Alcohol kills an estimated six people every week in Hawaii, and excessive alcohol use costs the state nearly $1 billion per year.

Those were “key takeaways” from a study conducted by the University of Hawaii’s Pacific Health Analytics Collaborative, and released three years ago.

These researchers contend that a 10-cent-per-drink tax would, among other things, reduce alcohol use disorders by 7% and raise $58 million a year in revenue.

Everybody wins, right?

Not so fast. The many people who make their living from alcohol consumption would lose. Some bar and restaurant workers, salespeople, truck drivers and liquor store owners, and employees would have to find new livelihoods.

And here’s another thing: We’re allowed freedom of choice with alcohol. The government has faith in us to follow some rules, and drink in moderation so we don’t hurt ourselves and others.

There is proof that not all of us are deserving of that freedom of choice. At least 40% of traffic fatalities in Hawaii from 2011 to 2022 involved drivers under the influence of alcohol, according to the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance.

Apparently, though, we can’t be trusted to gamble in moderation. And the state isn’t interested in the money it could make from legalizing a vice safer than drinking.

I’m not calling for prohibition or saying that gambling addiction doesn’t exist. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy here. Criminalizing alcohol now in Hawaii would be as ridiculous as it was in the U.S. from 1920 to ’33. People would still drink, and criminals and outsiders would take over and profit from it — sort of like gambling in Hawaii now.

“Social” gambling, like a Super Bowl bet with a friend, is OK. But nothing is allowed that makes a profit for providing a venue or platform to wager in.

When you boil it down, that’s what a casino is: It’s you against the house, and the odds favor the house because that’s how they pay for building the casino, keeping all the fancy lights on, and paying the employee salaries. It’s the price for the fun, and maybe you will get lucky, especially if you play smart.

And, as Senate Bill 839 said (past tense because it died in committee last week), casinos at the New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District and the Hawaii Convention Center would generate plenty of money that would go to the Department of Education and programs for problem gamblers.

Some of the profits from the NASED casino would also go to investors and builders, so they could pay for constructing and maintaining the new stadium and other parts of the massive, long-term, private-public partnership project.

Many folks against gambling for moral reasons step up to speak against bills. Their stories are always very sad, and are usually based on addiction and/or violence. Many of us can empathize.

The stories sound very similar to those about alcohol abuse.

So, again, why the double standard? It’s hard to understand, especially when illegal gambling is rampant in Hawaii. I don’t want to believe that another state controls our legislature, but that’s what it looks like.

Nightclubs give people places to gather, have a drink or two, dance, sing, and meet new friends.

Casinos are the same, with the additional allure of games of chance (and some skill).

Nearly $300 million a year is gambled illegally in Hawaii — with the profit for facilitating the gambling, known as “juice,” going either to local criminals, or, in the case of online gambling, to other states (you don’t need Penelope Garcia from “Criminal Minds” to show you how to get an out-of-state VPN so you can virtually bet on any sport you want).

Some folks thought that, just maybe, this would be the year that a bill could gain some traction, and at least get a conversation going about breaking the lock Las Vegas seems to have on Hawaii folks who want to gamble legally.

Maybe marrying the building of a casino to NASED would be the impetus to get Hawaii into the 21st century when it comes to wagering, and leave Utah as the only state with no legalized gambling.

It would also help if the House stopped generating nonsense bills calling for moving the stadium to UH.

Stanford Carr testified in favor of the bill, because the state’s preeminent developer is a leader of Aloha Halawa District Partners and AHDP has a big stake in the success of NASED.

Carr said he may have left the wrong impression when, during testimony Wednesday, he said it would be “pencils down and walk away from the project” if there were no casino to help with funding.

In a phone interview Saturday, Carr said AHDP is all-in.

“We’re not giving up. We’ve put in a lot of time and money.”

He said a casino, which could be built in four years, “would help the confidence (of investors).”

The developers need $550 million more than the $350 million the Legislature has allotted to build a stadium to be proud of, Carr said.

“We’re going to keep going until we find a solution,” Carr said. “I am tenacious.”