Gambling Article

This piece was publish by the Times Gazette early in this century as a two part guest column. I reran it here 14 months ago. With the interest in the great poker game of recent weeks, I thought it might be of interest to some. The original piece was published just the legalization of the lottery was gearing up.

The negative light cast on the lottery and gambling by the popular press is almost universal and is never balanced by the venerable journalistic mandate to present both sides. A perfect example is the report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC). This report found objective data that debunks many of the myths about gambling but this data has not been widely reported.

The NGISC was formed in 1997 by the Congress and President Clinton with a charter to study and report the phenomenon exactly as directed by the title. The final report was released recently in July of 1999 and reported with a brevity that belies the actual findings of the data. This is the first nationwide study on gambling since 1976. The 1976 report predicted the expansion of gambling and since it was not politically correct to support gambling, the report was ignored and no recommendation was implemented nationally though several states took seriously many of the findings. The Commission, including the chairperson, was peopled by a disproportionate number of anti-gambling supporters. This fact is unchallenged and is a matter of record and puts to rest any suggestion that the study was steered by gambling industry mavens.

NIGSC commissioned the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago to conduct a nine-month study into such areas as gambling participation, pathological gambling, youth gambling, community impact of casinos and the social costs of gambling. This research is an objective, unbiased academic endeavor. The findings were submitted to NIGSC and made public in April of 1999.

Several findings of the research are worthy of note: 86% of the population has gambled at least once in their life; 63% of the population has gambled at least once in the past year; number of problem gamblers in non-lottery states is 25% higher than in states with a lottery; the household income of pathological gamblers verses other gamblers is statistically insignificant; 64%of non-gamblers are employed while 82.3% of pathological gamblers are employed; average hourly wages for non-gamblers is $14.60 and $17.90 for pathological gamblers; in the 18-24 year old age group from 1976-1998, those who gambled at least once in their life rose 5% while those who had gambled in the last year decreased by 9%; college graduates are more at risk to become pathological gamblers than any other education level. These finding show clearly the typical problem gambler is not the uneducated and the needy and disarms the argument of most anti-gambling forces. As further evidence, Dr. Robert Custer, psychiatrist and media advisor to the National Council on Compulsive Gambling opined the typical compulsive gamblers are "men who are very competitive, bright, industrious, energetic and hard driving. As adolescents they take on adult chores such as earning money for the family. They look destined for success."

Of further interest is the finding that within fifty miles of a casino there is no measurable increase in bankruptcy, crime, infant mortality or child abuse. Often pointed to is the fact that Memphis is the bankruptcy "Capitol" of the US but never mentioned is that such was so before any casinos were built in Tunica, Mississippi. NORC places the social costs of gambling at $5 billion. This is a number arrived at by unbiased scientific means rather than subjectively plucking a number from an amorphous statistical cloud as it passes overhead. NORC, using the same criteria, places the nationwide social cost of drug abuse at $110 billion, alcohol abuse at $166.5

billion and smoking at $72 billion. When realizing the number of gamblers is much larger than numbers in the other categories, one cannot escape the conclusion that the social costs of gambling do not remotely equate to the expenditures, on a per person or per instance basis, of the

other activities. Worth noting, there are no reported cases of anyone overdosing on gambling, or losing control of a vehicle while gambling or contracting cancer from gambling. Known addictive behaviors manifest as abuse of food, laxatives and nasal spray among others. Data on the social

costs of these activities is not readily available.

Many people are concerned about the effect of gambling on children. Some pundits have stated that children are being addicted to gambling at two to four times the rate of adults. Those who espouse such do not identify the sources for their statement, but clearly all reasonable people should be concerned about any activities injurious to children. Numbers aside, youth gambling is

apparently on the rise and the phenomenon should be analyzed on an objective and scientifically

sound basis. Although unacknowledged and probably unknown to most decriers of gambling in the US, a major causal factor is what the British euphemistically call "amusements with prizes." British studies found these games to be the most significant factor in an alarming increase in problem gambling among youth in England.

In Tennessee there are games of this type in arcades in every mall, most large discount stores, many family restaurants, theme parks, fairs and at least two pizza chains that solicit and provide parties for children, some as young as five, who are encouraged to play these types of games. These games are clearly, and I emphasize clearly, illegal under present Tennessee law yet no public outcry is mounted nor do police or prosecutors enforce a clear and obvious violation of a Tennessee felony statue.

There is another form of gambling that is rife with participants who are problem gamblers. The Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, the mother church of problem gambling, reported that prior to Black Monday's (Oct 9, 1987) plunge in the stock market 2% of their hot line calls were from those who gamble on the financial markets. For several weeks thereafter 44% of all hot line calls were from those who play the game known as the stock

market. The aforementioned Dr. Custer testified at the New Jersey Governor's Advisory Commission that stock market gamblers make up 20% of his practice. The NGISC held

meetings on this subject yet this phenomenon is never addressed in the popular press.

There have been reports that upwards of 25% of cocaine users gamble and 40+% of those who carry weapons gamble. To subjectively espouse these numbers as another face of the evils of gambling is a classic skewing of data to support an ill taken point and assault the intelligence of the public by intentionally implying a large number of those who gamble abuse cocaine and carry weapons. In so doing the more plausible inference that some cocaine users and some of those who carry weapons also gamble is ignored. To not appropriately recognize what is the cause and what is the effect is a common tool used by those who seek recognition but will not invest in the effort required to thoroughly understand the issues in which they profess concern. When measured against the obviously small percentage of the population who uses cocaine or carry weapons the intended impact of statements such as the above is a dishonest attempt to support a personal bias rather than support any objective analysis. Those who seek to support their position in such a manner will forever be reduced to using anecdotes and platitudes as the sole support for their positions.

At the end of the day whether to accept decriminalization of gambling and tax and regulate these activities is, and should be, a finding by the legislative branch based on economic and social factors. To base one's opinion of gambling on religion is of course within the purview of every American but to demand public policy enactments to support their position is violative of the Constitution. I have always found interesting those who are quick to point out the Tennessee Constitution's lottery prohibition never point out the same document forbade "ministers of the gospel or priests" being elected to the legislature. One must be sympathetic to those in this position as caring and reasonable people surely empathizes with those who adhere to a faith so uncompelling that the public policy of the state is necessary to force people into their fold. Perhaps they missed James Madison's admonition: "We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or duty we owe our creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force."

The time has surely come to recognize public policy cannot be dictated by anecdotal extrapolation and/or subjective moralizing. The truism that you cannot legislate morals is certainly a trite, oft used maxims but like most such pronouncements, speaks volumes (also trite). In 1991 President Bush stated "If we've learned anything in the past quarter century, it is that we cannot federalize morals." This country tried such for thirteen years and fostered an environment whereby policemen were made crooks and crooks were glorified. Organized crime as we know it is often sited as a threat if gambling is allowed. The undeniable, demonstrable and documented fact is that the criminalization of drinking alcohol "invented" organized crime in this country. Could today's environment in Tennessee be deja vu?

Anyone reading this missive is surely less than a mile from several examples of illegal gambling. Are we to continue enriching the few, perhaps corrupting law enforcement and saddling the Tennessee taxpayer with any social costs? Tennessee's eight contiguous states all

have some form of legal gambling. Whatever costs arise from Tennesseans participation is borne by the Tennessee taxpayer without benefit of any income from the activity. Most of these eight states have a similar ethnic and cultural history to Tennessee's. Are we so arrogant to believe Tennesseans are more pious than citizens of these sister states?