Calling a Spade a Spade

Posted at 07:28PM on Nov 10, 2008 by web

I have a close friend who’s into Internet gambling. He’s underage. He’s also made more money in an afternoon than I made all last summer.

For some reason, gambling is looked down upon, put into the category of other illicit activities like taking drugs and drinking alcohol (gasp!). I just saw one of those commercials offering a toll-free help line for those with an addiction to gambling – you know, dark background, guy with his hands in his pockets saying something like, “Do you gamble when you’re depressed? Is your spouse angry about the amount of money you’re losing?” Ads like these reinforce the view of gambling as something dangerous, which is almost as misleading as the classic gambling-as-temptation-by-the-devil rhetoric.

Government restrictions on gambling are numerous. In the US, opening a casino requires a license, and the number of casinos and types of games are limited. In a somewhat hypocritical move, the government forbids the opening of casinos in New York City, but allows New Yorkers to bet on horse races outside of the city at government-run off-track betting stores. In Canada, online gambling is illegal, and the types of games are restricted. Nonetheless, the government took advantage of a different form of gambling in 1976, when it used lotteries to fund the Olympics. This mix of freedom and restriction suggests that our governments aren’t really out to protect the people, but rather to use gambling to make money when it suits them – which is also witnessed in heavy taxation of casinos and high licensing fees.

There are several rather lukewarm justifications for regulating gambling. First, if indulged in excessively and recklessly, it can be detrimental not only to the individual but also to families. It’s certainly risky – you can lose a lot of money, fast. But you can also lose a lot of money investing in the stock market, especially today. And the risks of some games may not be as high as they appear; in poker, players can increase their odds by observing the behavior of other players and learning detailed systems of betting (all of which make the game much more intellectual than the anti-gambling crusaders would have you believe). But no matter what the game, the risk is assumed by the player; the flashing lights and glittery signs do not force him to lay down his money.

Another objection may be that casinos are the classic, greedy big-business monsters exploiting the little people. The odds ultimately favor the “house,” so average players will lose in the long run. But again, the response is the same: if you don’t like the odds, don’t sit down to play. We don’t need laws that limit the temptations available to us; we should be free to do what we want with our own money, and disagreements among spouses should be a private matter.

The restrictions on gambling – like limiting the number of casinos that can be opened – are an example of the government-as-parent scheme. We become the naïve children, who don’t have the willpower to resist slot machines and poker tables, and Stephen Harper covers our eyes so we won’t be tempted to evil deeds. But instead of being government-regulated, gambling should be self-regulated; at some point, we need to grow up and learn to take care of ourselves.

-Kira Newman