Online Gambling: Here Already
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 30, 2012 6:10pm
(10) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Legal, State Capitol
As the Finance Committee was hearing expert testimony on the pitfalls of online gambling, one of the committee’s younger members demonstrated on his iPad one reason for the state to allow it—it’s already happening.
Sitting in a hearing room in the Legislative Office Building, Rep. Roland Lemar, D- New Haven, pulled up the leading online gambling websites.
“I was able to go through the entire application process, provide my credit card number, do everything except click start,” he said Monday.
The sites were careful to point out for him that no American has ever been prosecuted for online gambling and that all the legal risks associated wouldn’t be on him if he chose to gamble, he said.
Lemar demonstrated what Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has been saying for weeks: online gambling is coming to Connecticut whether we like it or not. The U.S. Justice Department cleared the way for states to get involved with Internet gaming last month when it clarified a law that had previously been interpreted to prohibit intrastate Internet gambling.
“The playing field with respect to gaming is about to change,” Malloy said Monday following the Bond Commission meeting. “And we have to consider those changes and be aware of them.”
However, Marvin Steinberg, executive director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, said that when a state passes a law legalizing it, it promotes a form of gambling.
“It increases the number of people who gamble and a certain percentage of them will have a problem,” he said.
Due to the private and individual nature of online gambling, it can be more dangerous than other forms of gambling, he said. Where someone in a casino may interact with other people and pick up on social cues suggesting it’s time to stop, someone on gambling on their laptop has none of that input, he said.
Steinberg’s assistant director Mary Drexler said online gambling can be especially dangerous for minors who have grown up playing video games where they are comfortable taking risks. The younger a person develops a gambling habit, the more likely they are to have a serious problem later on in life, she said.
Sen. Gary LeBeau, D- East Hartford, asked how parents in Connecticut can prevent their kids from going online to gamble when states like Massachusetts and New Jersey seemed poised to get into the game themselves.
“You’ve already acknowledged that children are already online gambling, I know my kids have. I’ve got three kids in their twenties, I know one of them has. I know that they play poker online, they can go offshore, they know how to do that,” he said.
If that’s already happening, wouldn’t it be better for Connecticut to offer its own version of gaming with controls and protections to prevent children from playing, he asked. Other states may not have controls, he said.
Malloy agreed, saying if the state choose to pass online gaming legislation, it could devote additional funds to helping people with gambling problems.
“Either way whether we make changes in Connecticut or not, the number of increased opportunities for gaming in our region, including online gaming even if we didn’t do it—and I’m not saying we’re going to,—but even if we didn’t do it is going to cause that problem to probably rise to another level,” Malloy said. “That’s why if we do anything we need to increase the amount of money available to address that problem to the greatest extent we can.”
Currently the state spends about $1.9 million on problem gambling, which doesn’t represent 1 percent of the revenues the state takes in for gaming.
“If we were to go any further with respect to gaming I think an appropriate factor would be 1 percent of any increase,” Malloy said.
Steinberg agreed that if the state decides to generate additional revenue through gambling, more money should be spent on problem gamblers based on a percentage of that revenue.
He asked that lawmakers drafting any bill that would legalize to keep a few things in mind. One thing they should ask themselves is whether residents actually want to legalize online gambling. Steinberg said the state should sponsor a review of scientific literature on the impact of online gambling.
Any bill that legalizes online gambling should include provisions that have proven to reduce underage gambling in other places like Canada and Australia.
Steinberg did not tell the committee his organization was there to oppose a bill to legalize online gambling.
“We’re not here to say don’t do online gambling. We’re not here to say don’t do casinos. We’re here to say, if you’re going to do it, know what you’re doing, know what the downside is, research it, provide funds for prevention and treatment and research, and got on with it,” he said.
Rep. Sean Williams, R- Watertown, questioned why, given all the negative potential of online gambling, he wouldn’t oppose its legalization.
“Understand there are a lot of people on this committee and throughout the legislature who are, to say the least, very skeptical about online gambling, a lot of people who are poised to oppose it,” Williams said.
Steinberg said that as an affiliate member of the National Council of Problem Gambling, they need to be neutral on the issue. Their job is to provide enough information to cause people to pause and think about it, he said. However, Steinberg, who will leave his position at the group later this week, said his personal feelings on the matter are different.
“As a citizen, I’m not in favor of this much dependency on gambling but it’s an easy way for government to get some funds. As opposed to waiting a long time to grow the business sector,” he said. “... It is on shaky grounds to continue to depend on gambling funds because eventually it’s going to be tapped out.”
