Should The United States Adopt A Gambling Ban?

In Florida the proposed development of a large casino in Jacksonville caught everyone by surprise, not only because the economy is tanking but also because the casino owners are making contributions to their cause. Perhaps in hindsight, state and city leaders would also have been wiser had they been more diligent in maintaining a dialogue with their residents and the neighboring communities before hand and putting on events rather than laying all of their casino funds into the gambling dispute. In the end the decision on whether or not to build a casino is ultimately up to voters, but many are already frustrated with what they see as a knee-jerk reaction from officials. This should be tempered with intelligent, sensitive and well-planned community input from everyone involved.

The proposal is on hold while the Florida Gaming Commission reviews it. They are concerned about the impact on the state’s gaming revenue and the prospect of increased unemployment in the area. Opponents argue that the casino gambling plan is just another example of local and state government micromanaging business in the area and wanting to dictate how the casinos run. The only way the Gaming Commission can make a decision is to take a close look at the casino proposal, take public comments, gather financial information and make a recommendation.

At first blush, it seems obvious why politicians should not get involved with the gaming issue. It is a matter of greed and politics, which may make sense when you consider that some of those who are really looking out for the best interests of gamblers are the ones raising the question. But the fact remains that most Americans, including some politicians, support full casino gambling casinos and most are happy to see the gambling be taken care of by the locals and surrounding communities rather than the politicians’ interference.

The main article in this series focuses on the argument that there is more than one way to curb gambling in the United States. That means there is no reason why the states which already have legalized gambling should be prevented from expanding the laws to other states. The argument made in favor of this idea by the opponents of the expansion is that the Gaming Commission has no business regulating the amount of money wagered on individual games. The main article is supposed to answer that question. The fact remains that the United States has a problem with excessive spending by Americans and the only way to curb that is to have all states have a Casino Gaming Reform Act, which will establish a limit on the amount of money that can be wagered on individual games.

However, the main argument against expanding the number of games is the lack of support for it amongst citizens in general. They do not want any more people to lose their jobs or for gambling to become an important workplace activity. There are many arguments on both sides of this issue, and there is little doubt that more studies will reveal some facts that change the pros and cons for expansion. But for now, this seems to be the consensus opinion.

Most of the opponents of expansion generally agree that if the United States wants to encourage more people to take part in casino games, they should allow consumers to gamble online where they can be certain of paying taxes and dealing with casinos that are legitimate businesses. They also feel that people should not be forced into gambling in any place that they may not be comfortable in. Those who support gambling generally argue that the United States has the most free market when compared to other industrialized nations, and that everyone benefits from allowing people to gamble whenever they want.