Crying Wolf Again on Gambling
The prohibitionists are at it again.
We've all heard the complaints about casinos. They're big, sleazy places with flashing lights, endless supplies of booze and skimpily clad waitresses -- all designed to dupe the unwary into surrendering piles of cash. Not only that, but their presence fosters crime, lowers property values and siphons spending away from local businesses.
A recent report commissioned by the Institute for American Values argued that casinos "are associated with a range of negative health, economic, political, intellectual and social outcomes." In short: bad, bad, bad. So if we are going to allow gambling, there must be a better outlet for it.
How about the Internet, where participants can indulge their habits from the privacy of their homes, without inflicting a gaudy emporium on some unfortunate community? No large neon-clad buildings, no magnet for muggers, no fallout on adjacent neighborhoods, no shuttered storefronts.
But that's out too. Betting over the Internet from the comfort of home, we are told, carries harms and dangers that are equally bad if not worse. Online gambling, warned an editorial in The Christian Science Monitor, "allows easier, more anonymous accessibility to wagering than do casinos or lotteries. With the click of the mouse, a teenager at home could become a gambling addict, despite any promised safeguards."
Fortunately, there's another option, which has already taken hold in Illinois: small cafes that bear less resemblance to Caesars Palace Las Vegas than to a modern coffeehouse. They are "cozy, well-lit spots with names like Stella's Place, Emma's Eatery, Dotty's and Betty's Bistro," reported Matthew Walberg and Ray Long in The Chicago Tribune. They provide video gambling in a setting designed to appeal to women, offering coffee, wine and snacks in a low-key environment.
For those opposed to casinos and online wagering, it may sound like a dream come true -- safe, public and unobtrusive. But to those who take a dim view of gambling, what appear to be virtues are actually vices.
"They tell themselves they're just popping down to get a scone or see a friend or get some time away from the kids, but what they're really doing is engaging in the same kinds of activities as they would at a casino," Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, told The Tribune.
Anita Bedell, who runs Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems, noted that many women avoid bars. "But these are labeled as country kitchens or upscale Starbucks, and that's why they're getting approved," she said. "They're coming into neighborhoods, by shopping malls and schools, and it's making gambling too accessible in communities."
Here we see the common problem of all these avenues: They allow competent adults an easy means to wager if they want to. The critics would prefer the good old days, when the only way to satisfy the urge was to make the expensive journey to Sin City, Nev. Ever since legal gambling began proliferating, they've been crying wolf. But in stark contrast to the outcome of the fable, the wolf has failed to appear.
The image we get from these advocates is that the more available legal gambling is the more destruction ensues. Given our latent puritanical distrust of harmless pleasures, that may sound eminently plausible, but it isn't true.
A 2011 article by Harvard Medical School researchers Howard Shaffer and Ryan Martin in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology concluded that "the rate of PG (pathological gambling) has remained relatively stable during the past 35 years despite an unprecedented increase in opportunities and access to gambling."
Anyone tempted to bet on games of chance now has a raft of choices, from slot machines to racetracks to state lotteries to video poker. But the expansion of legal gambling has failed to litter the landscape with more desperate addicts burning through the mortgage money.
Why not? When I called Shaffer in 2011, he told me that gambling is different from other compulsive habits. "If you smoke a few cigarettes, you'll probably soon be smoking every day. If you shoot heroin a couple of times, pretty soon you won't be able to live without it. But for the vast majority of those who gamble, control comes easy."
Of course, it's always possible for a respectable soccer mom to venture into a comfy little shop in search of respite, only to end up squandering funds every day on an unbreakable addiction. But it's probably too late to ban Starbucks.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Of course, it's always possible for a respectable soccer mom to venture into a comfy little shop in search of respite, only to end up squandering funds every day on an unbreakable addiction. But it's probably too late to ban Starbucks.
Okay, Chapman, that little zinger was pretty good. But you ain't out of the doghouse yet.
Of course, it's always possible for a respectable soccer mom to venture into a comfy little shop in search of respite, only to end up squandering funds every day on an unbreakable addiction. But it's probably too late to ban Starbucks.
Upper-middle-class vices (Irish coffee) are OK. Lower-class vices (Four Loko) are evil.
