Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Gambling

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 13:18, 29 November 2007 (edit)
Pk0545 (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:30, 30 November 2007 (edit)
William Wnekowicz (Talk | contribs)
(Reverted edits by Pk0545 (Talk); changed back to last version by Brooks Lindsay)
Next diff →
Line 39: Line 39:
'''[[Argument that gambling is irrational and reckless and should, therefore, be regulated by governments]]:''' There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a gambler will lose money. This is ensured by the fact that Casinos are profit-minded organizations, and calculate their odds so that they will always make a profit. Because gamblers are always likely to lose and suffer as a result, the activity can be seen in many ways as an irrational engagement. '''[[Argument that gambling is irrational and reckless and should, therefore, be regulated by governments]]:''' There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a gambler will lose money. This is ensured by the fact that Casinos are profit-minded organizations, and calculate their odds so that they will always make a profit. Because gamblers are always likely to lose and suffer as a result, the activity can be seen in many ways as an irrational engagement.
-Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least afford to lose money. They should be protected from the temptation to gamble. I love Gamblieing it rocks but it doen't when i lose all my money But relly Gamblieing rocks you win so much money+Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least afford to lose money. They should be protected from the temptation to gamble.
Line 48: Line 48:
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +
====No==== ====No====
'''[[Contention that the general individual losses from gambling are justified by it being a fun and leisurely activity worth "paying" for]]:''' Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy. There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if they lose, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people go to bingo halls to spend time with friends. Society accepts people spending (“wasting”?) money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronizing to suggest that people, including those on low incomes, should not be able to choose how they spend their money. '''[[Contention that the general individual losses from gambling are justified by it being a fun and leisurely activity worth "paying" for]]:''' Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy. There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if they lose, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people go to bingo halls to spend time with friends. Society accepts people spending (“wasting”?) money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronizing to suggest that people, including those on low incomes, should not be able to choose how they spend their money.

Revision as of 19:30, 30 November 2007

Should gambling be banned or severely restricted? Or should casinos be encouraged?

This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by George Molyneaux. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Gambling is the betting of money on an outcome that is wholly or largely random. It includes things like bingo, roulette, raffles, lotteries, scratch-cards and slot machines. Some definitions of gambling would not include activities like betting on horse racing – although this arguably involves a large element of knowledge and skill to predict what is likely to happen. Card games are a grey area. Some card games, such as poker, have a considerable element of skill. It is therefore arguable that they should not be considered gambling. Other card games are largely a matter of luck. The precise legal definition of gambling varies from country to country. Most countries regulate gambling. For example, it is often necessary to have a licence to run a lottery or a casino. There is also usually a minimum age for gambling. Gambling is illegal in some jurisdictions, including several states of the USA and many Islamic countries. In contrast, some governments try to use gambling as a force for good. Many states run lotteries – the profits are used to pay for public services. In the USA Native American nations control their own affairs and often profit by being able to run casinos on reservations, attracting gamblers from surrounding states where gambling is banned. At the time of writing (August 2006), the British government was liberalizing gambling laws. It hopes to use casinos to create employment in disadvantaged areas. The arguments presented below mostly concern gambling in general. However, much current controversy relates to internet gambling. This form of gambling is covered in the last argument on either side. Several states of the USA have banned internet gambling. However, it has proved very hard to stop people using websites based in other countries.


You can click the pencil icon and edit and write here. What's a wiki?. Getting Started


Individual effects: Is gambling generally harmful to the individual gambler, making it important that a government regulate the individual's engagement in gambling?

Yes

Argument that gambling is irrational and reckless and should, therefore, be regulated by governments: There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a gambler will lose money. This is ensured by the fact that Casinos are profit-minded organizations, and calculate their odds so that they will always make a profit. Because gamblers are always likely to lose and suffer as a result, the activity can be seen in many ways as an irrational engagement.

Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least afford to lose money. They should be protected from the temptation to gamble.


You can click the pencil icon and edit and write here. What's a wiki?. Getting Started



No

Contention that the general individual losses from gambling are justified by it being a fun and leisurely activity worth "paying" for: Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy. There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility that they might win a huge prize – even if they lose, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people go to bingo halls to spend time with friends. Society accepts people spending (“wasting”?) money on other leisure pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) – gambling should not be any different. It is patronizing to suggest that people, including those on low incomes, should not be able to choose how they spend their money.

