In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

219 Epilogue฀ Prohibition฀in฀a฀Borderless฀America Is฀gaming฀a฀legitimate฀business฀and฀revenue฀source฀or฀is฀it฀“economic฀morphine ”?฀What฀does฀the฀Wire฀Act฀say฀about฀Americans’฀embrace฀of฀gaming?฀How฀ might฀the฀Internet฀transform฀the฀United฀States,฀and฀what฀does฀the฀popularity฀of฀ Internet฀gaming฀mean฀for฀American฀democracy฀in฀the฀twenty-first฀century? You’d฀think฀they’d฀have฀learned฀from฀Prohibition,฀but฀the฀more฀the฀government฀tries฀to฀stop฀ Internet฀betting,฀the฀hotter฀it฀gets. ฀฀—฀฀Mr.฀Lotto,฀2004 over the past fifty years, gaming advocates have triumphed in a pitched battle against anti-gaming forces, one that compelled Americans to choose between vestigial distrust of those who profited from gaming and the slow realization that people continued to gamble despite prohibition and that individual citizens viewed gaming legalization to be in their personal interest because of the prospect it offered of lower taxes. In the early twenty- first century the original arguments against legalizing gaming have been pushed out of the mainstream, as a $72 billion gaming industry has made itself a part of the United States. Or rather, the people of the United States have embraced it. By 2002 gaming advocates could argue that theirs was the true national pastime—that year, more Americans visited a casino than visited major and minor league baseball parks.1 But if America is truly a nation of gamblers, one must understand the reasons that Americans once demurred on legalizing gaming. To do so will make the seemingly sudden embrace of gaming less perplexing. When stripped of purely local or personal considerations, arguments against legal gaming in the United States tended to follow three primary arcs. The first held that gaming, which permitted bettors to win something for nothing, defied the religious and moral principles of the nation and undercut the value of honest work and even social justice. A nation of gamblers would assign no value to legitimate remuneration. The second argument , advanced most strenuously after the Kefauver Committee’s investigations , centered on the supposed inexorable domination of gaming by organized crime; any gaming activity, legal or not, would inevitably lead to an increase in political corruption. This sentiment, of course, led to the pas08 .indd 1 6/7/05 12:04:35 AM 220 cutting฀the฀wire sage of the Wire Act in 1961. The final argument against gaming posited that a small percentage of the population would become addicted to compulsive gambling and that the social costs incurred by these gaming addicts and others who could not control their gaming behavior were reason enough to deny gaming a place in a rational, caring society.2 To counter these arguments, gaming advocates formulated several ideas in favor of easing restrictions on a ubiquitous behavior and deriving some social benefit from it. In 1973, when the New Jersey Gambling Study Commission issued its final report, it cited three chief arguments favoring gaming legalization that directly rebutted the anti-gaming positions. To counter the religious/moral argument, the commission stated that most citizens no longer held compelling moral objections to gaming and that statesanctioned , legal gaming “would remove restrictions on personal action which many people resent as puritanical, hypocritical, repressive and archaic .” Adherents to the Kefauver thesis that gaming inevitably led to corruption were confronted with the proposition, unthinkable twenty years earlier, that state-sanctioned gaming would actually reduce the influence of organized crime by depriving it of its revenue from illegal gambling. Legal gaming would also eliminate “opportunities and temptations for the corruption of various public officials whose protection or connivance is necessary to the survival of most illegal gambling operations.” Finally, legalizing gaming would free the police from investigating gaming crimes and allow them to concentrate on “both the ‘organized crime’ and the violent ‘street crime’ which alarm the citizenry and undermine social order,” no small concern in years when crime rates rapidly rose.3 As if to rebut charges that the social costs of gaming were too high, the commission simply stated a stark truth: Gaming held the promise of “providing substantial revenues through as nearly a ‘painless’ method as can be conceived.”4 However severe the individual costs of problem gaming, the social costs—lost opportunities, misdirected spending, wasted time—were much harder to tabulate than the immediate social benefits—higher state revenue and more jobs. By the twenty-first century, gaming had become both an interest group (in the form of an extremely well-organized and politically astute...

Share