Gambling is growing rapidly and, as the Citizen reported this past weekend, serious problems are growing along with it. Some gamblers lose control, leading them into bankruptcy, despair and even suicide. But that's no reason to ban gambling.
Human beings have gambled since the beginning of time, and even the toughest law enforcement won't stop them from playing games of chance. Prior to legalized gambling, every Canadian city had bookies, illegal lotteries and underground casinos. In the 1940s, a Harvard sociologist studying gambling in "Toronto the Good" concluded there were 10 major casinos and 400 "stores" -- fronts such as pool halls and barber shops where bets were received.
The industry was controlled by "thugs and gunmen," as Conservative leader George Drew said in 1942. These criminals collected debts by breaking bones. And they protected their operations by paying off police officers, politicians and judges. All major cities were racked every few years by corruption scandals that invariably were followed by crackdowns, public inquiries and reforms. And then another scandal would break out.
By the 1960s, many people agreed that gambling prohibition was no different than alcohol prohibition: It was impossible to enforce, it put gambling beyond government control, and it handed the profits to criminals. Public support for legalization was overwhelming and it finally came in 1969.
Legalization did what it was supposed to. Governments, not gangsters, now control most of the gambling industry, and the crime and corruption of underground gambling have been drastically reduced. And gambling profits are being put to good use, with the government of Ontario alone receiving $2 billion a year from the industry.
Prohibiting gambling is about as bad an idea as having no gambling laws at all. Between those two extremes lies a whole range of ways we can regulate. We first need to accept that gambling -- and gambling-related harms -- will always exist. Then we have to find the mix of regulations that most effectively minimizes those harms.
That takes knowledge. We need more research into which forms of gambling pose more risks than others. Since most people find gambling to be a harmless entertainment, we need to know what factors make gambling for some people as dangerous as playing Russian roulette.
With solid information in hand, policy should be adjusted cautiously.
A fundamental question should be whether governments should merely regulate the industry, or whether they should actually run gambling operations. Lotteries and other games of chance generate billions of dollars in revenues for provincial treasuries, and it is valid to ask whether those provinces are really doing enough to discourage people from gambling or to warn them about the potential risks.
At a minimum, misleading marketing must stop. The odds of winning Lotto 6/49, for example, are a mind-bending one in 14 million, which makes the implicit message of lottery ads -- that lotteries are a realistic way to improve one's life -- nothing less than fraudulent. Yet, for all the problems caused by gambling, history should remind us that trying to ban it completely would be even worse.
www.canada.com
Human beings have gambled since the beginning of time, and even the toughest law enforcement won't stop them from playing games of chance. Prior to legalized gambling, every Canadian city had bookies, illegal lotteries and underground casinos. In the 1940s, a Harvard sociologist studying gambling in "Toronto the Good" concluded there were 10 major casinos and 400 "stores" -- fronts such as pool halls and barber shops where bets were received.
The industry was controlled by "thugs and gunmen," as Conservative leader George Drew said in 1942. These criminals collected debts by breaking bones. And they protected their operations by paying off police officers, politicians and judges. All major cities were racked every few years by corruption scandals that invariably were followed by crackdowns, public inquiries and reforms. And then another scandal would break out.
By the 1960s, many people agreed that gambling prohibition was no different than alcohol prohibition: It was impossible to enforce, it put gambling beyond government control, and it handed the profits to criminals. Public support for legalization was overwhelming and it finally came in 1969.
Legalization did what it was supposed to. Governments, not gangsters, now control most of the gambling industry, and the crime and corruption of underground gambling have been drastically reduced. And gambling profits are being put to good use, with the government of Ontario alone receiving $2 billion a year from the industry.
Prohibiting gambling is about as bad an idea as having no gambling laws at all. Between those two extremes lies a whole range of ways we can regulate. We first need to accept that gambling -- and gambling-related harms -- will always exist. Then we have to find the mix of regulations that most effectively minimizes those harms.
That takes knowledge. We need more research into which forms of gambling pose more risks than others. Since most people find gambling to be a harmless entertainment, we need to know what factors make gambling for some people as dangerous as playing Russian roulette.
With solid information in hand, policy should be adjusted cautiously.
A fundamental question should be whether governments should merely regulate the industry, or whether they should actually run gambling operations. Lotteries and other games of chance generate billions of dollars in revenues for provincial treasuries, and it is valid to ask whether those provinces are really doing enough to discourage people from gambling or to warn them about the potential risks.
At a minimum, misleading marketing must stop. The odds of winning Lotto 6/49, for example, are a mind-bending one in 14 million, which makes the implicit message of lottery ads -- that lotteries are a realistic way to improve one's life -- nothing less than fraudulent. Yet, for all the problems caused by gambling, history should remind us that trying to ban it completely would be even worse.
www.canada.com
