Consults - New York Times Blog
November 4, 2010, 2:44 pm
The States’ Role in Gambling Addiction
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Isaac Brekken for The New York Times

Gambling was among the issues on local ballots in Tuesday’s election. But do lotteries and other state initiatives promote gambling addiction? This was among the questions recently posed by readers of the Consults blog. Dr. Timothy Fong, co-director of the gambling studies program and an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, responds. For more information, see Dr. Fong’s earlier responses in “When Is Gambling an Addiction?” and “Seeking Help for Gambling Addiction.”

Do Governments Promote Gambling Addiction?
Q.

I find it appalling that states spend money on advertising designed to hook people with gambling addictions. Why hasn’t anyone insisted that gambling advertisements have warnings like cigarette ads? Why is it legal for the states to act like con men, alluring people with the promise of easy money?
Debbie R., Brookline, Mass.
A.

Dr. Fong responds:

Legalized gambling is available in every state in America except Hawaii and Utah. During the last 20 years, expansion of gambling has occurred quickly and oftentimes is a direct result of the state needing to increase revenue without having to raise taxes. As a result, the pace of gambling has proceeded faster than our ability to understand its direct impact on individuals, family and society. The gambling industry understands that its product is addictive, and it has taken steps to reduce the harm. Many of these warnings are on gambling ads in the form of helplines.

State Lotteries and Gambling Addiction
Q.

In your opinion, do you think the state lotteries are complicit in creating addictions to gambling?
M. Klein, N.Y.
A.

Dr. Fong responds:

State lotteries come in a variety of different formats and games. There is no scientific data that I have seen that shows that lottery play can lead directly to gambling addiction. Playing the lottery is still gambling, though, so lottery games that offer a high reward with high frequency — for example, “scratch” games or video lottery terminals — probably carry a higher chance of harm.
Q.

Many if not all states now partially fund their education systems by preying off of gamblers’ addictions by means of state lotteries. These same states are reluctant to fully fund the education but spend vast amounts of money on the prison systems, whose capacity is substantially swollen by nonviolent drug offenders. The rationale of criminalization of drug use depends largely on the notion that it is addictive. So gambling indirectly funds the prison system by enabling states to transfer monies from education to incarceration. In a certain sense, the entire population is complicit, buying into the notion that drugs are evil because they are addictive, and then rationalizing the role of gambling because it “contributes” to education. Moreover, casinos are spreading nationwide, a process enabled by the same rationalization mechanism.

My questions: Shouldn’t addiction be seen as the “prey” endpoint of a larger predation psycho-dynamic? Without discounting the responsibility of individuals, isn’t our society as a whole responsible for this larger predation dynamic?

It seems clear that this larger dynamic spills over to our politics and our foreign relations. For example, our military as “uber-assassin” using drones, which are conveniently called “predator drones.” How do we analyze and understand this spill over and its implications for our individual relationship to our country and each other?
CharlieR, Somerville, Mass.
A.

Dr. Fong responds:

America’s history with gambling has been characterized by ambivalence. There have been periods of full embrace of gambling within communities, followed by movements seeking temperance and prohibition.

Starting in the 1970s, there was a slow movement to accept gambling as a regulated pastime. As gambling expanded over the last 20 years, regulation of gambling has been an issue at the state level, meaning that there has not been a national, consistent plan to address the impact of gambling problems.

The result has been that each state has different approaches, resources and attitudes on how to deal with gambling addiction. Legalizing gambling has significantly contributed to the economy and has supported many different businesses and industries. The negative impact, though, of pathological gambling remains under-addressed in many states. It is my belief that there is a shared responsibility between the gambling industry, the government and individuals who gamble to work together to develop policies and procedures that limit harm from gambling.

    * Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
    * Privacy Policy
    * NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018