Gambling Addiction Isn't Surging
A new study claims addiction is on the rise because internet searches for gambling terms are increasing.

A study published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine claims to reveal a surge in gambling addiction following the legalization of sports betting. But does a rise in internet searches for gambling terms mean there's been an actual increase in gambling addiction?
After the Supreme Court struck down the Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 2018, states were allowed to legalize gambling on sports—since then, 38 states and the District of Columbia have some form of legal sports betting. With the rise of legal sports betting, there's been an explosion of articles, podcasts, and studies about the potential harms of legalization.
On the surface, the study from researchers at the University of California San Diego Qualcomm Institute and School of Medicine appears to lend weight to these concerns, showing a cumulative increase of 23 percent in internet searches nationwide, relative to a counterfactual model, for help with gambling addiction as measured from 2018 through June 2024. But contrary to the study's press release, these results do not show a "surge in gambling addiction."
The study itself doesn't measure clinical outcomes like gambling disorders. While internet search trends can suggest many things, they don't reveal intent, actions, or who is searching. For instance, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), the country's premier organization tackling gambling addiction, runs a dashboard of incoming traffic to its helpline and makes clear on its website: "This data should not be used as a proxy to estimate problem gambling prevalence."
The NCPG is right not to use these calls as a proxy for problem gambling, not least because a significant share of these calls are not going to be from problem gamblers seeking help but gamblers seeking help trying to place bets. After news breaks of legalization in a state, it's not surprising to see interest in these services tick up. As ads for sports betting increase, so do those for gambling addiction services, with those who were already suffering from gambling problems more aware of resources available to them.
So, what is the rate of problem gambling? According to the NCPG, the national rate of severe problem gambling among U.S. adults is 1 percent, with those experiencing mild to moderate problems making up another 2 percent to 3 percent, which is in line with the historical average.
Few states collect good data on the prevalence of problem gambling. But consider data from one that does, New Jersey.
Historically, New Jersey has had a problem gambling rate above the national average. It was the second state to legalize sports betting in 2018. According to the study, searches for gambling addiction help services rose 34 percent since New Jersey legalized sports betting. In 2021, the latest year for which we have data, problem gambling in New Jersey was 5.6 percent. But in 2017, before sports betting was legal, New Jersey's problem gambling rate was 6.3 percent. If sports betting ads and apps drive big increases in problem gambling, the Garden State has yet to see it.
But there's more reason to be skeptical that legal sports betting will drive a new sustained rise in gambling addiction and financial distress. When lotteries and casinos were liberalized in the 1980s and early 1990s, there was an initial increase in bankruptcies. But this effect largely disappeared after 1995. In the 2000s, with the rise of online poker and illegal internet sportsbooks, many feared there would be an increase in gambling addiction. But in 2011, one of the world's leading experts in gambling addiction, Howard Shaffer, said the evidence "suggests 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." Shaffer added that the extent of internet gambling for most is "astoundingly moderate." Today's sports bettors are disproportionately college-educated, earn $100,000 a year or more, and spend between $1 to $100 a month on bets.
The United Kingdom and Australia have had online sports betting for more than 20 years, and there's been no change in the rate of problem gambling. It's true that some people, especially young men, who never would've bet on sports have done so after legalization and faced difficulties from overspending. However, the benefits of legalization have also been substantial. The vast majority of sports bets are now placed legally, compared to 3 percent before 2018 when legalization was largely confined to Nevada. Before legal sports betting, around a third of Americans were betting on sports, wagering around $150 billion a year, with money flowing through offshore sports books, with no age verification, less data protection, and with deep ties to organized crime.
Some of the paper's suggestions are reasonable, such as ensuring a larger share of the tax revenue from legal sports betting goes to gambling addiction services. Others, such as limiting how much you can bet, could result in bettors swapping legal apps for offshore betting sites. But in sum, its results shouldn't be used as an excuse for a regulatory crackdown that would breathe new life into the illicit gambling market.
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
Gambling Addiction Isn't Surging
Wanna bet?
A+
8 to 5 you're wrong.
(sucker bet; you cite JAMA)
Hi Guy,
Great to see you're writing for Reason, where after many decades, I still lurk and engage.
I do find the gambling warnings on tv ads helpful for letting me know that its another gambling ad that I can mute.
So, they didn't measure a thing but they are claiming that the thing they didn't measure is becoming more prevalent because it must be since gambling is gross.
