# Is Gambling Destructive to Society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107 "2005-08-22T14:34:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/61 "2005-08-22T20:09:57Z")
What percentage do you want **Bricker**? 5%, 2%? > [@](#): > > “The incidence of problem and pathological gambling among regular gamblers appears to be much higher than in the general population. In NORC’s survey of 530 patrons at gambling facilities, more than 13 percent met the lifetime criteria for pathological or problem gambling, while another 18 percent were classified as ‘at risk’ for developing severe gambling problems.” (pp. 4-5, 4-9) is this one good is that good? **Bricker?** [http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/NEWS05/508030317/1064](http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/NEWS05/508030317/1064) > [@](#): > > It’s estimated that 5 percent of gamblers are addicted. Experts say that 7 percent of gamblers have had a problem at some point during their lives. You let me know what type of cite you’ll accept. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/62 "2005-08-22T20:17:03Z")
[QUOTE=holmes] What percentage do you want **Bricker**? 5%, 2%? > [@"The incidence of problem and pathological gambling among regular gamblers appears to be much higher than in the general population. In NORC's survey of 530 patrons at gambling facilities](#): > That refers to _The incidence of problem and pathological gambling among regular gamblers_. Are we talking about that, now, instead of “among the general population”? > [@](#): > > You let me know what type of cite you’ll accept. You let ME know what you’re talking about. That second cite also discussed the percentage of problems among regular gamblers. Is that now what we’re talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/63 "2005-08-22T20:24:17Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > gambling, whether illegal or not, adds to the general problems within our society. Even if the majority of people gamble and go home, the system is designed to allow a certain percentage of them to self-destruct. 10% of the population, is a lot of people to have be addicted, and that’s not counting the ones who are functional and the carnage they leave in their wake. Whole neighbourhoods are designed to enable these people to self-destruct, whether it’s the pawns shops or the 24 hour gaming or the easy credit. The entire system is geared to pull as many people into it’s craw as possible. Pretty much the same things could be said of credit cards. [The average American carries $8,562 in credit card debt](http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040209.html), and [only 36% of credit card holders pay off the entire balance every month](http://loan.yahoo.com/c/cards6.html). So not even the majority of credit card holders pay off their cards every month. The average American probably has more credit card debt than gambling debt. The credit card companies _rely_ on people not being able or willing to pay off their entire balances every month- otherwise, they aren’t profitable, just like casinos wouldn’t be profitable if people didn’t lose money there. Does that make credit cards a social ill? If not, why does it make gambling a social ill? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/64 "2005-08-22T20:32:01Z")
I think it is, I think part of this country’s problem is that we spend more than we can afford not just individually, but as a people and are wasting a lot resources on treading water…again I’m not talking about banning anything, but I’m not going to say they’re harmless either; if the goal is to encourage people to get in as much debt as possible. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/65 "2005-08-22T20:32:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why is Atlantic City mentioned in the same breath as Las Vegas? [The money doesn’t even slow down to cross Pacific Avenue.](http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/NELSON/NELSON.HTM) The town away from the beach is just as decrepit as ever, the casino jobs are crappy and go to people from as far away as Philly instead of locals so that unemployment is still as high as ever, and the money goes straight to the corporations that own the casinos - largely based in Vegas. The state of NJ gets a cut, which was intended to support public education, but has simply had the effect of relieving the state of an obligation it previously covered through other revenue sources. Sounds to me like more of a problem of how gambling as an industry is managed in AC then a problem with gambling itself. Take away the casinos and what do you have? Same crappy AC, just with no casinos. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/66 "2005-08-22T20:38:02Z")
I think it is safe to say that \*\*anything \*\*, carried to excess, is a bad thing - a societal ill, if you will. So what? