Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Not much of a gamble

Adam Radwanski, July 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST

It's an open question whether governments should profit from gambling. But considering the extent to which they already do, and the extreme improbability of that changing in the foreseeable future, there are few logical objections against the Ontario government's inclination to allow sports betting in casinos.

The obvious point, already made elsewhere, is that Ontario - along with other provinces - already allows gambling on sporting events. It's called Pro Line, and it's an enormous scam - one in which the odds are vastly more stacked against bettors than they are in any casino. It exists mostly to take advantage of the gullible; meanwhile, more serious gamblers go to underground bookies or offshore services.

If you're prepared to make the case for all gambling to be outlawed, feel free to start picketing your local convenience store until it refuses to sell lottery tickets. Otherwise, there's little case to be made against a fairer form of sports betting that has the potential to bolster provincial revenues and help a flagging tourism industry. 

  1. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: Do it! I made 5k off of the Euro cup, but I had to make it in London because some Canadians occasionaly forget this isn't the 19th century. Plus I had to exchange CAD -> GBP -> CAD in order to do it. It's garbage.
  2. Blue Magic ...... from Mississauga,, Canada writes: It makes no sense not to.
  3. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Generally speaking, I do not support protecting people from themselves.

    The gambling issue is complicated by government involvement to the extent that government has a very special responsibility to not harm citizens. Promoting gambling addiction is not a proper function of government.

    And speaking of addiction, isn't it wonderful how money affects opinion. Here in Alberta, our politicians promote gambling as a force for good by co-opting the charity groups who receive support from casinos, bingos, etc. We have been bought off!

    My expectation is that there will eventually be a class action lawsuit to resolve the issue of government causing harm by promoting gambling. Taxpayers could end up holding the bag on one zinger of a settlement.
  4. Rick C from Canada writes: Ruth Walker from Edmonton:

    The AB gov't doesn't promote gambling addiction.

    Offering a service is not promotion of abusing that service.

    Liquor stores don't promote alcoholism.

    If people are not able to control their vices that is their problem and their responsibility.

    In Canada we are afforded free will; it's not up to the gov't to save people from themselves when they fck it up.
  5. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: If agents of the Alberta govt promote addiction, it is no different from the govt doing it.

    For example, the VLT software is tuned to make people feel more like winners. The trick they use is to slow down play when the human player is getting ahead, and to speed up play when the human is losing. This causes the human to spend relatively more time in the winning state, and tricks the human into feeling more like a "winner". That superstitious belief that one is a winner is an essential component of problem gambling.

    Why do I think the Alberta govt does this knowingly? Well, some of the gambling profits go to the Alberta Gaming Research Institute, and they are very aware of the psychological trickery of VLT software.

    The mechanism of gambling addiction involves both so-called economic neurons and the pleasure centers of the brain. This is a measurable effect. You can easily differentiate play-for-fun vs play-for-money with fMRI scans.

    I doubt a judge will have trouble understanding e.g. the VLT addiction mechanism, and I rather expect that taxpayers will receive a very large bill as a result.
  6. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: gambling produces nothing of value, it simply shuffles money from suckers (gamblers) to the casino. studies have shown the social costs outweigh the "benefits" - but, those social costs are shunted onto the taxpayers, while the gov't keeps the gambling income.
  7. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: Rick C from Canada writes: Ruth Walker from Edmonton:

    The AB gov't doesn't promote gambling addiction.

    Offering a service is not promotion of abusing that service.

    Liquor stores don't promote alcoholism.

    If people are not able to control their vices that is their problem and their responsibility.

    In Canada we are afforded free will; it's not up to the gov't to save people from themselves when they fck it up.

    >>why does the government not then offer services of prostitutes and sell drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and so on?

    unfortunately, when people "fck it up", it does wind up being the gov't (i.e. the taxpayer's) responsibility, because we have to pay for the hospitals, the police, the jails, and pick up the slack from people who can't do productive work because they're in hospital, jail, or homeless due to addiction or whatever problem

    in short, your analysis is full of hot air.
  8. Simon Bevan from Ottawa, Canada writes: Allow bookmakers to operate legally independent of the government in their own company run stores. Many of the world's largest bookmakers, Ladbroke's, William Hill, Betfair, and Paddy Power are owned by large corporations and operate this way in the UK and Ireland.
    Limit access to those over 18 and put a 10% tax on the winnings (or the stake) and the effect would be two fold increased government revenues and decreased illegal gambling through bookies.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Adam Radwanski

Back to top