| THE
SOCIOLOGY OF GAMBLING
Societies of most
countries find gambling to be an awkward issue.
There is strong indication of the popularity of
gambling, leading some people to believe in an
irresistible urge to gamble. Yet, there is also
possible evidence that gambling is contrary to the
requirements and frame of mind of an industrialized
society. In The Theory of Leisure Class,
Thorstein Veblen argues that gambling encourages a
belief and dependence in luck for achieving financial
success, rather than dedication, rational thinking and
hard work. He goes on to say that gambling teaches
people to have faith in the saying "getting
something for nothing", and that this undermines
their ability to strive in work and effort, and to have
faith in their own future.
Church officials have
spoken out against gambling, primarily those of
Protestant faith. The grounds for their objection
is that gambling encourages a desire for material
rewards and winning at the expense of another.
They claim that gambling is a human weakness, and that
it is a manifestation of peoples thoughts that God will
and cannot provide for their needs and wants.
Many nations have shown a
concern for the addictive tendencies of gambling.
In 1951, the British Royal Commission classified those
types of commercialized gambling that they thought were
in need of state control or restriction. Their
findings reported that those gambling games which
encouraged competition and avid participation, used
credit betting as opposed to cash betting, and
implemented some type of diversion or entertainment were
dangerous to a gambler. The commission stated that
the temptation to bet excessive amounts of money (money
that the bettor may not even have) was induced by the
odds of winning and by the pace that bets were made for
a particular game. They went on to say that
when the odds were low, the temptation to bet was
minimized, and that when the odds were high, the
temptation was at its highest. The commission felt
that after a gambler incurs substantial loss, they are
tempted even more to increase their wagers in an effort
to regain their losses, which would ultimately lead to
even greater forfeiture. They concluded by saying
that habitual and addictive gambling was induced by
those types of betting that had quick turnovers and low
chances of winning.
In the United States, the
actions of state and federal government has often been
to vanquish gambling establishments entirely. Through
the implementation of severely restricting laws, the
government has tried to run many casinos out of
business. However, there are exceptions to this
censorship. Horse race betting has been legal in
most states since the 1930's. Although it was
originally illegal to make bets outside of the tracks
(So states could surmount more taxes from the tracks
revenue), off-track betting has gradually grown in
popularity, and consequently, become legal in most
states - New York and Connecticut were the first states
to do so. The state of Nevada has always
encouraged gambling, which explains the supreme success
of Las Vegas. Atlantic City, NJ also thought that
casino gambling was a good idea, and introduced it in
1978. While this was going on, lottery had already
started flourishing, and had spread to fourteen states
by the early 1980's.
Although gambling has
been declared to be explicitly legal outside of
designated areas like Las Vegas, more often than not,
people are undeterred from such laws - and gamble
anyways. Many underground gambling rings continue
to thrive, while police do not do much to keep them from
operating. In actuality, the general stance of law
enforcement is that antigambling laws are of little
importance in comparison to other laws. Police
officials are usually not moved to enforce these laws
unless urged to do so by the public. There is also
a great deal of pressure imposed on public officials in
the form of bribes and intimidation, thus giving a
criminal nature to some gambling activities. The
bottom line is whether citizens should be more concerned
about the effects of legalized gambling, or, the
conflict and tension created in law enforcement agencies
regarding antigambling statutes.
The proponents of
legalizing gambling believe that doing so would put
gambling under greater and more just public
inspection. They believe that if gambling was
tolerated and put under tight control, the police
corruption and criminal activities associated with
gambling would cease. This legalization plan would
call for total nationalization (socialization) of
gambling. This would mean that state governments
would be fully in charge of operating casinos, race
tracks and sports betting pools, exactly like the state
lottery system. However, non-supporters of the
legalization of gambling are quick to bring up that
nationalizing gambling would not suffice to end crime
and corruption. Even Nevada (although gambling is
not run by the state there) has had a difficult time
controlling and monitoring casinos and collecting the
proper amounts of revenue tax. The other concern
against state run gambling is that the costs to operate,
license and supervise the casino would be too high and
unfair for non-gambling taxpayers.
|
