29. Should Gambling Be Legalized?

Governments around the world are faced with a decision about gambling, an activity that seems almost a part of human nature. While it may pay attractive dividends for the state, it may destroy the individual. Is it right for the country to permit gambling, in the full knowledge that its citizens may be harmed? The issue is especially problematic in countries where religions forbid gambling.

One of the strongest arguments is that state-run gambling controls illegal gambling, a much more evil activity. Down the road from the behind-the-scenes "bookies", the loan sharks, gangs and gangsters lie in wait. All over the world, secret societies or gangs of one kind or another thrive on the proceeds of gambling. Reducing the level of illegal activity would make it harder for such groups to exist.

Those unworried by ethical considerations point out that gambling is a painless way to raise revenues. A state like Nevada in the U.S. can reduce taxation on its population because it gains such a large revenue from gambling. Some countries have qualms about using proceeds directly for spending on education or health. State lotteries in Britain give millions of pounds each year to a wide range of charitable causes.

A third argument is that gambling is a victimless recreation, and as such a matter of moral indifference. No one forces anyone to gamble, and if a person chooses to gamble that person is fully aware of the consequences. In this sense, there is no "victim". Since people enter into gambling of their own free will, there is no reason to prevent them. This is where the opponents of gambling step in.

Actually, other people are often harmed when someone gambles. Grocery money is used and when the bet fails, families or dependents may starve—or at least go without, to feed the gambler's addiction. There is also the subtler point that gambling blurs the distinction between well-earned money and "ill-gotten gains". In doing this, it injures society's sense of fair play, and edges society towards a sense of grievance.

Gamblers are drawn disproportionately from minority and poor populations that can ill afford to gamble. Such people are especially susceptible to the lure of gambling, the offer of a chance of riches and a better life. It can be argued that such people need their government to be on their side helping them to avoid falling prey to the lure, rather than collaborating with gambling entrepreneurs or becoming one.

Not only do gamblers tend to be poor, they also tend to have little understanding about probability. To encourage people to gamble on state lotteries where 99.9% of all players are losers is cruel to those whose worries make them susceptible to dreams of sudden relief.

Such people are harmed also when legal gambling increases the respectability of gambling, and increases public gambling, making the previous two criticisms more powerful. State-sponsored gambling can create new gamblers. There are higher-level objections. Gambling is debased speculation, a lust for sudden wealth that is not connected with the process of making society more productive of goods or services. Government support legitimizes the notion that wealth can be pursued without working for it—a dangerous concept.

In this way, it has been argued, states that legalize gambling both cheat and corrupt their citizens.