Many states have approved commercial casino games primarily because they see them as a tool for economic growth. The biggest perceived benefits are increased employment, higher tax revenues for state and local governments, and growth in local retail sales. Increased fiscal pressure on state budgets, fear of loss of revenue for casinos in neighboring states and a more favorable public attitude towards casino games have led to their acceptance, according to the final report of the National Commission on the Impact Study of Gambling. In addition, the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 allows Indian tribes to operate casinos on their reserves.
Many states now have a mix of tribal and corporate casinos. Gambling is no longer an activity routinely condemned by government officials who want to impose ethical standards in their communities. In some parts of the country, gambling has been adopted and promoted as a legitimate economic development strategy. In theory, lotteries, racetracks, casinos and electronic games can fill government coffers with funds to support worthy government programs.
Supporters say gambling can provide jobs with good benefits to people who are unemployed or underemployed. However, to be legitimate, gambling must move from being perceived as a social problem to an ethically neutral form of entertainment or even a positive force for economic development. The government has helped in this transformation by openly promoting various forms of state gambling, such as lotteries and numbers games. As a result of the game, some are forced to do everything possible to cover the debt.
Severely addicted players spend most of their energy after their addiction. They cost companies lost productivity and profits. The players themselves can suffer from depression and bankruptcy. Some may get into serious debt and suffer anxiety because of it.
Social costs to society are varied and include unemployment benefits, family services and medical treatment for players. When gambling is introduced into an area, there is a natural temptation to make simple before-and-after comparisons and to attribute differences (positive or negative) to the introduction of gambling. Recently, very few studies have made great strides over the contributions of previous studies, which generally focused only on positive economic benefits or provided descriptions of cost factors associated with pathological and problematic gambling, but did not attempt to estimate the costs of gambling, much less the costs of pathological and problematic gambling. You're right, but city governments have taken a surprisingly long time to recognize a fact that 19th century Americans understood well that they suppressed the game in the decades following the Civil War.
Behavior associated with adolescent problem or pathological gambling includes alcohol and drug use, school absenteeism, low grades, and illegal activities to finance gambling. In addition, the consequences of pathological gambling may be due to other, less harmful forms of gambling (e. The second problem is that this estimate of indebtedness is the total debt incurred by pathological players, rather than the incremental or additional debt incurred by such players relative to the rest of the population. The six studies described above exemplify the application of the methodological considerations described above, as well as the progression of the analysis of the economic impact in the field of pathological gambling.
We use the term costs to include the negative consequences of gambling disorder for players, their immediate social environments, and the wider community. Finally, estimating the total indebtedness of pathological players minus the total indebtedness that could be expected from a population of the same size that is demographically similar but not pathological, will provide an estimate of the incremental or additional debt that is due to gambling. However, they provide a framework for others to replicate their findings and advance knowledge about the costs of gambling problems. Agency bureaucrats who are promised gambling income often support gambling for.
In addition, part of the money spent on gambling can be paid to providers, as well as to owners of gambling establishments or investors from outside the community, in which case the profits “leak out to other communities”. The question is how much more debt is incurred due to pathological gambling, not how much debt pathological gamblers incur. In other words, the effects of the game are considered to be any changes that have occurred since the game was introduced. .
.
Leave Reply