Tags: online gambling, finance, Revenue, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, problem gambling, tribes, Marvin Steinberg
(10) Comments
posted by: state_employee | January 30, 2012 7:40pm
I am appalled at this governor. He doesn’t care at all about the citizens of this state. All he cares about is revenue.
Just because other states may legalize online gambling DOES NOT mean that it is the right thing to do.
He should be ashamed of himself but he isn’t. He is too busy hob knobbing with the elite.
posted by: Disgruntled | January 30, 2012 7:45pm
I am opposed only because a friend,who pioneered the concept,was forced into exile back in the day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071068/ns/technology_and_science-internet_roulette/t/americans-strandedinparadise/
Dan and his cronies would sell crack if they thought they could get enough revenue and votes. With the collapse (actual or impending) of the casino revenue they are probably already getting ready to lay blame but like the bottle deposit,no matter what they set the money aside for,it will be pissed away into the general fund.
Hopefully they are wise enough to link the plastic tax refunds to online gaming accounts!
posted by: William Kurtz | January 31, 2012 1:20pm
I can imagine few activities more foolish than “gambling” on a website where you have no idea whether the programming is actively stacked against you.
Gambling is silly anyway, but at least in a physical, regulated casino, you can be reasonably confident that as long as he odds are against you, there are 52 cards in a deck. And you can watch the roulette wheel spin, and see if an actual person has played the number the ball stops on. But internet “gambling?” C’mon.
posted by: Rep. Roland Lemar | January 31, 2012 1:53pm
I would like to clarify what I was demonstrating in the article above, which was not intended so much as a justification for moving ahead with State-sanctioned online gambling, but instead to illustrate for many of my colleagues how easy it already was. The goal was to help inform the conversation about what was already readily available online and how the explosion of sites that we are about to see will impact Connecticut regardless of what legislation we may/may not pass. My comments were intended to highlight the importance of the work that the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling is doing and why it is furthermore important that we and they proceed carefully, yet certainly toward developing protections for our residents in light of what already exists and will very likely expand.
posted by: ... | January 31, 2012 4:42pm
You’d be surprised William Kurtz. I’ve observed areas of PA where there are internet cafes that openly promote the availability of online gambling websites on their computers. For many who are tired of the often useless and unexciting scratch ticket, the vibrant sounds and pictures of a physical casino are being innovated online every day.
I agree with you though on the opinion towards online gambling. It is a bit sad and impersonal. The appeal of savings from transportation outweigh the speed and potential it has to turn casual players into frequent players, or addicts. The most gambling I’ve done involving a computer is the faux slot machines Big Y has for their reward coins! :p And even then you lose nothing, unless you go in to shop solely for the chance to play.
posted by: Reasonable | January 31, 2012 9:13pm
Another attempt to lower the floundering quality of life in the State of Connecticut. But, if it produces more tax revenue, Gov. Malloy will accept it as “politically correct!”
posted by: VanessaFas | February 1, 2012 10:04am
Mr. Steinberg is mistaken. People who want to gamble and/or have addictions will find a way whether you permit it, approve it, or not. Much like any other addicts, they will seek out what they want. And to classify all gambling as dangerous or addictive is incorrect. I gamble once a year at the casinos, and enjoy it. I choose to stop, to not put my family or budget at risk. Everything in life is a choice. And to block progressive online gambling, or to waste time trying to block something that is already here, well it is a waste of time AND money. Money that is needed elsewhere, and these politicians could be helping others.
posted by: robn | February 1, 2012 10:27am
Time and time again, prohibition has been shown to be a failure. If you try to ban the vice it will go underground and the potential damage will be much worse. Make an open, transparent and regulated system and tax it to put aside resources for education and for addicts.
posted by: Reasonable | February 1, 2012 11:21am
The state doesn’t need more gambling, but Gov. Malloy wants more tax revenue—so he can continue his “big-spending-joy-ride!” Hoping Mrs. Malloy handles his household budget as the Governor keeps over-spending our state budget, and then turns into a “taxaholic!”
posted by: William Kurtz | February 1, 2012 1:31pm
Oh, I’m not surprised that it exists; I’m just surprised that people are actually foolish enough to gamble through websites, and not in physical casinos, or on observable events like games or races.
Even then, the odds of prevailing should be low enough, and the chance of being cheated should be great enough to give most people pause.
I tend to agree with Vanessa about the problems with prohibition but gambling is not in any way ‘progressive’.