Gambling: Then And Now

Courtesy of USA based Forbes, here's a well-written commentary on the legalisation of Internet gambling, looking back on the history of opposition to gambling (religious busy-bodies) as well as presenting a sensible view on the subject with some salient facts in the face of continuing illogical opposition.

In 1388 Richard II passed a statute requiring people to buy items necessary for the martial arts and to stop spending money on "casting stone, and other importune games." A century and a half later, Henry VIII passed a law against gambling on the grounds that it diminished military ability because people spent leisure time gaming rather than practicing archery. Or so the bowyers, fletchers, stringers and arrowhead makers claimed in their petition. If you cannot compete, then get the government to outlaw the competition and disguise your motives with patriotic or moral outrage.

The Puritans condemned gambling because they opposed "idleness." The Massachusetts Bay Colony in its first year of existence outlawed not only the possession of cards, dice and gaming tables, but also dancing, singing and all "unnecessary" walking on Sundays. The Blue Laws of Connecticut in 1650 denounced gambling because it fostered too much "unfruitful" time.

Only in 1737 did the Massachusetts legislators change anti-gambling laws, noting that lawful games and exercises are innocent and moderate recreations.

Unsurprisingly, religious institutions often fought gambling. It was competition for people's leisure time, for their small change, and for their view of life too. Buying $10 worth of lottery tickets meant betting for better life on Earth in contrast to $10 on alms that implied bets for a better afterlife. Religious institutions eventually wanted all gambling outlawed, except for Church raffles and bingo in Church basements.

By the 20th century new interests emerged to attack the gambling industry. In the 1920s the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce opposed gambling on two grounds. First, it argued that retailers and established sources of entertainment such as movie theaters lose business during the racing season. Second, petty crimes "increase enormously."

Closer examination reveals that crime is linked more with tourism than with gambling: Large, transitory crowds provide easy prey and criminals disappear more easily in crowds. People may preach for competition in principle, but companies do not like it in practice and will fight with words to crush it.

In Florida opponents of the liberalization of gambling laws included Disney World. With casinos commissioning family friendly Cirque du Soleil, Disney's opposition is not that surprising.

Some anti-gambling crusaders argue that the industry is a drag on a nation's cultural aspirations. These opinions are also unfounded. Opera and ballet flourished when casinos financed them, including St. Carlo and La Scala. The casino profits essentially paid for new ballets and new operas. A remnant of the arrangement survived in Monte Carlo.

Las Vegas has updated this once customary financial and entertainment combination. It has supported everything from cabaret acts to Cirque de Soleil, Celine Dion, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Steve Wynn's impressionist art collection.

A recent study has found that 86,000 Quebecois spend a median amount of $856 gambling online per year, mostly unmarried males under 44. The average amount is a much higher $9,903 because of a few high rollers. These numbers are misleading, because these players likely get back a rough average of 50% as winnings.

Allowing for the adjustments, these gamblers spend $35 and $412 per month, hardly more, respectively, than going out for a movie, a few cans of beer or a good restaurant with a good wine or, for that matter, an orchestra seat at the Metropolitan Opera.

Just as there are alcoholics, diet-obsessed anorexics, sex addicts and workaholics, there is no doubt that a minuscule percentage of people are addicted to gambling. Yet, while the alcoholic beverage, food and diet industries are all subject to regulation, gambling is singled out for special condemnation.

People know Dostoyevsky's classic novel The Gambler, which describes a weak man who promises himself every evening to abandon his addiction, but cannot. Few know that Dostoyevsky himself was passionate about gambling and worked feverishly to pay down debts necessary to pursue his passion.

He wrote his best novels, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Possessed and The Gambler during the time he gambled. He married, and by 1871 he stopped gambling. His creative period ended.

Although there have been plenty of movie adaptations of Dostoyevsky's novels, we do not know of one that shows him overcoming his gambling problem and settling into calm domesticity. But "calm domesticity" does not sell TV shows or movies. The gambler who gets into debt, commits crime and jumps out of high-rises does. There will always be isolated tragedies. Exaggerating fears and fictionalizing the past can ruin the future.

Worrying about youth and potential addiction has merit, but there are solutions. Software is available for identification, verification and automatic monitoring to warn or to discipline the player. Controlling compulsive behavior may be easier online than off-line. There is nobody to tap them on the shoulder to suggest they should call it a day in a dark, land-based casino.

Why is Internet gambling back on the political agenda now? Money. Falling revenues are Mothers of Invention in business and for governments.

Legalizing online gambling and regulating it properly would help establish an already thriving global industry, attract investment, retain entrepreneurs and brains specialized in this business, while increasing employment and tax revenues, just as it currently does in London. If the U.S. wants a thriving new industry, then it should not just legalize internet gambling, but de-monopolize it and, as with all industry, hold the companies accountable for their actions.