Psychological benefits of gambling: Some argue that gambling offers psychological benefits. The psychological benefits may include:

  1. A feeling of control (which some describe as God-like).
  2. Confidence that extends from feelings of executive control in decision-making.
  3. Benefits in the ability to psycho-analyze other peoples thoughts, and placing moneyed interests and incentives behind the results of such psycho-analysis.[1]
  4. Total engagement and "peak experience". "It provides the gambler with 'peak experience,' that godlike feeling when all of one's physical and emotional senses are 'go.'"[2]
  1. The release from daily tension.
  2. Feelings of exercising "'the adventurer within us' - that part of ourselves which lusts for change, the wooing of the unknown, change, danger, all that is new...It is part of what makes us human."[3]
  3. Feelings of engaging in a ubiquitous, historical human tradition.
  4. Emotions of non-conformity and freedom. One source quoted a gambler who said, "All day long you do what them dumb bastard supervisors tell you. Don't make no difference whether it makes sense or not. Sometimes you just gotta get out of line."[4]

Argument that gambling increases individual efficiency: My studies show that, contrary to popular belief, gambling is by and large beneficial to the gambler and increases rather than decreases his efficiency. It is beneficial in that it stimulates, offers hope, allows decision making, and, in many cases,


You can click the pencil icon and edit and write here. What's a wiki?. Getting Started


Addiction: Is gambling commonly addictive, and would this be a reason for regulating it?

Yes

Argument that gambling is addictive. Many people end up gambling to try to recover money they have already lost. This is known as ‘chasing losses’. It results in people staking more and more money, most of which they will lose. Gambling addicts often turn to crime to feed their addiction. Addiction is highly damaging to families, since gamblers will spend whatever money they can on gambling. People start to gamble without thinking that they will become addicted. Once they become addicted, it is too late. As with drugs, it is better to ban gambling to stop people getting started in the first place.




No

Contention that gambling is not physically addictive: Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically addictive. It is only psychologically addictive in some people. Only a small percentage of gamblers have an addiction. Many more get enjoyment from gambling without problems – why should these people suffer because a few others get addicted? The risks of gambling addiction are well known. People can make a conscious choice to start gambling, and are aware of the risks of addiction. Treatment programmes can address the problems of those who are addicted.




Bad industry? Are casinos an industry with bad merit? Is nothing of value produced by casinos?

Yes

Casinos don't produce any "product": Many contend that gambling is inappropriate because it does not generate any tangible product. One commentators says that gambling "is an ethereal substance--"a biological substance"--that produces "highs...generated usually by anticipation."[5]




No

Contention that casinos are involved in the entertainment business, and need not produce a tangible product: Gambling is a form of entertainment that is similar to many other forms of entertainment; the objective is merely to foster a desired emotional response from the audience. Movies, theater, fair-grounds, concerts, sporting-events, and casinos are all similar in that their primary function is to foster an environment of entertainment. That is their "product", which need not be physical in order to be viewed as valuable.




Unhealthy values? Is gambling based on immoral individual value system, and, if so, might this justify greater government restrictions of the practise?

Yes

Gambling promotes unhealthy values. It makes people concentrate of winning money. This implies that they should value material goods above other things like friendships and families. It also sends out the message that success should not necessarily be the result of merit and effort. Instead, governments should promote values like thrift, hard work and self-reliance.




No

There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. There are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that gambling promotes undesirable values.




Crime effects: Does gambling cause an increase in various kinds of related criminal activities?

Yes

Casinos are often associated with criminal activity. Drug dealers and prostitutes operate near casinos – they know that there are a large number of potential clients in the area. Casinos can therefore be devastating to neighborhoods.




No

People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so.




Economic harm? Do casinos casinos cause economic harm or provide very few economic benefits?

