The following editorial is taken from Carolina Coast Online:
“Bewre of Greeks bearing gifts” is a famous phrase from the “Aeneid,” the epic poem about the fall of the ancient city of Troy. It certainly applies today as gambling companies begin their onslaught of promotions offering “free money” to begin online sports betting. But gamblers beware, there is more at play.
As anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, there’s nothing free in life, especially money. There is a cost and in this case, as new North Carolina gamblers line up to play with the “house money,” the cost is the gambler’s personal profile along with enticements to gamble again and again, with the possibility of addiction.
Under the headline, “Place Your Bets. Sports betting officially becomes legal in NC” the AP announced that “Anyone 21 or older holding an account with a licensed operator can use their phone or electronic device to place sports wagers starting at noon on March 11.” What the AP story failed to explain, a fact that does warrant concern, is how do the gambling companies know the age of the user. Can the computer or phone really determine the gambler’s age?
Ads are running in TV sports programs, major news outlets and particularly college campuses, home of the industry’s primary target- college-age men, offering upwards to $1,000 of “free money” to place bets on a variety of games to include in-state college sports.
Steve Wiseman, sports reporter for the Durham Herald Sun, opined that the allowance of betting on in-state college sports will create greater pressures and even vitriol for the athletes. He explained that “lawmakers opted not to include any restrictions on college sports…(which) makes financial sense given the popularity of college athletics in the state that’s long been the ACC’s home base. But it means that schools are tasked with doing all they can to protect their athletes from physical and mental health standpoints, and prevent any betting scandals from engulfing their teams.”
At the same time Wiseman’s story appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer, Luke DeCock, sports columnist, offered advice to would-be gamblers on how to use the “free” money in a frontpage article. He described himself as an “experienced” gambler, explaining that he doesn’t bet on sports for professional and ethical reasons, but that he has dabbled in betting on horses, golf, craps, and blackjack. He also acknowledged, but again only briefly, the potential addictive nature of gambling.
“As any competent heroin dealer knows, the whole point of these bonus offers is to get people hooked – imagine if it was legal to hand out free booze and cigarettes- but that is the compromise we’ve become willing to accept in this state, because this gambling was happening anyway, in darker shadows, and we might as well benefit from it.”
There is so much to unpack with DeCock’s opening remarks that it defies the space allotted. But we’ll try, taking the points from the bottom up starting with the benefit of taxing gambling.
That’s not necessarily a bad idea as it applies to an age-old concept of taxing the vices and incentivizing the virtues. And this is what the legislature and Governor Cooper, who signed H.B. 347, are interested in doing. But they have done so with very little control over the marketing of the gaming industry, to include allowing sports betting on in-state college sports, which is prohibited in other states that have endorsed online sports gambling.
As for taking betting out of the shadows, DeCock obviously supports removing the stigma of doing something that is at the very least questionable, if not outright illegal. Social stigma is not a bad thing. It promotes a reason to pause before making stupid and most likely dangerous decisions. As has been proven, addictive gambling, particularly now that it is conveniently available online, can result in harmful behavior, especially when gambling debts become unmanageable.
Allison Drain, a coordinator with the NC Problem Gambling Program told NC Health News that younger college-age males are among the population expected to show an uptick in problem gambling despite many of them being younger than 21. Noting that gambling disorder is similar to substance abuse disorder, Drain also stated, “the earlier that you engage in the activity, the greater the chances are of you becoming addicted to it later in life because it deals with that brain structure and development.”
The concept of giving a product or service away, including money, to build habits and dependence is not new. The cigarette manufacturers proved this in both World Wars. In both wars the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the front lines were issued three or four cigarettes with their rations, with the purpose of providing a calming activity in the midst of terrible circumstances.
There is good reason to believe the nicotine in these free cigarettes provided a calming effect, but they also strengthened the habit of cigarette smoking, which they continued once the wars ended. Faced with the growing evidence of the negative health impacts of smoking, the Department of Defense in 1976 finally halted the distribution of Camel, Chesterfield, Old Gold and Lucky Strike cigarettes in military ration kits.
In 1971, recognizing the health risks of cigarette smoking, the federal government banned the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio or in magazine publications focused on audiences under age 21. The restrictions on advertising also included universities, colleges and schools that produce theatrical or sports events.
The addictive nature of gambling, as with smoking, should also be a concern for the state and its policy makers. Just as with cigarettes, it is impossible to outlaw an activity that mature adults wish to engage in, no matter that it is harmful to the user. That is a personal choice made by adults.
The same argument holds true for gambling. It is a natural human activity, some would say weakness, but mankind is by nature a risk-taker. That proclivity to take risks and dares is why mankind continues to progress. But at the same time caution is needed in developing and honing that risk nature which can best be done by tailoring the messages, and in some instances prohibiting promotions, in cases where they can do the most harm.
The nation took action to address the addictive nature of cigarettes, so too the state should reassess its responsibilities with the potential of gambling addiction as well.
