Personally, I'd be able to tolerate CSMs if the games had lower house edges and they used at least a 1-deck discard tray to give the games some variance (lets say, 1 deck discard for a 5 deck game, 2 deck discard for a 6 deck game).
But, no, all casinos are run by monopolies that are enforced by the State. Which means the only competition that exists is for the high-limit market (since the high-limit gamblers can fly to other states). Which means the "little guy" that these laws claim to protect is the person that gets shafted the most.
CSMs offer only one benefit beyond ASM+Shoe, and that's game protection. However, they are extremely expensive, remove variance from the game (thus making it more boring) and ultimately they cost more money than they save.
But unfortunately, Casinos are revenue-raising devices for profligate state governments. Thus, they won't improve the conditions because that would (according to them) lower their tax take.
They'd get more money from demonopolizing the gambling industry, but if they did that the Moral Guardians would be all over them screaming that "the pokies take food out of the mouths of hungry children."
I'd think if anything, the State most likely to have a reasonable chance at reforming gambling policy is Queensland. The state government is in a dire situation and needs tax revenue, the economy has a large tourism sector already. But, unfortunately, Queensland is also full of moralizers.