Yes

Argument that the long-term economic negatives outweigh the short-term economic gains: John Warren Kind, "The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short-Term Gain but Long-Term Pain", PBS, 1994 - "While the dollars invested in various legalized gambling projects and the jobs initially created are evident, the industry has been criticized for inflating the positive economic impacts and trivializing or ignoring the negative impacts (Goodman 1994). The industry's tendency to focus on specialized factors provides a distorted view of the localized economic positives, while ignoring the strategic business-economic costs to the state as a whole (such as West Virginia) and to different regions of the United States (California Governor's Office 1992, Kindt 1995). In 1994, all of the various experts who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business criticized the impacts that casino-style gambling activities inflict upon the criminal justice system, the social welfare, system, small businesses, and the economy (Congressional Hearing 1994). Utilizing legalized gambling activities as a strategy for economic development was thoroughly discredited during the hearing."

Argument that the actual economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated.

  • They generally only create low-paid jobs for local people; the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere.

Argument that there are too many economic "externalities" surrounding gambling, which nullify the benefits:

  • Crime -
  • Risky behavior - Compulsive gambling may foster poor, sometimes risky money-management habits. These habits may transfer over to other areas of the economy, where risky behaviors translate into a higher likelihood of loss in various markets.
  • Time consumption - Compulsive gambling often entails significant time consumption, which detracts from more productive ends.


Argument that jobs could be created through many other industries that cause fewer moral and practical problems (e.g. theme parks).

Argument that any economic benefits would not matter, if the industry is deemed immoral:

Estimated losses from compulsive gambling: William M. Thompson, "Gambling: A Controlled Substance", PBS Interview, 1994 - "Conservative numbers suggest it costs society $13,000 per year for each compulsive gambler. The losses include treatment costs, lost productivity, criminal activity and judicial costs. Estimating that widespread gambling across America would create one million compulsive gamblers, the resulting annual economic loss would exceed $13 billion."




No

Claim that casinos cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure, which is very beneficial to economies:

Casinos help the tourism industry of a place: The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry.

Examples in which casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social problems:

  • Atlantic City.
  • New Jersey.

Claim that legalized gambling on reservations is very important to Native American tribes: Anthony Pico, Chairman of the Viejas Indians, explains the benefits to his tribe of legalized gambling on his tribe's reservation in a PBS interview.[6]




Social welfare effects: Are the charitable generations from gambling substantial, and can this go toward justifying their existence?

Yes

  • It is immoral for the state or charities to raise money by exploiting people’s stupidity and greed.
  • Gambling is regressive (this means that the poor pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the rich). This is because poor people are more likely to gamble. Regressive taxation is deeply unfair.

"Legalized gambling activities act as a regressive tax on the poor" (Clotfelter and Cook 1989). Specifically, the legalization of various forms of gambling activities makes "poor people poorer" and can dramatically intensify many pre-existing social-welfare problems. Demographic analyses reveal that certain disadvantaged socioeconomic groups tend to gamble proportionately greater amounts of their overall income and marketing efforts, particularly by state lotteries, have allegedly been directed at these target groups." - John Warren Kind, "The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short-Term Gain but Long-Term Pain", PBS, 1994

Contention that education is harmed by gambling practices: Kind, PBS, 1994 - "Legalized gambling activities also negatively affect education-- both philosophically and fiscally (Better Government Association 1992; Clotfelter and Cook 1989). Adherence to a philosophy of making a living via gambling activities not only abrogates the perceived need for an education, but also reinforces economically unproductive activities (and is statistically impossible since the 'house' always wins eventually). In states with legalized gambling activities which were initiated allegedly to bolster tax revenues to 'education,' the funding in 'real dollars' has almost uniformly decreased."




No

Gambling is often used to raise money for the state or good causes. Charities use prize draws to raise funds:




Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Internet gambling is especially dangerous. Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t even need to leave their home. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford. It is very hard to know the identity of an online gambler – there have been several cases of people (including children) using stolen credit cards to gamble online. Online gambling may be hard to control but that is not a reason to try – making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.




No

It is impossible to stop online gambling. When it has been banned, people have just used sites based in other countries. It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this information suggests they are spending more than they can afford, the company can block their credit card. In any case, most online gamblers do not get addicted. Why should they be denied an activity that they enjoy?




References:

Motions:

  • This House would ban all forms of gambling
  • This House would ban online gambling
  • This House believes that casinos create more problems than they solve
  • This House believes that governments should not profit from gambling

In legislation, policy, and the real world:

See also on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Books:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.