Internet Gambling: Why, if at all, should we care?
July 30, 2006
“If an adult in this country, with his or her own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how dare we prohibit it . . . .”
So argued Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) earlier this month as the House of Representatives was set to approve the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. If passed by the Senate, an outcome that may be in jeopardy, the Act would prohibit most forms of internet gambling and make it illegal for credit card companies and banks to transmit payments to online gambling companies.
I suspect that a majority of Americans not only would agree with Mr. Frank in principle, they might concur that the government ought not seek to ban internet gambling. According to a recent poll apparently commissioned by the Poker Players Alliance, 67% of American adults believe that the federal government should not “be managing Americans gambling behaviors on the Internet.”So, why is it that more than three out of four of Mr. Frank’s colleagues disagreed, as the House of Representatives passed the Act by a vote of 317-93?
There was a time when I would have taken the cynical view that many House members were simply doing the bidding of powerful special interests, namely the gaming establishments in their jurisdictions. This seems to be Walter Williams’ take: “Let’s follow the money and ask who benefits if the law passes.” There’s probably some truth in this explanation, but I doubt it represents anything close to the whole truth.
I suspect that that the House overwhelmingly passed this legislation in large part because they disagree with Mr. Frank’s premise that internet gambling is “an activity that harms no one.” There was evidence before the House that internet gambling harms not only pathological and problem gamblers but society as a whole. Since 1994, gambling opponents have claimed that, for every $1 of public benefits from gambling activities, taxpayers incur at least $3 in increased costs due to, for instance, increased traffic within the criminal justice and social welfare systems. See Testimony of Professor John Kindt, at 4. I am aware of no authoritative academic study refuting the 3:1 ratio.The costs of internet gambling arguably are even higher than the costs of conventional forms of gambling, like racetrack and sports betting and casino card and table games. Most of the (quantifiable) social costs of gambling are generated by the pathological gambler. The faster the game – i.e., the faster the gambler gets a reward for an action taken – the faster he or she will become a pathological gambler, all else equal. With conventional gambling forms, it may take three years for an addiction to form; with electronic gambling devices that fall may take as little as a year. See A Legacy of Luck. It’s no wonder that the psychological community commonly refers to electronic gambling as “crack cocaine” for gamblers. See Kindt Testimony at 5.
Finally, I can attest to the allure and power of online gambling. In early 2003, I was introduced to online poker and took an immediate liking to it. The competition was fun, the action fast, and the next game always just a mouse click away. I was hooked. A year later, just before retiring, I was regularly playing online poker two or more hours a day, five or more days a week. In retrospect, I cannot believe how often and long I played, and how I thought nothing of doing so.I consider myself among the fortunate. My habit did not destroy us financially. It even became profitable in the end. My habit did not obviously keep me from carrying out my responsibilities as a father, as my playing hours were almost always limited to the late evening or early morning hours when the girls were asleep. Sadly, the same cannot be said about my marriage. All those hours staring at flops, turns and rivers came at the expense of not just sleep, but time that should have been spent nurturing my relationship with my bride. Thank God I woke up before the damage was too great. Thank God for giving me a repentant heart.
Even if we care about the harm threatened by internet gambling, what if anything should we do about it? I’ll take up that question another day.
Comments
I too have experienced the thrill of gambling. Even the losing doesn't dissuade an addictive personality. I seem to try all the more, anticipating the win with more gusto - "Next time...Just wait". All I was playing was the slot machines at Vegas - the nickel and dime slots!
We were there for a convention and I had no intention of stepping foot in the casinos, but..I did. By the third day, I was rummaging around in pockets and purses in our hotel room, searching for "just one more coin". I lost all I had ($100 cash), depleted my debit card account($200) and begged my husband for more. Fortunately, it was time to go home.
It was a good experience for me. I learned how easily I am enticed and how readily I succomb to the temptation and lure of gambling. God revealed to me how weak I am and how much I need Him to get me through everyday. However, it's not just gambling. The world is one big "candy store" and Satan's ready, willing and able to provide me with whatever will come between me and God, BUT thankfully God is ready to provide the power to resist Satan's persistant ploys. It's a never ending battle, one I face daily.
Posted by: Kate Mason | August 1, 2006 03:57 PM
Kate, it seems that you agree with the House that gambling (and by implication, internet gambling) causes significant social harm. Even so, what should the government do about it?
Ought we ban it? Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, argues, “Prohibitions don’t work. Poker players will find a way to play. This won’t stop anything. It will just drive people underground.” While I agree that making internet gambling illegal might drive it underground, I think it is an overreach to argue that it “won’t stop anything.” It seems reasonable to predict that a prohibition not only would curtail internet gambling, it would help reverse our culture’s growing acceptance of it as just another form of harmless entertainment.
Rep. Barney Frank contends, “When people abuse a particular practice, the sensible thing is to try to deal with the abuse, not outlaw it.” I agree that society – not just government – ought to try to treat internet gambling abuse. And perhaps we could mitigate some of the harm by regulating access to it and require internet gambling companies to pay a significant percentage of revenues into funds to help those harmed by gambling. But there seems something perverse about (1) permitting adults to engage in conduct that we confidently can predict will be severely harmful to a small percentage of people, and then (2) protecting them from the harsh consequences of their destructive behavior.
Posted by: zwilson | August 6, 2006 07:20 PM
Ramsey,
As a Conservative, I agree with less government involvement in my life.
As a Christian, I believe God is the guide/way for my life's direction. I must choose His Way over and over again. How can I wish that freedom for myself and yet seek to withhold that ability to choose from others? Sounds very hypocritical, doesn't it?
Posted by: Kate Mason | August 21, 2006 10:14 AM