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/67 "2005-08-22T20:38:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I view gambling as entertainment. Just as a visit to the opera may set me back $200, and leave me with nothing but enjoyment during the activity, and fond memory AFTER the activity, gambling is fun to do and fun to remember doing. I see it as similar to any other form of entertainment in this regard, with the added bonus that every now and then, it’s cheap, free, or even returns money. Gambling differs from standard forms of entertainment in a couple of important ways: (1) the vastly greater unpredictability, unto bottomlessness, of the amount one might spend on one’s entertainment in an evening, (2) with standard entertainment, you never think you are going to come out ahead, and so (3) with standard entertainment, you’re never tempted to plow in more money on the supposition that you might somehow wind up spending less. My wife and I just got back from Montana, where we had a great time. We spent a few thousand upfront on plane fare, lodging, and a rental car. Beyond that, it was (1) fairly predictable that we’d drop something in the upper three figures on meals, souvenirs, maybe a whitewater rafting trip, and similar stuff. (2) There was no way we were going to break even on the trip, let alone come out ahead, so we had no motivation to, say, (3) buy an extra ten souvenir T-shirts in the hope that we’d recoup the money we spent on the first five we bought. Accordingly, there’s a satiety factor with such entertainment: you certainly can spend more than you should, but you can eat only so many meals, and few are going to buy more souvenirs at one time than they can carry. Probably the worst financial calamity is that one might be suckered into a presentation for vacation timeshares, and make the mistake of buying one. But with gambling, there’s no particular ‘enough’ point: you can keep losing money until you can’t borrow any more on your Mastercard, plunging deeper in the demented hope that your luck will change. In these ways, gambling differs from standard entertainment. Most who gamble do manage to exercise the self-control necessary for it to be pretty much the same, for them. But you’re going to have a much more significant minority of gamblers who can’t stop gambling when they’ve reached a reasonable limit, than Barry Manilow fans who can’t stop buying Barry Manilow tickets and souvenirs, or travelers who go way over their heads by taking trips they can’t afford. \*That doesn’t, by itself, imply that gambling is a social ill. \* But it distinguishes the risks of gambling from those of spending money on most other forms of entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/68 "2005-08-22T20:44:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So gambling is harmful because: > > 1. Politicians claim it will be helpful; > 2. That help never materializes; > 3. And the lack of that help is harmful. > > Um… > > You’re not claiming that gambling hurts… but that it _fails to help_. No, I’m claiming that it hurts, because if politicians weren’t able to take credit for helping their constituents by facilitating casinos or a lottery, they might be forced to do something that actually does help their constituents. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/69 "2005-08-22T20:51:44Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > I think it is, I think part of this country’s problem is that we spend more than we can afford not just individually, but as a people and are wasting a lot resources on treading water…again I’m not talking about banning anything, but I’m not going to say they’re harmless either; if the goal is to encourage people to get in as much debt as possible. No one here is arguing utter harmlessness, either for credit cards or gambling. But in each case, there is enough value outweighing the negative that I would not classify either credit cards OR gambling a social ill. **Anne Neville** makes an excellent point. Are credit cards a social ill, in your view? ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/70 "2005-08-22T20:59:59Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I’m not so sure about that. Tunica, Mississipi has some awfully nice schools and civic centers that weren’t there before the casinos moved in. The casino employs people, maybe not all of them have great high paying jobs but we’re talking about a small town in Mississippi so you take what you can get. The economy gets an additional boost as non gambling businesses move into the area, such as their outlet mall and non Casino hotels. Most of the people coming to the casino are from outside the county and probably from places like Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee so you’re generating tax revenue from someone elses cookie jar. All that money already had to exist in order for it to be spent at the casino and taxed; same goes for the mall and hotels. The money may have come from another area, but there was no net increase in the amount of money. The only way to create wealth is to add value (i.e. labor) to raw materials. Service industries can increase the efficiency of this process, but they cannot create wealth in and of themselves. This is why manufacturing is so vital to any economy. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/71 "2005-08-22T21:02:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The state that ranks first, or fifth, and doesn’t have gambing - what’s the excuse for its placement? Why do you assume that Nevada’s sixth-place ranking has to do with gambling? See what **holmes** quoted. I note that the low population states - Utah, Idaho, and Oregon – surrounding Nevada have much lower crime rates. Even border states with several major cities – California and Arizona – don’t match up. I think a natural question is, why is Nevada different? The first thing that leaps off the page would be gambling. Now, that line of argument isn’t going to hold up in court, granted, but it seems reasonable to me. > [@](#): > > And what’s the explanation for their existence elsewhere? I don’t understand how you can blame gambling for them when gambing is around, and accept the fact that they also exist in similar proportions where gambling ISN’T around. Isn’t it more likely that they exist in any city of size, and simply find it convenient to be close to casinos when casinos exist? Funny, I tend to find that these places proliferate in high crime neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. If these types of places don’t gravitate to places where people are desperate for money, I’ll eat my hat. Are you honestly suggesting it’s just coincidence? > [@](#): > > So the question is… are those jobs better than no jobs at all? > > Answer: yes. Well, I would find it hard to argue that no job is better than any job. If I were faced with choosing between being destitute and finding employment shoveling human feces into burlap bags, I suppose I’d take the job, as I suspect most people would. That still doesn’t mean that it’s a good job. Waitress and croupier are certainly a few rungs above dung hauler, but it still does not make them particularly good jobs. