In a discussion at a collage debate three participants aired their views on the subject of legalization of online Gambling nationwide.
The debate was hosted by Today’s Question It must be noted the positions taken does not necessarily reflect their personal view.
Standing in for University of Minnesota debate team is Cody Crunkilton, to defend or challenge the argument for legalization nationwide for online gambling
And Defending is Luke Plutowski, he is a recent graduate of the U of M and also a second year Ph.D. student of Political Science at the U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The Legalizing and regulation of online gambling could bolster economic activity, also provide billions of dollars in tax revenue, plus give consumers/players an added amount of freedom over their pocketbooks.
Those who are opposed to the legalization of online gaming often overlook that millions of Americans are regularly engaged in gambling, despite the legal status. Federal and state governments are allowing betting at land-based casinos, in poker rooms, on racetracks, on sportsbooks, and also online fantasy sports websites, and they encourage citizens to play on lotteries, scratch cards, as well as pull tabs. The vagarious restrictions on certain kinds of online gambling do very little at preventing people from placing bets. Moreover, the prohibition of U.S. companies from providing this service, where many receive from offshore websites, the government is losing out on taxation from an industry that is estimated to be worth $30 billion, the prohibition also forces people to place their money on untaxed, insecure and exploitable, foreign accounts.
Mr.R Plutowski said that it was not the duty of government to regulate moral behavior of its citizens especially for an activity like gambling. Although compulsive gambling is a serious issue that often affects approximately 0.6% of the population, he states that the solution to this problem shouldn’ t be the banning of gaming for everyone, but much better to introduce restrictions using regulation of the industry as well as a more robust addiction services sponsored by the state.
He said that legalisation of online gambling could expand the problem putting individuals lives at risk and also the economy at risk. He said that the ease of playing online at home added to anonymity, high-speed and self gratification that is provided with online gambling, exacerbate the the dangers compared to brick and mortar casino’s.
The social costs related to problem gambling have devastating results, increase of crime, high divorce rates, bankruptcy, embezzlement, job losses and even suicide are some of the consequences that can result from gambling addition, he continued that the implications ripple towards the economy.
A study done by John Kindt, he is a professor of Business at the U. of Illinois and also a well known gambling expert, he found that costs associated with problem gambling by far outweigh the revenues received by as much as six to one, this more than erases any transient increase in revenue received from legalization. He continued to say, that legal gambling was a type of regressive taxation, and the largest costs falling upon those who earn less than $10,000 a year.
Mr. Crunkilton continued his argument by saying that banning online gambling will hardly impinge on people’s freedom, and illustrated the fact the conventional gambling is readily available at personal settings amongst friends, as well as at the state sponsored land-based casinos. He stated that there was no defence for legal online gambling to give predatory websites
Banning online gambling hardly impinges upon anyone’s freedom, as conventional gambling remains readily available both in personal settings among friends and at state-sponsored brick-and-mortar casinos. There is no defense of legal online gambling which justifies giving predatory websites power to dominate and exploit the vulnerable segments of the population.