How do Governments Justify their Involvement in Gambling?

1. How do Governments Justify their Involvement in Gambling? • Culture and Economy • State Gambling trajectories and conceptions • Justifications and Criticisms • Alternatives

2. How do Governments Justify their Involvement in Gambling? • What is the government doing getting involved in gambling? • Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/07/kevin-pinto-interview542.html#socialcomments#ixzz1AfFb3HS6 • 'Dirty money' suspected in B.C. casino deals

3. Conceptions of State/Government gambling involvement (dates for Canadian developments) • 1) early 1900s to 1960s • Prohibition: Gambling is illegal, and culturally (officially) deviant (sin/vice); • threat to social and economic values (Protestantism – English Canada) • 2) 1960s-1980s • Lotteries • Social Good Framing>>>Welfare State • Citizen • Theorizations: • Alibi Model (Kingma) • Law of Insurance (Neary and Taylor) • 1970s>>>2011 Neo-liberalism - challenges to the Welfare State • Decline of manufacturing; financialization of economies

4. Conceptions of State/Government gambling involvement (dates for Canadian developments) • 3) 1990s>>>21st century • Gambling expansion: • Casinos, Racinos, Sports-betting, EGMs, • Scratch games (convenience gambling) • Aboriginal Gambling (late 1980s US; Canada) • Online gambling • entertainment/pathology constructs under an economic/market umbrella • Neo-liberalism: market relations as the basis of economic and social relations • challenges of taxation • States/governments: citizens oriented to as consumers • Theorizations: • Risk Model (Kingma) • Law of Lottery (Neary and Taylor)

5. “Casino gambling is a form of entertainment,” says the statement of defence. “Casino patrons pay for that entertainment through their wagering, just as theatre patrons pay for a ticket to a play or sports fans pay for a ticket to a game. Mr. Isaacs’s wagering was an expenditure, not a loss recognized at law.” (Priest, 2009: A10)

6. “B.C. Lottery Corp. raises weekly play limit to $10,000.” The British Columbia Lottery Corporation says its decision to markedly increase its weekly play limit was primarily designed to meet the demands of players, but it has been met with criticism from experts and government opposition. "It's another cash grab by [a] government that's very anxious about its budget situation," said NDP MLA Shane Simpson. Starting today, BCLC's PlayNow website will allow British Columbians to set their weekly play limit at nearly $10,000. The previous limit was $120. The provincial government currently faces a deep budget deficit, but BCLC, a crown corporation, said the decision was based on demand and business considerations. "This is definitely an independent decision of the corporation," BCLC spokeswoman Susan Dolinski said. The corporation said it arrived at the decision to increase the weekly limit after experts in its responsible-gambling program indicated that allowing people essentially to set their own limits helps them take responsibility for those choices.

7. “Don't bet on it”According to B.C.'s Partnership for Responsible Gambling website, many people mistakenly believe they can beat the odds and win big. It lists the following myths and misconceptions about gambling • Myths • Gamblers have flamboyant, carefree personalities. (Some are, but others are quiet, introverted and serious-minded.) • Gamblers enjoy risks in all areas of their lives. (Some are big risktakers, others are conservative in personal habits and work.) • If you don't gamble daily, you're not a problem or compulsive gambler. • You can't be addicted to an activity. (Gambling can change one's mood by affecting the biochemistry of the brain much the same way as alcohol or drugs.) • Gamblers are thieves and criminals. (Not true, but some gamblers may resort to criminal behaviour in desperation.) • A compulsive gambler will bet on anything. (Problem gamblers generally have preferences and are not tempted by every type of gambling.) • All compulsive gamblers want to lose. (Most are addicted to the act of gambling - they would rather lose than be out of the action.) • Compulsive gamblers are weak-willed, otherwise they would simply stop. • Misconceptions • Gambling is an easy way to make money. • Gambling is the solution to my problems. • I believe I can beat the odds. • Borrowing to gamble is okay. • I can always win it back. • This machine is ready for a large payoff, or it's my turn to win. • My lottery number is bound to come up if I consistently play the same numbers. • (Bhamra 2009)

8. Transformations of morality and State/Government conduct/self-understandings • Utilitarianism • Consumerism: Citizen oriented to as Consumer • Problem of Harm and Public Health • Responsibilization: Responsible Gambling; Self-exclusion • Eclipse of Democracy • Politics of taxation (neo-liberalism, globalization, implications of the financialization of economies)

9. It simply blows my mind that governments jump into bed with the casino industry, knowing full well (or worse, being totally ignorant of) the huge and ever-present opportunity it offers organized crime as a giant cash laundromat, not to mention the social costs surrounding these businesses. What's particularly scary about government infatuation with casino revenue is how province after province has "overcome" their own legal and ethical objections against sanctioned gambling, principally because neighbouring states or provinces have implemented casinos and now "we must keep the money in the local economy." Where are the limits to this logic? What part of the sex trade will be proof against this reasoning? What workers' rights or environmental protections will stand up against this downward race to trade ethics and social protections for new government revenue streams?Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/04/bc-casino-cash-documents.html#socialcomments#ixzz1AAySPU4t • 'Dirty money' suspected in B.C. casino deals

10. Criticisms • “Know your limit, play within it” • Gambler (input) vs. Revenue uses (output) • Hollowing out of the public: instrumentalized public • Problem/Pathological gambler: economic casualties • Berg – “too close to the money” • No more alibis • Paternal-neoliberal-utilitarianism

11. Alternatives • Success of the consumer model • Public (Good) does not appear in the model • Transparency • Advertising – Gambling pollution • VLTs • Collective vs. individualistic orientation • Dedicated lotteries