Familiar Falsehoods Again Used to Discredit Online Gambling
After an announcement by the British Columbia Lottery Corporation that it is introducing online casino games and expanding the maximum weekly betting limit, the Victoria Times-Colonist issued an editorial criticizing the decision, But a gaming expert says the newspaper didn't do its due diligence in checking the facts about online gambling and problem gaming.Online Casino Advisory senior gambling analyst Sherman Bradley states that the paper's assertion that online gambling hurts families and leads to uncontrolled growth of problem gambling is incorrect.
"Research has shown online gamblers have a higher risk of becoming addicted and getting into trouble," said the paper.
"But all recent evidence shows that, despite expectations otherwise, online gambling actually has only a very mild risk of problem gambling incidents," says Bradley. "The newspaper combines unsubstantiated statements with the results of the US National Gambling Impact Study Commission of 1999.
"But that committee has been discredited by the political, rather than scientific, makeup of the group, as well as its prejudicial stance toward its inevitable conclusions. The commission was made up of several religious fringe leaders, including James Dobson, as well as Terry Lanni of MGM Mirage and other land-based casino insiders."
Bradley pointed out that numerous more scientific surveys since then have concluded online gambling is far safer than land-based casinos, in the face of seemingly obvious reasoning.
"The Times-Colonist may have points it wishes to make about online gambling, but it should do some research into the truth before publishing tired, disproved arguments," Bradley closed.
Recent Comments
| Posted by: sh | When: 08/23/2009 03:40:58 AM EST |
| A senior gambling analyst is telling us that online gambling only has a mild incidence of problem gambling. Should we be grateful that the analyst is at least acknowledging that online gambling leads to 'a mild incidence' of problem gambling as opposed to none, or perhaps questioning whether such analyst has a vested interest in online gambling and therefore the liklihood is that the problem is much worse than as reported? | |
| Posted by: A.J. Maldonado | When: 08/23/2009 08:52:47 AM EST |
| You are right to not accept the word of vested interests. That is why you should read the referenced and linked studies, so that you receive the impartial results from Harvard Medical School and dozens of other tests that conclude online gambling is not dangerous, rather than assume (everyone knows what assume means) that the problem is worse than reported. | |