That checks out.
Given how many people use other fallacies in their everyday life it should be no surprise that the gamblers fallacy is alive and well.
I find the claim hard to believe. In the surrounding DC area there have been several casinos that opened and are planned in the last decade. The one in Charlestown is still doing well and MGM has done a ton of business.
Avoiding any claims of "too local" I'll say that online sportsbooks and fantasy leagues have probably brought more people into gambling. The leagues themselves have been big into encouraging gambling.
Somewhat tangential; apps like robinhood and crypto have allowed people to place big bets on stocks and cryptocurrencies. I'd personally lump a lot of people's activities on there in with gambling.
All this doesn't prove that addiction to gambling is on the rise, but it follows that if an addictive activity becomes more prominent that addiction would also rise. I'm half curious to see what data is presented here to suggest neither is on the rise.
I'm half curious to see what data is presented here to suggest neither is on the rise.
Shifting the burden of proof isn't warranted here, if in fact it ever is.
They failed to prove anything with their non-measurements for their own argument, so there isn't anything there to refute in the first place.
After taking several statistics courses in college, I never gambled if the game is run by a third party (lottery/casino/online) because the house always wins money, while most gamblers lose money most of the time.
And since highly toxic cigarette smoking is still allowed in PA casinos, I've never set foot in one.
I guess some people like the social aspect or watching reels spin.
And smoking. Some people like smoking.
It took college statistic courses to figure out that there's a house edge? A fifth grade, public school, math book chapter on percentages should have taught you that. You wasted money.
But for certain types of gambling, the coordination provided by the operator is worth the vig. If you can find a parimutuel co-op that can connect you with a bet for a large amount in seconds or even minutes, great. The old cork tree didn't rake off a piece of the action, but how many could fit under it?
The same can be said for many types of business. It's just that when the only product in the transaction is money, people look more closely at the percentage the middleman is taking.
>>A new study claims addiction is on the rise because internet searches for gambling terms are increasing.
if internet searches for gambling terms are increasing from the same pool of searchers addiction may very well be on the rise idk
If life looks progressively more and more like crapshoot, perhaps people are looking to gambling for the vocabulary to describe their ability to go to Church or the bar or run the country with dementia or win an election from a dementia patient or keep their government job after being hired by a dementia patient.
The fundamental cultural and social instability deliberately being introduced by such patently stupid ideas like "open borders", "2 men = 1 man + 1 woman"/"Don't say gay", and Student Loan Forgiveness causing the rise in searches for ideas about rigged systems, numbers games, payouts and free shit, etc. rather than some sort of mystery addiction.
>>describe their ability to go to Church
my mother holds the keys to her small-town Episcopal church and the other people with influence want her to give them up so they can defy ice but instead she's defying them ... I mailed her a byrna pepper gun lol
You know who else did an internet search and concluded, without the slightest bit of skepticism, that Federal employees make $8 a year?
That was funny.
Maybe not, but…… every time I watch my favorite hockey team play I’m always reminded toward the end of the period that “the fan duel sports net problem gambling intermission report is up next!” …. An odd juxtaposition given that they are constantly updating prop bets and parlays on the bottom of the screen in game.
I’m sure they’re very concerned. Haha.
I hear that searches for broken kneecaps are steady. That's calming news.
........women and minorities hardest hit.
I don't have any problems gambling. It's just that I have a big problem winning.
What bugs me are the Draft Kings ads during live football games. It's like, come on guys - you're eroding what little confidence I have that I'm not watching something that's actively being rigged for the purpose of sports betting.
There are shampoos for de-lousing available at drugstores.
It's odd that you're familiar with that, but OK. Thanks for sharing I guess.
And shower more, maybe? Stop proving the LOLertarian trope.
“A study published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine claims to reveal a surge in gambling addiction following the legalization of sports betting.”
Since when has gambling addiction been an issue of internal medicine?
Somebody needs to learn the definition of addiction/addictive. Gambling, Older women, Cigarettes, Cocaine and weed ain't it. Opium and its derivatives and imitations are that thing, and nothing else.
can you do phobia next?
How Prohibitionists do research: call ALL use of whatever they want to ban "addiction".
i think you guys should embrace that your policies hurt people, rather than trying to deflect.
you're pieces of shit that think profit is more valuable than human life; own it!