---

The debate on gambling and casinos is heating up again. Gambling proponents are peppering the print and broadcast media with calls for

gambling as an exciting cure for lacklustre tourism and dwindling

revenue. This cure is worse than the disease.

What we know about gambling is that it is addictive, and unlike

addictive chemicals, gambling doesn't directly affect the physiology of the gambler.

While gambling can lead to odd and even destructive behaviours, it doesn't directly debilitate the body or poison the mind. That can seem to be a blessing but in fact it is what makes gambling addiction so much more potent - there aren't any direct physical signs of the addiction, no bloodshot eyes, no slurred speech, no twitching or itching or staggering. The gambler's addiction is masked by more-or-less normal functioning. The addiction is thus harder to detect and the gambler can fall far deeper into trouble before the fall is noticed and can be acted upon.

There is no breathalyzer or urine test for addictive gambling.

Sometimes, it isn't until the credit card is maxed out and banked

funds and even property have been wagered and lost that the addiction is spotted. And by then the lives and financial security of the gambler and family have been turned upside down. It is then that the costs to the entire community begin to mount.

Contrary to gambling's proponents who tout casinos as a community moneymaker, studies are telling a different story. Increases in narcotics offences, property crimes, petty thefts, auto thefts, and traffic accidents routinely occur in communities within a single year after casinos opened. For example, in Black Hawk, Colorado, the number of police calls increased from 25 a year before casinos to 15,000 annually after their introduction. In nearby Central City, the number of arrests increased by 275 percent the year after casinos arrived. In Cripple Creek, Colorado, serious crime increased by 287 per cent in the first three years after casinos arrived. According to Tom Grey, President of National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, "Studies that show for every dollar you bring in gambling revenue, you'll lose $1.90 in costs to the taxpayer. The addiction, the bankruptcy, the crime and corruption just multiply."

Gambling's proponents wish to disguise it as an innocuous activity where adults rationally decide how much they can reasonably wager. The reality is that just like someone addicted to alcohol, tobacco, or drugs the gambling addict loses this ability to decide for himself how much he can afford to bet.

We already have experience of selective access to harmful substances.

We attempt to prohibit the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to minors, and illicit drugs to everyone. We attempt to discourage DUI - driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As tangible as these substances are, we have difficulty in preventing underage access, unauthorized access, untimely access, excessive access, and illegal access. How difficult will it be to control access to gambling?

Mostly it will depend on the machinery of enforcement. If a casino is physically located in a hotel, we will then expect hotel staff to monitor and control access. Are they going to ask for passports to detect the Bermudians they are supposed to prevent from entering the casinos? And what of locals who take rooms and are technically hotel

guests? How will they be weeded out? And who will monitor the

monitors? We are already chronically short of bodies in the police

service, how are we going to boost 'vice squad' numbers to meet this

new demand?

It helps to remember that the casino operators depend on problem gamblers to maximise their revenue. They have a vested interest in gamblers losing control of their habit.

We already have more trouble in Bermuda than we can handle. Why ask for more?[[In-content Ad]]

---