"Vice" must be in the hands of public institutions #

By Brennan Young Posted Wednesday 25th April 2007 08:27 GMT

Gambling wrecks lives, not just the lives of the people who end up in the self-destructive loop of ludomania (fully understood by psychologists and casino owners), but also the lives of their families and loved ones. Most people who are pro-gambling are either hooked themselves, are profiting from it, or have never had a ludomaniac as a familiy member.

There are similar mechanisms behind the private (i.e. black market) control of drugs or prostitution.

We may not like it, but we're going to have to accept that 'vice' is going to happen, and there's going to be social consequences.

It's a matter of damage control, and private/corporate enterprise (legal or illegal) in its inevitable attempts to 'grow the market' for gambling can only make the damage worse.

The writer of this article appears to believe that private bookmakers are somehow the underdogs. In reality they are subverting democratic attempts to restrain the worst evils of gambling by offering online betting across national borders. This in itself is forcing the state gambling monoplies into competition!

While it's true that a state gambling monopoly which seeks to grow or expand is acting immorally (just as taxing cigarettes without spending the money on health campaigns is immoral), liberalising gambling is no solution.

The state gambling monopolies need to be watched closely, and for the most part they can be in democratic societies. They may make mistakes - as has happened in Greece - but they are at least partly accountable to people who care about the social issues.

Private companies aren't subject to such scrutiny, and corporations are only subject to the desires of the shareholders - almost certainly wanting to make a good return on their investment. The result: More gambling, more social problems.

It's correct to criticise the state gambling monoplies for expanding, but it's an incomplete and incorrect picture to characterise William Hill (et.al.) as the underdogs, because they are at least partly responsible.