New Report: Inernet Gambling Does Not Lead to Problem Gambling

[JeffreyS]

Here is a press release that we just put out. It should help respond to opponents of legalized online gambling who claim that regulation will lead to an increase in problem gambling.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
www.safeandsecureir.org

New Report: Regulated Internet Gambling Does Not Lead to Increase in Problem Gambling

U.K. survey shows rate of problem gambling remains unchanged since 1999

September 19, 2007 – A report released today by the U.K. Gambling Commission, which regulates Internet gambling in Britain, reveals that problem gambling has not increased over the last eight years despite the availability of Internet gambling. The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007 found that the rates of problem gambling were 0.6 percent and 0.5 percent of the gambling population, the same percentage of problem gamblers as reported in the last gambling participation survey conducted in 1999.

“The Commission’s report shows that Internet gambling opponents are using scare tactics to argue that regulated Internet gambling will result in an increase in compulsive gambling,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “The reality is that regulated Internet gambling, which is clearly working in the U.K., can offer better controls and protection for underage and vulnerable gamblers in the U.S.”

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, proposed by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), would protect U.S. consumers by establishing a regulatory and enforcement framework to combat compulsive and underage gambling. Safeguards that have proven effective in protecting against problem gambling include the ability to control the amount of money wagered, set limits on amounts deposited, restrict the duration that somebody can play, identify and stop players whose gambling patterns seem out of the ordinary and allow for consumers to be excluded from online gambling.

About Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative promotes the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions. For more information on the Initiative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org. The Web site provides a means by which individuals can register support for regulated Internet gambling with their elected representatives.

###

[MiltonFriedman]

Good post. I'll look for your release on Google Alerts.

Be prepared for the following negative comments..... Your release mistates that problem gambling has not increase. Rather, the survey at most says that the RATE of problem gambling is not affected. This does not mean there aren't MORE, due to the growth of Internet exposure, just that the rate at which people develop problems is unchanged.

The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. My reading of the report is that it makes clear that even though Internet gambling has become available and has grown significantly in the UK the number of problem gamblers is unchanged. Legal access to online gmbling does not increase the number of problem gamblers.

The knockers will instead point to the figure that shows that 7.3% of the relatively small number of online gamblers do have a problem. They may use this to claim it is more addictive but what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers).

[JeffreyS]

Appreciate your reply.

For anyone interested, here is a link to the report: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...?ContentId=288

[MiltonFriedman]

...."what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers)."

I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts".

Video Poker (in a casino/supermarket/bar/7-11) is as close to crack for gamblers as is readily available in Nevada. It gains little to say "Yes, but the population of Nevada is self-selectively skewed toward problem gamblers." or "Yes, but video poker players find their poison more readily than people who are not .... whatever.

[JeffreyS]

However, despite the availability, anonymity and speed of Internet gambling, the structure of the Internet does provide a unique opportunity to protect consumers and prevent problem gambling. For example, a possible safeguard only available online is to have a self exclusion list, where problem gamblers can sign up and voluntarily choose to not be allowed to gamble online. This type of safeguard couldn’t be available anywhere else except for online.

The message we are trying to get across to elected officials is that, despite the prohibition, people are continuing to gamble online. Rather than leave American consumers vulnerable in an unregulated marketplace, we are better off legalizing Internet gambling and finding a way to protect consumers.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
...."what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers)."

I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts".

Video Poker (in a casino/supermarket/bar/7-11) is as close to crack for gamblers as is readily available in Nevada. It gains little to say "Yes, but the population of Nevada is self-selectively skewed toward problem gamblers." or "Yes, but video poker players find their poison more readily than people who are not .... whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are good points. In addition, from my reading of the report unless I missed a good portion of it, the number of on-line gamblers let alone on-line problem gamblers was relatively small when compared to the total population study sample size.

Any attempt to use this study beyond simply blunting some opponets studies is really beyond it's reach IMPO. Anyone reading it to learn something striking about the prelevance of problem gamblers involved in on-line gaming let alone trying to reach a vlaid conclusion to the "addictive nature" of on-line gambling is going to be left wanting.

If I missed something striking please let me know because that is what I was looking for in part from this report.


D$D

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts"

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are right. My main point remains that Internet Gambling does not create addicts. Restricting access does not reduce the number of problem gamblers or the harm they do themselves, indeed you leave them with those providing illegal gambling services who are also happy to give credit with the addicts kneecaps as security. A ban helps the Mafia and the local spieler without helping the problem gambler.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Rather than leave American consumers vulnerable in an unregulated marketplace..."

Excuse me while I puke. Where is this "need for consumer protection" arising ??? Where is the evidence that the market, especially in poker, doesn't provide for operator discipline ?

That "unregulated marketplace" built online gambling to what is is. Consumers would have NO choices to play online except for the entrepeneurs who created the market to meet their demands and desires.

The incidence of operator fraud, especially in poker, is pretty damn low. Show me a need for regulation by pointing to some facts, don't just lay down and politically spread your legs because you think it will please your opponents.

"Safe" "Secure" .... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for your assertion about "compulsive" gambling: "This type of safeguard couldn’t be available anywhere else except for online.'

Nonsense, of course it can. New Jersey has such a provision. If you want to make it effective, just allow a self-excluded person to recover any losses post-exclusion from the venue which allows them to gamble on.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
If I missed something striking please let me know because that is what I was looking for in part from this report.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK - why do I think this is important?

The opponents of Internet Gambling base their case on the idea that it harms people. That it will create addicts ready to bankrupt their families, steal from their employer and ultimately kill themselves buried in debt.

The UK study shows that there was no increase in problem gambling in the UK between 1999 and 2007. In this period there has been a big increase in the number of bookmakers and they have all installed fixed odds betting terminals the so called crack cocaine of gambling. These machines are now readily available in every high street. More casinos have opened, casinos have been allowed to advertise, casinos no longer have to stop people coming in for 24 hours after they join and Internet gambling has gone from virtually nothing to having more than a million taking part. 3% of the adult population in the UK gamble online in any given week.

This is a huge expansion in the availability of hard core gambling activities and yet there are no more problem gamblers AT ALL. This is a pretty significant - now we can argue that Internet Gambling does not increase problem gambling. It is also possible to show that the UK system making gambling providers sign up to social responsibility criteria, prevent underage gambling, fund research and help for problem gamblers really does work. Regulation allows more help for problem gamblers without increasing the rate of problem gambling.