Thus has it ever been.
Word!
*pours out some of my 40*
You see "Key and Peele" this week about "wasting" that 40? Pretty goddamned funny...
No, but I will try to check it out.
I caught about five minutes of Key & Peele and I liked what I saw. Going to have to make that a regular thing.
Is that why, to listen to obesity advocates, TV and video games make you fat, but somehow reading doesn't?
There's a very good and obvious reason for that.
If you're lower-class, you probably don't need to be wasting your resources on vices. If you're upper class, then you can afford to.
For example, if a poor person has 10 kids and can't afford any of them, I take umbrage.
If a rich person has 10 kids, I don't care one way or the other.
Don't like it? Don't be poor. Stop wasting your money on vices.
That's right! Who the FUCK are these people to just go around acting as if they have agency and making decisions you like?!
Decisions like not caring for their children? Or perhaps you'd rather they pick others' pockets to pay for their children.
The problem isn't them not caring for their children, it's the government-sponsored pocket-picking.
Decisions like not caring for their children? Or perhaps you'd rather they pick others' pockets to pay for their children.
Well of course, bruh. Obviously if you think it's a little moralistic to tell other people when and how they can breed then you support robbery. And rape. And murder of course, don't forget murder.
I equally oppose those same people getting government benefits. It's possible to think people should be free to make shitty decisions and also believe they should face the full consequences of their shitty decisions. In fact, there's like, basically an entire political philosophy dedicated to the concept...
You've got a point. I mean, it's obvious that poor people shouldn't spend their money on certain things. I propose that in addition to an age requirement, there should be an income requirement. No cigarettes unless you make more than $50K/yr, and no booze unless you make more than $100K/yr. Assuming no black market emerges to mess things up, a whole host of problems could be fixed! You're a genius! There is nothing that cannot be fixed by the heavy hand of government!
Why not just drop a bomb the poor people instead? Solves the overpopulation and emissions problems, and the poverty problem all in one fell swoop!
Oh, and massive stimulus too.
Swift's solution was more elegant.
"Assuming no black market emerges to mess things up, a whole host of problems could be fixed! You're a genius! There is nothing that cannot be fixed by the heavy hand of government!"
If you'd left off the last sentence or two, you might have gotten a few to fall for it! Still, well done.
"black market"?
RACIST!
If you're lower-class, you probably don't need to be wasting your resources on vices.
Which is why poor people go for the foods with the most calories per dollar.
And then the control freaks get mad when the poor people have been made fat by the policies the control freaks support.
Actually, the poor people would have been made fat by the very same belief system you promote in this comment.
But you are right about them being made fat by the gov't control freaks. Only the ones who did it probably voted for McGovern.
And if you are wealthy you should be spending your money to enrich you fellow man?.
Or we could just tell all the busybodies to go climb a tree and accept that most people are going to make mistakes and have to live with the consequences.
OT: CNN footage of Million Vet March protesting in front of White House waving Confederate flag. Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz not shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCjQ2DunYpE
(Sorry, guys. I will have to miss the AM links today. Will be back Tuesday)
Having finished masturbating in the library, PB has a busy schedule ahead of him filled with alley lurking, public urination, and window peeping.
Apparently the Million Vet march only had about 80-100 participants. The Freedom Truck Convoy to encircle DC was a big flop too.
I am disappointed in you Secessionists. Why can't you find a good theatre to hide out in?
Thousands Protest Closures During 'Million Vet March'
Apparently the Million Vet march only had about 80-100 participants
View the dissonance in which Shreek discovers that a protest that:
a) Didn't compensate their masses to attend,
b) targets a demographic that is elderly and/or infirm,
c) tends to be more gainfully employed than other group,
d) Is lobbying the federal government for use of a park that required more funding to close than it did to keep open
is less successful than others. Also take note of the attempt to marginalize a diverse group by painting them as southern racists in spite of service to the United States in several controversial wars.
If there ever was a comment that showed Shreek for what he truly was, this is it. Obama and the House are at an impasse with the budget, so Obama orders the national parks closed (even though it costs more money to do that than keep it open) and dumbass here tries to associate pissed off veterans with right-wing Confederate racists.
