Casino Debate On The Table Again In Britain

We all live in a global village. And very different countries thousands of miles apart can have raging debates on exactly the same social issues. Casino gambling is the subject of controversy here in Britain, but it is also the subject of debate in Jamaica. And, although the social and economic realities are very different, the issues raised are the same.

The background to casino gambling in Britain is that, although we have casinos, they are so tightly regulated that for most of the population they might as well not exist. As a deliberate act of government policy, we have no equivalent to Las Vegas.


Casino owners cannot advertise their casinos, serve drinks on the gaming floor or offer live entertainment. They are run as private clubs and you have to be a member for at least 24 hours before you can gamble.


There are very strict controls over where they can be set up and who can run them. These restrictions were brought in because of the fear of the link between gambling and organised crime. The underlying thinking was that gambling was to be tolerated but not encouraged.


Casinos have never formed an integral part of our leisure or tourism industry; the determined American tourist who wanted to gamble could probably find one, but that was about it. Then the British government decided to deregulate casino gambling. They wanted a new generation of 24-hour casinos and a wave of mega-casinos on the Las Vegas model with 1,250 slot machines, all with a £1-million jackpot.


There were a number of reasons for the change in policy: there was a feeling that our existing gambling legislation was old fashioned and had not caught up with new developments like Internet gambling and the lottery; there was the idea that deregulation in general was a good thing and there was sustained pressure from US gambling interests who saw Britain as a huge untapped source of profits.


But what did not exist was public demand for bigger and better casino gambling on the Las Vegas model. Even so, the government was taken aback by the strength of the public backlash against their proposals. In the anti-casino gambling camp were: the churches, progressive opinion, social conservatives and much of the media.


The churches argued the moral case and some conservative commentators argued against the new casinos because they were seizing on any stick to beat the government. But there was widespread concern about the social consequences of these new huge casinos which, for the first time, would be allowed to advertise and actively encourage new gamblers.


Opponents pointed out that the US style mega-casino is not really about the blackjack and roulette. Where they make their money is from the slot machines. And these slot machines attract the poor, the female and the gambling addict. An American survey has revealed that the very poorest gamblers spend three times as much (as a proportion of their income) as the better off.


Commentators argued that more casinos with thousands of these slot machines will lead to a rise in the number of gambling addicts and middle-aged women gambling away their housekeeping money. And where you have casinos you have organised crime and opponents were not slow to point out that casinos were ideal for laundering money, even without the active co-operation of the owners.


This debate all took place in the run-up to last year's general election, and public feeling was so strong that the government had to backtrack for fear of losing votes. They promised to limit the numbers of new casinos and only have one mega-casino. But now that the election is out of the way, the lobbyists for US gambling interests have resumed their pressure and the issue is being debated again.


The strongest supporters of casino gambling are some of our run-down resort areas which see it as a way of regenerating their communities. But public opposition is still strong. I have an open mind on the issue. Gambling is one of the few vices I have never been able to see the point of.


I have visited a casino only twice in my life and placed a bet on a horserace just once. (I lost.) And, the last thing that the poor people in East London that I represent need is more opportunities to throw away their money gambling.


But I can see how, carefully regulated, a mega-casino could form part of a leisure complex. In Jamaica, the debate is different again. A developed economy like Britain has many alternatives for regenerating run-down tourist areas, but for Jamaica, casino gambling may be a lifeline. Only Jamaicans can judge that. But it is interesting to see that this is a live issue on both sides of the Atlantic

http://pokermag.com/managearticle.asp?C=310&A=11685