A Reckless Gamble?

The gambling industry has grown tenfold in the United States since legal restrictions began loosening in 1975. Last month, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission released its long-awaited report on gambling, which is permitted in some form in 47 states. Here are personal statements from two of the commission members.

This commission observed that gambling has widespread public support. Most Americans, whether or not they agree with gambling as a form of recreation, feel strongly that government should not attempt to regulate individual conduct.

Americans agree that gambling must be closely regulated to exclude criminal elements and to provide fair games, collection of tax revenues, protection from adolescent involvement and location suitability. They also agree that each individual, and not the government, is best able to decide about engaging in gambling for recreation and entertainment.

I endorse this viewpoint and likewise agree with those who argue that decisions concerning the legalization of gambling are best implemented locally and that government’s role in gambling should be limited to regulatory activities and the provision of assistance to those compulsive individuals who do not deal with gambling responsibly.

This commission’s recommendations wisely leave untouched the historic federal-state relationship where the authorization, taxation and regulation of gambling is primarily a state, and not a federal, matter.

The two exceptions, which in my view are appropriate exceptions, are gambling operated by Native American governments and gambling over the Internet.

Because of the unique nature of tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s trust obligations to Native Americans, there is a clear federal responsibility in tribal gambling. Because of the nature of the Internet’s technology, federal involvement is necessary to assist the states in enforcing their policy determinations on the types of gambling that are lawfully available within their borders.

This commission less wisely recommended, by only a one-vote majority, that the gambling industry be excluded from financial participation in state and local elections and that all legal wagering on intercollegiate athletic events be prohibited.

While I strongly support campaign finance reform, singling out one industry is fundamentally unfair.

Also, there is no support in the commission’s record for further extending the federal prohibition on intercollegiate sports wagering. Not one college sports scandal is the result of legal sports wagering.

To the contrary, legal sports wagering in Nevada has assisted athletic leagues in their enforcement activities aimed at preventing game fixing and point shaving. Instead of further restricting legal sports wagering, the commission would have been better served to recognize sports wagering’s overwhelming acceptance by the American people and to recommend, instead, further legalization and strict regulation.

It’s my hope that this commission’s legacy will be its recommendations calling for identification and treatment of, and research about, those individuals who do not deal with gambling responsibly and who, in many cases, manifest other forms of compulsive behavior, such as drug and alcohol abuse.

Even if only partially implemented, the commissions far-reaching research recommendations will lead to a much-needed expansion of the body of knowledge about problem and pathological gambling.

The recommendations that deal with the identification and treatment of problem and pathological gamblers, who are a small percentage of the population but a large number of troubled people, address a societal problem that has gone unrecognized and neglected for far too long.

For another view, see Richard C. Leone’s article under same headline.