Inevitable Vice, or Savior?
A second policy position is that gambling is an inevitable vice.
Proponents of this view believe that people are going to gamble regardless of legality, and that if government permits gambling, it can prevent excessive gambling; keep undesirable elements out of the industry; and ensure that the casino provides fair and honest games.
Another argument relies on comparison of the benefits and costs to society between illegal and legal gambling.
Many perceived benefits of criminalizing gambling were mentioned in the discussion of 'undesirable' policy. The costs of making gambling illegal often address the best use of government resources to control the deviant behavior of its citizens.
'Victimless' deviant behavior can then be permitted, but controlled and not encouraged, through regulation.
Making gambling illegal also imposes other costs on society that government-controlled gambling may eliminate, like the following:
Criminals will protect their illegal gambling monopolies with violence.
Illegal gambling profit and winnings will go untaxed.
Persons indebted to criminal gambling organizations may resort to crime to pay their debts because criminals are not likely to recognize discharges of the debts by the legal system.
Persons convicted of gaming crimes will be socially stigmatized.
The populace will lose respect for a government that is unable to enforce unpopular laws.
However, governments may dislike gambling, but allow it to achieve some governmental goals.
Proponents of this view assert that while gambling is undesirable, its negative impact is less serious than what would occur if tourism declined or, if the government did not have tax revenues to provide other needed services.
In other words, they see gambling as the lesser of two undesirable alternatives. The problems attributed to gambling are seen as less substantial or subject to alleviation by the gambling tax revenues.
These increases may lead to creating new residents or retaining existing ones. Whether any other goals are achieved, gambling at least may generate needed taxes.
The Atlantic City experiment was based on the concept that gambling is not meant to be an end, but to be a means to fulfill worthwhile goals.
The premise for the experiment was that government is uneasy with, and hostile to, the gaming industry but accepts it with the view that it must achieve the worthwhile goals, minimize social and governmental costs, and be strictly controlled.
The policy toward the gaming industry creates conflicts. For example, in New Jersey, gaming was intended to revitalize Atlantic City, increase tourism, and be 'the catalyst needed to stimulate construction, provide new jobs, and generate new tax revenues'.
The extent to which such goals are achievable is directly linked to the successes of the industry, and success is most likely to be achieved by increased revenues through marketing and promotion.
On the other hand, government hoped to protect the gambler from exploitation by preventing the casinos from stimulating demand for the casino product, so it restricted the casinos from marketing and promotion.
Thus, the process requires an attempt to meet contradictory goals through compromise that usually frustrates one or both goals.