Sat 27 Jan 2007
A few days ago, in my corporate strategy class at the U, we discussed the social and economic impact of legalized gambling. Utah, you might know, shares the ignominy with Hawaii as the only two states to ban all forms of gambling (or “gaming” as some like to euphemistically refer to it.)
Some have argued that Utah is missing out on millions of dollars in tourism and taxable gambling revenues as its citizens leave the state headed for Wendover, Las Vegas, Idaho Powerball and Evanston horse races. Allow me to sum up the salient elements of each side of the gambling divide:
Points made by the pro-gamblers include:
1. Money goes to good causes like education (I find this strikingly manipulative, by the way) and transportation.
2. People are going to do it anyway, why not capitalize on it?
3. Gambling is merely recreation.
4. Gambling is essentially the same thing as speculation/day-trading on the stock market.
Points made by the anti-gamblers include:
1. “Gambling is a tax for people who are bad at math” and as such, it disproportionally affects the young and less educated
2. Gamblers are also overrepresented
among minorities (esp. black) and low income citizens (a.)(b.)(c.)
3. Gambling is addictive
4. Compulsive gambling is detrimental to families.
5. Gambling increases crime, bankruptcy and divorce.
I am in the latter school of thought and am against state-sanctioned gambling. Here’s why: I believe governments have a moral and ethical mandate to legislate for actions that strengthen society and against activities that are deleterious to it. Permitting gambling within Utah’s borders is the legal equivalent of a stamp of approval. There is no doubt that facilitating access to lottery tickets, etc would increase the numbers of gambling participants as well as the overall frequency in which participants gamble. The idea that in a cost-benefit analysis, the benefits outweigh the social costs is a dangerous one; that same “ends justify the means” is used by those supporting embryonic stem cell research and likely too by Nazi scientist Josef Mengele. Hazardous means remain hazardous regardless of the potentially meritorious ends.
Where do you stand?
a. An Exploratory Study of Lottery Playing, Gambling Addiction and Links to Compulsive Consumption. Alvin Burns, Peter Gillett, Marc Rubinstein and James Gentry. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.17, 1990. “Lottery players also tended to have lower incomes and be less educated than nonplayers.“
b. New Jersey Low Income and Minority Resident Lottery Participation. Allison Jackson Associates. New Jersey Division of State Lottery, July, 1988. “… low income players spend a larger proportion of their household income on the lottery than do other players, and blacks spend more on a weekly basis than do whites or Hispanics.“
c. Adult Survey of Minnesota Gambling Behavior: A Benchmark, 1990. Laundergan, Schaefer, Eckhoff and Pirie. Minnesota Department of Human Services, November, 1990. “Males, non-whites and respondents under the age of 34 were all overrepresented among problem gamblers and potential and probable pathological gamblers based on a modified version of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS-M).“
d. Harvard Magazine, Trafficking in Chance. Craig Lambert
“Legalized gambling is inherently parasitic on any economy. . . . it always hurts the economy; it always creates large socioeconomic problems. And that intensifies the need for tax dollars to address the new problems that they are creating by legalizing gambling.” — Professor John Kindt of the University of Illinois
Addition to Point 5 on the against gambling side:
“…a lot”.
Very scientific, I know.
I appreciate your use of the words “deleterious” and “meritorious”.
Where do I stand? I love entrepreneurship, so I guess *certain* kinds of gambling, I condone, at least in terms of financial risk-taking.
Other than that, I’m anti-gambling, for all the usual reasons, not to mention that the few times I’ve been in a casino, it just feels icky.
However, as a hypocritical counterpoint, if you check out my 365 List from last year,
http://www.carolynnduncan.com/the-365-list/
you’ll see that #66 is indeed:
66. Go to a casino (gambling optional).
And there’s your stinking comment. (Now, about my $5.00 comment fee?)
Approximately 2 days ago, you were “discussing” this exact topic in the break room at work. At that point you were very much pushing the legalized gambling avenue.
So did you change your mind or were you just playing devil’s advocate? Regardless of your stance then, you obviously eventually came around to my side.
I pride myself in being able to sway the burgeoning intellect of “The Byrd”.
Hi Dan! One of my running theories is that discussing a topic in a few different venues before blogging on it very much helps me grasp the differing points of view. The lunchroom on that particular day was one of those instances. Do I sometimes play devil’s advocate in order to encourage vigorous debate? Maybe
Oh, and before I get all the complaints, yes the gambling chart graphic is misleading (leave it to Harvard Magazine…) The numbers should be adjusted for today’s dollars and for population growth and probably also for growth in average salary.
I don’t care either way, personally. The ~1 hour drive to Wendover doesn’t kill me.
I would like to point out something else, though. Simply substitute “gambling” for “playing World of Warcraft”.
3. Playing World of Warcraft is addictive
4. Compulsive World of Warcraft playing is detrimental to families.
5. Playing World of Warcraft increases [...] divorce.
I know far more people whose families have been affected by World of Warcraft than by gambling. Perhaps because gambling is not legal here? I don’t know — sure.
