Gambling (Pro) the Positive Effects

Gambling (Pro)

The positive effects of organized gambling on many aspect of modern life outweigh the harmful effects predicted by those who oppose legalizing organized gambling. Opponents have beaten the drum concerning addition to gambling, characterizing it as demonic and likely to ruin the lives of countless millions, as drug and alcohol addiction are said to do. Proponents of legalizing organized gambling contend, instead, that gambling is not an addiction, but a choice, and that the revenues to be derived from legalizing organized gambling can be used to -- among other things -- help reduce the real addictions in the United States to narcotics and alcohol.

Opponents claim that gambling is the "fastest growing addiction" (Horn, 1997) in the U.S. And that "There are millions of adult pathological gamblers in America and, more ominous, millions of teenagers are addicted as well" (Horn, 1997). The same author contends that governments are equally "hooked" and have become dependent on the revenues from casinos, slot machines, keno and lotto. This assertion -- suggesting that a government can experience addiction -- helps the proponent of legalized organized gambling in two ways. First, it suggests that perhaps gambling is not the same sort of addiction as narcotics addiction or alcohol abuse. Second, it makes note that gambling does add substantially to government treasuries; whether a government can be 'addicted' to its income is debatable, certainly, as a scientific fact. That a government can use that income for social good is less debatable, dependent mainly on the good will of the politicians elected to office in any given pro-gambling state.

That gambling has grown is not debatable. Horn notes:

Between 1976 and 1988, casinos were legalized in Atlantic City and the number of state lotteries more than doubled. Since 1988, 19 states legalized casinos and 10 legalized video poker or slot machines at racetracks and bars. All told, Americans will wager more than $550,000,000,000 on legal gambling this year -- a 3,200% increase since 1976 (1997).

Horn also contends that gambling addiction is a real as alcohol or drug abuse, and that "Experts on pathological gambling have shown that the prevalence of this disorder is linked closely to the accessibility and acceptability of gambling in society" (Horn, 1997). Richard Vatz, a professor of psychology at Towson University in Maryland, a state that has been debating legalizing slots for several years, thinks the media hype concerning gambling as psychiatric disorder called pathological or compulsive gambling is ludicrous. Worse still, Vatz believes, is that the speaker of the Maryland House is the son of a man whose alcohol and gambling problems destroyed the family. "Thus Mr. Busch becomes the equivalent of the reformed addict in this case the son of the addict who is going to make all of Maryland pay for his misperceptions regarding the cause of his family's problems" (Vatz, 2003. p. A20)

Vatz contends that the reason the stories such as those of Mr. Busch keep the public from embracing gambling for the good it can do in terms of increasing state coffers is that the public has become accustomed to the term "compulsive gambling" and refuse to believe that it is via "conscious choice that some people devastate their lives by gambling and losing amounts they just cannot afford" (Vatz, 2003, p. A20) rather than via some chemical imbalance in their brain or body, as in alcohol or drug addiction. Vatz notes that calling heavy gambling an addiction "falsely loads the argument against slots; there is no neurochemical or neurophysiological change causally linked to heavy gambling, only some changes that occur as the result of its excitement (increased adrenaline, temporary rise in blood pressure, etc.) (2003,p. A20). Vatz notes that those who gamble too much and suffer as a result have freely made that choice as "No force extrinsic to willpower forces people to gamble" (2003, p. A20).

Opponents also use the argument that African-Americans suffer "alleged disproportionate financial devastation" (Vatz and Weinberg, 2003) when organized gambling is legalized. They also, however, cite research that notes that "blacks actually are less likely to gamble than whites" (Vatz and Weinberg, 2003), although those who do gamble do so more often and lose more money. This leads opponents to claim that they suffer disproportionately from the "pathological" form of gambling; Vatz, as noted earlier, does not accept that there is pathology associated with the 'choice' to gamble, which would make moot the points concerning African-American gambling damage.

Benefits of legalizing organized gambling

Whether or not there is any truly psychological or pathological component in gambling (and Vatz makes a good case that there is not), there are positive societal effects of gambling, not least of which is the contribution it makes to the modern economy. For example, with dotcoms having plunged from their initial moneymaking heights, "The online gambling industry remains one of the Internet's few cash cows, with much of its success owed to an increase in demand from U.S. consumers" (Krebs, 2003).

Despite the efforts of various politicians, such as the Maryland Speaker of the House, to curb gambling in various states, the virtually untouchable Internet makes it possible for anyone, anywhere to gamble. Americans are responsible, globally, for most of the growth in online gambling. The U.S. General Accounting Office projected Internet gambling revenues at above $5 billion in 2003, "with 50 to 70% of that revenue from U.S. customers" (Krebs, 2003).