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/72 "2005-08-22T21:22:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You let ME know what you’re talking about. That second cite also discussed the percentage of problems among regular gamblers. Is that now what we’re talking about? You’re right. I was careless and forgot whom I was dealing with. To your first question, I miswrote addiction for problem, that was my fault. Second the 10% “problem” gamblers is vague term, with limited sources; accept it or not your choice. I can’t find the original source. However: [aafp](http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000201/741.html) > [@](#): > > The economics of gambling are staggering. The amount of money wagered annually in the United States is estimated to be $0.5 trillion.7 Americans spend approximately $31.5 billion annually on state lottery games, with many states becoming increasingly reliant on revenues from legalized gambling.8 Legalized gambling, organized crime and violence have historically shared a long relationship. Findings from the 1999 Gambling Impact and Behavior Study8 (sponsored by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission) revealed the following changes since 1975: (1) only 14 percent of people have never gambled compared with 33 percent in 1975; (2) 50 percent of people have played the lottery, and 25 percent have gambled in casinos (double the rates from 1975); (3)\*\* approximately 2 million Americans are pathologic gamblers, 3 million adults can be considered problem gamblers and an additional 15 million are considered at-risk for problem gambling;\*\* (4) direct and indirect costs to American society from problem and pathologic gambling (e.g., health care, bankruptcy, criminal costs) are approximately $5 billion per year. A far cry from 10 percent, but…2 million addicted, 3 million problems and another 15 million maybes is a lot of people. So it looks like your position is, that gambling is worth the problems it causes, because…it what generates revenue, it allows people to have harmless fun. What’s the benefit that legalized gambling provides? From what I’ve seen, it looks like at best only a small percentage of people receive any real “profits” and the rest pretty much break even or lose…I’m not just talking about the players. So, what’s the upside? ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/73 "2005-08-22T21:42:38Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > 2 million addicted, 3 million problems and another 15 million maybes is a lot of people. > > So it looks like your position is, that gambling is worth the problems it causes, because…it what generates revenue, it allows people to have harmless fun. What’s the benefit that legalized gambling provides? Do we make stores illegal because some people are compulsive shoppers? No, we as a society have decided that shopping, on the whole, benefits society, even if some people might have a problem with it. We don’t ban other non-productive forms of entertainment, such as TV, movies, theater, books, computer games, and message boards, merely for not providing a benefit to society. Some people like to gamble, and I think they should be allowed to do it until they demonstrate that they can’t gamble responsibly. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/74 "2005-08-22T21:56:29Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > Do we make stores illegal because some people are compulsive shoppers? No, we as a society have decided that shopping, on the whole, benefits society, even if some people might have a problem with it. We don’t ban other non-productive forms of entertainment, such as TV, movies, theater, books, computer games, and message boards, merely for not providing a benefit to society. > > Some people like to gamble, and I think they should be allowed to do it until they demonstrate that they can’t gamble responsibly. I think we need to seperate and clarify the two debates that are going on here. The first is “Is Gambling a Social Ill” and the second one is “Should Gambling be illegal”. Just becuase someone answers yes to the first does not mean one necessarily answers yes. As to the OP, I believe you have previously stated that Marijuana should be illegal and is a social Ill, **Bricker**. People have provided cites showing that there is a significant cost to society and a large number of people that gambling has had a significant detrimental effect on their life. Why is it that Marijuana is a social ill and should be illegal while gambling is not a social ill and should remain legal? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/75 "2005-08-23T00:23:39Z")