Hi, Nick! I think World of Warcraft also prevents people from getting married, (or doing *anything* else, for that matter.)
Down with WOW!!!
How does Halo weigh in there? And… anyone up for a game?
Alright, Nick! Why did you have to go and bash World of Warcraft? The same can be said for anything to a degree. Video games, gambling, additions to cars, racing, skydiving, heck, even Sundance (if, for example, you went and watched Zoo this year.
Gambling puts people out on the streets. World of Warcraft just puts people into fat-gaining chairs.
Carolynn — You’re a Halo fan? Are you waiting for Halo 3 Beta to start?
–William
Can we pinpoint a different part of gambling? Let’s focus on winning. I have a story about a person that won millions in a jackpot.
Years back, in early 2000-2001, a middle-aged man with a family won the power ball jackpot in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. When asked what he was going to do with the money, he of course responded along the lines of quitting his job, buying an extravagant house, taking care of his family, and all of the other wonderful ideas that pop into our heads when we have access or think of having access to large sums of money. Unfortunately, he lost track of those ideas. A few years into his money-filled-days of fun, his daughters best friend was found in a dumpster as an overdose victim. Not long after, his own daughter overdosed in one of the bedrooms of his huge house. If memory, as fuzzy as it may be, serves me correctly, he and his wife are no longer together. You see, gambling has bad effects either way you look at it. If you lose big, you’re homeless. If you win big, well, your life can fall apart just as well.
I support gambling, but only to the degree of leaving wallets and cards elsewhere than your body, and only gambling with what you can afford to lose. If you lose it all, leave, go home, and continue. If you win a bit, say, 2x your money (if you’re lucky), smile and walk out — go buy something nice to spoil yourself. Any other kind of gambling, well, I’m not pro to it, as it’s a quick way to deteriorate life.
Later!
–Will
I support the WoW. I know this one individual that lives in lets just say “The ranches”. He is addicted to World of Warcraft so much he rarely gets the “lovin”. I hope he can pull thru!
I on the other hand have got my wife involved in playing. I don’t get the RL “lovin” much any more.. But what is wrong with “virtual lovin” right?
Um. There isn’t even a comparison between a video game and gambling. You’re just trying to spark a debate. But maybe people’s post should be more focused on what the topic of this blog is really about.
And I for one vote against gambling because of tradition in the state of Utah pushing the state to be family oriented.
I very much support gambling. I mean it is like everything(i.e. drinking). It only those that have no control that have a problem with it.
Also note, that our state taxes including sales tax would probably be lower if gambling existed.
The question of gambling is a moral question.
Gambling is a game of chance that takes without giving value in return. Gambling puts money or other things of value into a pool and then redistributes it on the basis of a roll of the dice, a spin of the wheel, or a drawing of a number. Nothing of value is produced in the process. The act of taking or trying to take something from someone else without giving value in return is destructive.
Gambling is a progressive thing. Usually it begins modestly; and then, like many other hazardous habits, it often grows beyond control. At best it wastes time and produces nothing. At worst it becomes a ruinous obsession and fosters false living by encouraging the futile belief that we can continually get something for nothing.
Law is concerned about morality, and there are serious legal-moral objections to state lotteries. I quote five of these objections from a publication of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission:
I quote five of these objections from a publication of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission:
“It is a moral issue when the state decides to derive income from an activity which is a highly regressive form of taxation that affects poor people more extensively than affluent people.
“It is a moral issue when a state decides not only to tolerate gambling but to get in the business of planning games, engaging in promotional activities … and targeting its citizens through extensive marketing analyses in the hopes of creating new gamblers. …
“It is a moral issue when a state adopts a form of gambling which in all probability will increase the extent and the amount of illegal gambling.
“It is a moral issue when a state adopts a form of gambling that will draw off large amounts of money, especially from the poor people for whom the state supposedly has a responsibility to provide assistance.
“It is a moral issue when a state engages in naive projections and adopts financial planning that amounts to putting a shoddy patch on a state’s long-term financial problems.� 35
To summarize: that governments would tolerate gambling is regrettable; that governments would promote gambling is reprehensible.
Sno,
I’m disagreeing with this:
“Only those that have no control that have a problem with it.”
Maybe I’ve been brainwashed too much by all those “The Truth” Utah anti-smoking radio ads, but if you make a comparison between gambling and smoking with the same logic, it doesn’t weigh out right.
i.e.
“gambling is only a problem to those who can’t control themselves”
“smoking is only a problem to those who can’t control themselves”
both are addictive– after a very short time, a person’s ability to choose/control oneself is obliterated, and then comes all of the damaging effects, usually lasting life-long.
as a consumer and a business owner
, i have no problem paying a higher sales tax if the alternative is widespread societal devastation brought on by gambling.
William,
Yep, the cat’s out of the bag. Spending the last six months in a tech startup with 12 geeks made Halo a corporate mandate.
