying the issue? I don’t think so. As voters, we’d have no problem allowing thousands of ice cream shops, or bookstores, or restaurants, or manufacturing companies that would employ gobs of people and pump millions into local and state coffers. So why do we hesitate and ask each voter whether it’s all right to allow one casino?

The real crux of the issue here, and why we are each being asked to weigh in on Election Day, is the fact that casino gambling is a moral issue. In our hearts, we know gambling is a sin. Morally, Americans believe money should be earned, not won at a blackjack table. Hopefully, Mainers remain strong come Nov. 4 and keep casinos out of our beautiful state.

John Balentine, of Windham, is the former editor of the Lakes Region Weekly.