I don’t expect this to be generally persuasive; it is founded in some presuppositions that I think Bricker and I share but others do not. It’s long; I hope it makes sense. > [@Bricker](#): > > I view gambling as entertainment. Just as a visit to the opera may set me back $200, and leave me with nothing but enjoyment during the activity, and fond memory AFTER the activity, gambling is fun to do and fun to remember doing. I disagree. A visit to the opera, or any other artistic activity, is not merely “enjoyable;” it contains the possibility of education, enlightenment and indeed transcendance. Of course, it may also lead one into ignorance and brutishness; the possibility of either will, of course, vary with each artistic work and with the individual. Nonetheless, I think it may be said that some forms of entertainment can be social ills. To avoid wrangling over specifics, I’ll pick a film most (including me) have not seen: Chaos,[“an exercise in heartless cruelty [that] ends with careless brutality. The movie denies not only the value of life, but the possibility of hope.”](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20050811%2FREVIEWS%2F508110303%2F1023&AID1=%2F20050811%2FREVIEWS%2F508110303%2F1023&AID2=) Whether or not that film fits that description is irrelevant; my point, one that I hope we can agree on, is rather that some films have no redeeming moral virtues, and that those films are positive social ills. The common retort that people are unlikely to go out and replicate the behavior they see on screen misses the point; films like this coarsen and debase their viewers, even if – perhaps especially if – those viewers do nothing more than “enjoy” watching them. Of course, in contrast to films like this, we have films that are in fact art, and do all the things art is supposed to do. As it stands, there are clearly a large number of films that qauaify as art and serve some purpose; thus I would not say that movies are a clear social ill. But were the majority of Hollywood’s product similar to Chaos, I would.\* Even if one person were to say that they saw Chaos and it didn’t effect them, the fact would remain that it is a clear social ill – the negative effect on the rest of the populace is decisive. Now, I think it is beyond argument that for some people (those who become addicted) gambling is a source of great evil. What is far less apparent, but no less real are the psychological and spiritual hazards it presents to some people. Gambling, like the worst of Hollywood, can serve to cause and/or reinforce destructive attitudes and ideas. It may serve to dampen the work ethic, it may serve as a emotional fantasy that removes the incentive to deal with real problems; it unquestionably encourages greed and an inordinate focus on material wealth in many people. None of that may apply to you; you may well gamble and experience “nothing more than enjoyment.” But it is indeed “nothing more.” I will not say categorically that gambling per se has never been good for anyone. Perhaps someone, somewhere has expereinced some sort of enlightenment or transcendance from gambling; but as someone who grew up in Atlantic City, hung out in more than a few casinos but also worked at the Rescue Mission, I would argue vigorously that the numbers are very, very small. When I looked at into the eyes of the guys who had blown it all, or hell, just at the eyes of the glazed-over retirees who were pumping quarter after quarter into the cheap slots, the emptiness was deep and real. In contrast, when I looked at the winners, I often saw nothing more than a cheap and short-lived thrill, destined to last only as long as the money did … likely to replaced with the same feeling the losers had. I think we can safely say that for some people, gambling can be a catastrophically bad thing. For many more people, it can be less visibly harmful, but nonetheless be destructive to their emotional, psychological and spiritual health, just as the worst of Hollywood is. But unlike Hollywood, or the opera you refer to, there is no upside. Nobody (or very few) ever walked out of a Casino enlightened in any deeper sense than a hot stove can “enlighten” a child. Gambling per se never put anyone into closer, healthier relationship with God or their fellow man; it has put quite a few into into worse relationship. Again, you may well be able to gamble with no ill effect. But that wasn’t the question. Since the gambler will, at best, get “nothing more than enjoyment” while many others suffer significant harm, it’s hard to see how the net social effect is a positive one. None of which, of course addresses the advisability of making all gambling (or all lousy horror movies) _illegal_, which I would oppose. As others have said, the social cost of making gambling illegal would be even greater than the cost of allowing it to continue. That doesn’t change the fact that that gambling itself is a social ill. \*Actually, I’m not sure I’d defend the idea that Hollywood doesn’t do more harm than good, either; I suspect you’d agree with me that many other films that are quite “mainstream” are, to varying degrees, quite inimical to the proper growth and development of the human heart, mind and soul. But I digress. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/76 "2005-08-23T02:25:35Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > The only way to create wealth is to add value (i.e. labor) to raw materials. Service industries can increase the efficiency of this process, but they cannot create wealth in and of themselves. This is why manufacturing is so vital to any economy. That is absolutely incorrect. Intellectual capital, branding, goodwill are all non-material forms of wealth. > [@Hyperelastic](#): > > All that money already had to exist in order for it to be spent at the casino and taxed; same goes for the mall and hotels. The money may have come from another area, but there was no net increase in the amount of money. Money is not the same thing as wealth. Yes the money came from somewhere else. Money comes into places like Las Vegas and in exchange entertainment is produced. A non-material want of society is met. It’s not any different than Six Flags or Disney World. I was just in Vegas a few weeks ago. I have some extra disposable income so why not drop a couple thousand on food, drink and blackjack (and travel & lodging)? Would that money have been better spent investing in a business or real estate? Probably. But life is not just about making widgets. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/77 "2005-08-23T03:28:35Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > That is absolutely incorrect. Intellectual capital, branding, goodwill are all non-material forms of wealth. > > I was just in Vegas a few weeks ago. I have some extra disposable income so why not drop a couple thousand on food, drink and blackjack (and travel & lodging)? Would that money have been better spent investing in a business or real estate? Probably. But life is not just about making widgets. You’re completely wrong and are confusing the potential to create wealth (and the exchange value of such) with its actual creation. Just because you pay money for something does not make it wealth. Intellectual capital, branding and goodwill are not wealth. You cannot eat, live in, or wear those things. Intellectual capital may carry the potential to create wealth if it helps you produce or consume things more efficiently. Branding and goodwill may help you capture a bigger piece of an existing market. But none of those things creates wealth. You can’t eat a patent. If you have a patent on how to make widgets, you can sell your patent for something to eat, but only as long as there are widget factories. No widget factories means your patent is worthless. I never said life was all about making widgets, just that manufacturing (which covers everything from making widgets to growing food) is the only way to create wealth. What you’re describing with your Vegas trip is consumption, not production. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/78 "2005-08-23T04:34:21Z")
Hyperelastic - There are a variety of definitions for “wealth”, but a thing does not need to be tangible to have economic utility (which is really what we are talking about). My widget patent may be worthless without the widget factory, but the factory is equally worthless without someone to invent and design widgets to be produced. I think you are equating production with wealth and I’m not sure that’s accurate. I can have two nations. One with a huge manufacturing ability, another with huge amounts of intellectual capital. Do these two countries not have something to trade with the other? That potential to increase production has value. Anyhow, I think we are starting to get into more complex issues of accounting value vs market value vs economic value, consumption and the capturing of value in a service economy. Bottom line is entertainment industries have an economic utility, provided that people are not spending income that should be going to paying the rent or feeding the family. At that point, the casino is still creating wealth, however it is wealth concentrated with a limited number of people at the expense of other communities. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/79 "2005-08-23T13:39:10Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think we need to seperate and clarify the two debates that are going on here. The first is “Is Gambling a Social Ill” and the second one is “Should Gambling be illegal”. Just becuase someone answers yes to the first does not mean one necessarily answers yes. > > As to the OP, I believe you have previously stated that Marijuana should be illegal and is a social Ill, **Bricker**. People have provided cites showing that there is a significant cost to society and a large number of people that gambling has had a significant detrimental effect on their life. Why is it that Marijuana is a social ill and should be illegal while gambling is not a social ill and should remain legal? It’s hard to say. I certainly think that most of the harm associated with marijuana use comes from its being illegal. I don’t remember if I’ve come out and said that it SHOULD be illegal, because it has enough harmful effects apart from the law, but I do, so if I haven’t said it, I will now. So what’s the principled distinction between marijuana and gambling? So far, it’s only my gut feeling that marijuana use is more harmful to more more people than gambling is. That is, if both were legal, marijuana would cause more problems than gambling. I admit that this opinion is not buttressed by research or solid inquiry – it is, as I say, a gut feeling. As such, I’m willing to be convinced that I’m off base concerning marijuana; perhaps it is not as harmful as I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107/80 "2005-08-23T14:06:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far, it’s only my gut feeling that marijuana use is more harmful to more more people than gambling is. That is, if both were legal, marijuana would cause more problems than gambling. > > I admit that this opinion is not buttressed by research or solid inquiry – it is, as I say, a gut feeling. As such, I’m willing to be convinced that I’m off base concerning marijuana; perhaps it is not as harmful as I thought. Translataion: **Bricker** likes to gamble but not smoke pot. I’m the opposite. I think pot has far more positive aspects than gambling and far less downside. I think both should be legal. Freedom and all that rot, you know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-gambling-destructive-to-society/318107.md?page=5)