But, I’m not an aficionada enough to know there was a Beta 3 coming out. I’m always behind the times, it seems.
We’re about to switch this from a morality standpoint to an addictive standpoint. You’re basing your resolution on the idea that there is a proven fact of ‘addiction’ when an ‘addiction’ is really just being used to a frequent and mentally normal activity in your environment.
That is why a lot of people in Utah are not ‘addicted’ to gambling; simply because the source is not available to them.
If casinos existed in Utah, sure, some people would not have the self control to know when to stop (hence, losing control as snow put it. However, most know that creating a ‘habit’ (as in my writing is the same thing as an ‘addiction’) out of an event that is more negative than positive is a bad thing, so they do not do it. Going to Vegas once or twice a year to lose money is acceptable, but look at Vegas — there’s nothing to do -but- gamble, so of course that is all people do — it’s enivronment.
Change your environment and you change your ‘addiction’. IE:
1) Get rid of Internet, no more WoW
2) No casinos, no gambling
3) No cigarettes, no smoking
The inability to chose or control oneself is an excuse for people that do not want to change their habits. They feel they receive something from that habit that makes it worthwhile to them. However, it’s just a habit, which requires self control. It’s a personal choice.
Gambling is a bad habit, but only when it becomes a habit. If you keep the lid on it and -control- yourself, a casino near SLC wouldn’t be a huge downfall unless people couldn’t control their own habit.
Take control of yourself, your actions, and the responsibilities of your actions.
However, off that nit-picking point (sorry Carolynn). I, too, believe Gambling is not a good idea for Utah — specifically because of the culture and the focus on family. You don’t have a fun family event taking the kiddo’s to a casino
.
I agree that it is a bad choice — at least give me tokens I can turn in for gifts when I’m done gambling my money away
.
–Will
Well Mr. Byrd, you seem to have a chord and a nerve…all in one swing. Nice work.
This is the record-breaking 19th comment. (Is it 19?)
I got 20! Woo hoo!
what zeal! what zest! But, seriously, folks, let’s stay focused here, eh? I’ll bet you five bucks you can do it!
I am focused on creating Comment Numero 22. Where’s my $5?
Shouldn’t that be “Commentario Numero 22″?
Two points:
1) Mr. Will, I vehemently disagree that habits and addictions are of equal magnitude. They are not synonymous. Are nail biters addicts? Are habitual interrupters addicts? Is not a “drug habit” anything but? Perhaps we can think of addictions as extreme neurotic habits so, if anything, an addiction is a diabolical subset within the habit spectrum.
Addictions are orders of magnitude more dire and entrenched than any habit. Alcoholics are defined, in part, by their inability to stop drinking, even in the face of high personal and vocational costs.
We all ought to stop using “habit” in place of “addiction”.
2) On top of Jeff’s point that gambling is immoral because one gets something for nothing, the gambling industry is often tied to mafia groups, terrorists, and other criminal elements. Enormous gambling profits (i.e. your losses) go to fund their wholesome activities. I have no desire to make a donation to their causes. Gambling can stay far way from me and my town.
Cory – See my notes:
1) Mr. Will, I vehemently disagree that habits and addictions are of equal magnitude. They are not synonymous. Are nail biters addicts?
– If they can not control the habit, yes — are you stating that an addiction is only based on the severity of the results?
Are habitual interrupters addicts?
– see comments below
Is not a “drug habit� anything but? Perhaps we can think of addictions as extreme neurotic habits so, if anything, an addiction is a diabolical subset within the habit spectrum.
A drug habit becomes a physical need based on the results of the chemical reactions. If chewing your nails created a chemical response of releasing a large amount of Serotonin, then it would become an addiction; such as gambling.
I was incorrect, or rather, poor at communicating in my prior writing. I believe in addiction, but I also believe that your environment plays a huge role on an addiction. Take for example, gambling. A person may become addicted to gambling because it releases large amounts of Serotonin into their system. They only get this chemical effect at this magnitude when gambling, hence, they continue to gamble away their money until they are broke, homeless, and the other effects of the .5-2.5% of highly addicted gamblers. However, if, for example, one of those addicted gamblers found out that another event, such as excessive speeding, had the same effect, I believe they could do either or without being specific to one event. If the local casino is shut down, they may replace that activity with more excessive speeding — the addiction isn’t so much to ‘gambling’ as to any activity with the same chemical response.
An addiction is not as much to the act of the event but to the effect of the event, which may be the same effect over multiple events.
Now, I don’t argue the affect of outside source chemicals and their addictive properties, but I also put a large emphasis on the environmental factors around the activity, both to start the habit and to continue with the habit.
So, I apologize — after a long discussion with Ryan and Beau, I felt I needed to clarify.
Now, as for your #2 item: Are you trying to say no to gambling by association? Last time I checked, anyone and everyone could gamble, and if they wanted, could open a casino. I don’t agree with your associations being a good reason not to gable.
G’day
–Will
[...] 5. Gamble [...]
I am in Ryan’s computer in Salt Lake City. Where are you?