(5 of 6)
Existing gambling laws are a mass of contradictions. While banning most forms of gambling 29 states permit horse racing—but not off-track betting. Some states forbid betting on flat racing, which is presumably wicked, but allow betting on harness races—which are presumably a wholesome, rustic diversion. The California legislature puts on its best poker face and allows betting in draw-poker parlors because it is a "game of skill." In Virginia, the statutes spell out that b-i-n-g-o is forbidden. So the churches and fire stations spell it beano, or bungo, or lotto, and go right on playing.
Many law-enforcement officials favor legalization of gambling. Their chief arguments: 1) people gamble anyway, so why not regulate the action and bring in revenue for the state rather than for mobsters; 2) legal control is the only way to keep out criminals. The counterarguments are that 1) even controlled gambling will lead many people into the habit who would not otherwise get hooked; 2) lotteries in particular are played mostly by lower-income families and thus constitute an unjust tax on the poor; 3) in places like Nevada, where gambling is legal, criminal elements have certainly not faded away. Virgil Peterson, director of the Chicago crime commission, argues that the underworld inevitably gains a foothold under any licensing system by organizing legal "fronts" and establishing rival illegal operations that place the state-operated venture at a disadvantage.
It does not have to be that way. In many parts of the world, gambling is legalized and largely free of criminal elements. State-run lotteries, which support everything from opera to cancer research, exist in 84 countries. While there have been fears recently that U.S. mobsters have infiltrated some of the thriving casinos in London, most of England's 1,000 licensed gaming houses are fairly clean operations where, as one director says, "Dad and the family can have a bit of a flutter for a fiver." In short, it seems better to establish some forms of government-controlled gambling and try to stave off the racketeers than to let them proliferate underground. The issue, however, goes beyond combatting crime. Life is filled with all kinds of habits that can grow problematic or dangerous, from liquor and sex to the carrying of firearms and the borrowing of money. In all these fields, subject to some controls, Americans are presumed mature enough to make their own decisions. Is gambling so much more perilous that people must be totally shielded from its seductive power? Within reason, Americans ought to be trusted with an opportunity to choose freely whether they want to gamble or not.
Some believe that, as American life gets fuller, the lure of gambling will diminish. People will find such challenge in their jobs, their families, their sports and their travels (so goes the argument) that it will not be necessary to resort to the artificial excitement of gambling, and that strange and beguiling itch will disappear. But don't bet on it.