BOSTON - With Middleborough voting recently to allow a Wampanoag casino in their town, the drama over legalizing casino gambling moves to Beacon Hill, where state lawmakers will make the final decision.

But the outcome is anything but guaranteed. Gov. Deval Patrick is undeclared, the House speaker has voted against expanded gaming in the past, and many local lawmakers are still feeling their way around the high-stakes issue.

State Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem, does not support casino gambling but is undecided on how he would vote. He's concerned about the cost of treating people with gambling addictions and other social problems arising from legalizing gambling.

Keenan, who's on the Legislature's Tourism Committee, is also concerned about resort casinos taking money away from tourism sites in Essex County and across the state.

Still, the argument that Massachusetts could be leaving millions of dollars on the table is a powerful one.

"People are going to gamble one way or another and get on the bus and go to Mohegan Sun," Keenan said.

For many local lawmakers, a major factor in their decision to back legalized gaming is the sense that it is inevitable. State Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, said he was never passionate one way or the other about casinos. But now he says he'll vote to legalize casino gambling.

"I think at this point everything changed with the Wampanoag getting recognition," Baddour said. "It changed the dynamic."

State Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, said he's undecided. Like many local lawmakers, he's concerned about people not playing the lottery, a major source of revenue for local aid to cities and towns. He's also worried Massachusetts residents are spending money elsewhere.

And he says that casinos in Connecticut weaken the argument against bringing one here.

"People will gamble whether they go to the racetrack, go to Connecticut or play the lottery," Dempsey said.

Indeed, that's a common theme among undecided lawmakers.

State Sen. Susan Tucker, an Andover Democrat and leading foe of casino gambling, contends that casinos don't create good jobs, they siphon money from local businesses and have a high social cost.

She is trying to change the mindset of lawmakers that the Middleborough deal means that casinos are inevitable.

"There's an aura that they're coming and just deal with it," Tucker said. "That's the most dangerous thing now. People have this notion that they're coming, and it's not true. The Legislature has to decide to go down the casino road. It's not inevitable."

Indeed, Middleborough's deal with the Wampanoag does not mean casinos are coming. But it does get the debate moving.

On July 28, Middleborough residents voted to let the town strike a deal with the Wampanoag tribe to build a resort casino in their town. But any resort casino would have to be approved by the Legislature, said Peter Malaguti, who teaches state constitutional law at Massachusetts School of Law.

Under federal law, recognized Indian tribes have to enter into compacts with states to open casinos. Right now, Class Three gambling - slots and table games - are illegal. In the end, it's up to the Legislature to make those games of chance legal and enter into a deal with the Wampanoag.

State Rep. Barbara L'Italien, D-Andover, opposes casinos. She believes any casino bill could stall in the House.

"It's hard to say," L'Italien said. "(House Speaker Salvatore) DiMasi is against casinos. Unless there is an incredible change of heart, I don't see this passing the House."

House Speaker DiMasi is withholding judgment until Patrick tips his hand, however. Patrick is spending August "doing his homework" on the issue, considering a study compiled by a gambling commission that reported to him last month. He expects to announce a decision after Labor Day.

Some local lawmakers, like Senate Majority Leader Fred Berry, D-Peabody, enthusiastically support casinos. Berry would even be willing to see one in Essex County.

Berry said it's foolish for the state to let casino revenue go to Connecticut. And he dismisses the argument that legalizing gambling brings with it social costs.

"My rebuttal is, 'That was the argument made 20 years ago,"' Berry said. "People can now gamble at home. If people want to gamble, they don't have to leave their bedroom."

For those who are on the fence, the chain of events leading up to and following the Middleborough vote is making it easier to support casinos in Massachusetts.

In the past, expanding gambling has meant adding slot machines at racetracks. But the Wampanoag want to create a resort-style casino similar to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. And Treasurer Timothy Cahill has proposed having the state auction off the rights to build a resort casino, complete with hotels and entertainment complexes, to a private developer.

State Rep. Theodore Speliotis, D-Danvers, has opposed expanded gaming in the past. He recalls the seedy side of gambling, harkening back to numbers runners he encountered during visits to relatives in Cambridge.

Speliotis said with resort casinos on the agenda, the discussion is moving in the right direction, and he's now unsure how he'd vote. The allure of millions of dollars in new state revenue from a major resort is compelling.

"It has to be a facility that will be extremely financially attractive to the commonwealth," Speliotis said, "and hopefully minimizes the social cost."

Other lawmakers can't be convinced.

"Gambling takes in the poor people," said state Rep. Anthony Verga, D-Gloucester. "They're looking to get rich. ... They gamble their unemployment check, their Social Security."

Before voting for casinos, Verga wants proof of the benefits promised.

"You've got to prove that gambling makes whatever the hell they're looking for happen," he said.