Remember, it's the Repug's fault and if you fault Obama, you're a racist teabagger.
What a fucking piece of shit.
Having finished masturbating in the library...
Someone actually caught him on video.
The place is positively dripping with disappointment.
Holy shit! A confederate flag! Must've been a pretty racist demonstration. Typical right wingers...
I suppose if I show up at an Obamacare Rally with CCCP flag, that makes every Obamacare supporter a Soviet communist. That's how it works, right?
Snark not directed at you, PM.
Oh, it's worse than that.
If a single Obamaton was ever pictured wearing a Che t-shirt or a Mao cap, then the entire Obama movement is secretly in favor of enslaving and mass murdering their opposition.
Well, it is the logical conclusion of the ever growing encroachment of the state upon all aspects of life. No Che-shirts required.
In their defense, most proggies don't realize that.
Finding the one guy with a confederate flag and making sure that's all their viewers see. #thisiscnn
(Yeah, I went with a hashtag on a non-Twitter site. #dealwithit)
Progressive Logic:
1.) Klansmen and other racists don't like Obama.
2.) Therefore anybody who doesn't like Obama is a racist, probably a closet Klansman.
It's rather obvious, but conservatives and libertarians are too stupid to understand basic progressive logic.
Shreeek will tell you that paternalist laws restricting choice are perfectly fine (as long as they're passed by Democrats). See California's latest gun control idiocy.
Didn't the governor veto that?
Under that law, nearly every gun I own would have been illegal in California. I would have been left with a few lever actions and .22s. The way it read, even revolvers could be included in the ban.
Yes, Moonbeam vetoed the CA AWB. I made the mistake of complimenting him here for it. It is verbotten to ever compliment a Dem on anything here - even if he has done the right thing.
He did, however, sign a dozen other gun control bills at the same time. In California, you take the bad with the really bad.
The reason you never get a compliment is not because you're a Dem, but because you're so terminally stupid that you don't even know you're stupid.
No, you said it was NRA propaganda that Brown signed the most restrictive gun control laws yet, and then when confronted with the laws that he actually signed, you claimed that some of those were good for first time gun owners.
OMG! OMG! PEOPLE ARE SPENDING THEIR MONEY ON THINGS I DON'T LIKE! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE IT STOP?!?!?!
It's hard to believe this is a Steve Chapman article. He usually devolves into idiocy 2 paragraphs in.
True. He's probably libertarian on this issue because he likes to do a little gambling himself.
Literally correct. He's in favor of the highest drinking age in the world because he's over 21 himself, and says so in an article that Reason published for some reason.
I'll bet this just gets the nannies' collective panties in a bunch....
"The critics would prefer the good old days, when the only way to satisfy the urge was to make the expensive journey to Sin City, Nev"
Or to gamble through state run lotteries where the government itself is the beneficiary of gambling.
We can't have any other entities competing with that, now can we?
Yep. we had this a few years ago when the state I live in was opening up the gambling laws to allow table games & video poker at dog tracks.
The moral activists were out in full force to fight against it, and not a one ever wanted to repeal the power ball or scrachers. See those fund schools and help elderly people, but a blackjack table is a sin (even though there is a heavy tax on table games that goes to THE SCHOOLS as well)
Sometimes Steve is just so adorable.
Lord, save us from people who think it is their duty to save us from ourselves!
Okay, some people have a gambling problem and I can (sort of) understand the motivations of some people to (over) regulate the industry because of that.
However, BANNING gambling is a poor way to help these people; it only makes them more ashamed of their addiction and less likely to seek help. Activists' energies will be much better directed instituting programs to help those with addiction problems -- without shaming them -- instead of trying to regulate gambling out of existence with scare mongering.
It strikes me a reasonable compromise would be to allow gambling, but impose a nominal tax to support treatment programs. A similar approach could be taken toward drug legalization.
Yes, you are forcibly distributing risk, and compelling people to fund an ineffective recovery industry, but we already fund the latter one way or the other, and at least we get liberty out of the deal.
My takeaway is that Chapman likes to gamble. Progressives are always fighting for their own right to do things
No selling cards, either.
Sure, you might start with solitaire or hearts.
Next thing you know it's high-stakes poker.