Bahamas in Throes of High-Stakes Debate

by Simon

•Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com

A high-stakes debate on gambling has been shuffled back near the top of a thick deck of national issues as a variation on a basic theme: society’s attempt to balance liberty and social harm; or between how individuals exercise their freedoms and the resulting effects on society.

A broad range of analogous – yet not identical – issues fit within this ethical counterpoint, including debates over drinking and drug use; seat belt and motorbike helmet laws; as well as casino and lottery gambling.

“You can’t legislate morality,” is a wearisome cliché employed to short-circuit the necessary tension between liberty and social harm. Of course we can; as well we should. Murder is illegal.

While law cannot force us to make good choices, it can encourage such choices. But the law has limits when it comes to morality. Though we may believe lying is immoral, it is generally not illegal, except in specific instances, such as perjury.

Societies tend legally to penalize actions in which we harm another, while allowing as much freedom as possible when it comes to actions that seemingly only affect the individual concerned. This gives rise to another cliché: “Well as long as I’m not harming anyone else.”

It isn’t that simple. Your refusal to use a seat belt drives up my insurance premiums. My drinking habits may tax the country’s health budget. In the process we risk harming our friends and families. Still, knee-jerk libertarians have their paternalist counterparts.

To wit, “The state must outlaw what my religious community deems immoral.” Such paternalism is often impractical and antithetical to democratic and ethical principles regarding genuine moral disagreement, autonomy, and a variety of freedoms.
Enter the simmering debate on gambling. Some have taken up their cross-bows, armed with post use-by-date arguments. But there is expanding public space for a fresh, balanced and more informed dialogue on an issue layered with ethical, social and economic dimensions.

Based on religious grounds, some believe that gambling is intrinsically morally wrong. While most respect another’s right to argue this, they know it cannot serve as the first or last word on the issue. No religious community has an automatic veto or can stack the deck when it comes to such a multifaceted question.

“For the Bible tells me so,” perhaps reassuring in a children’s song, no longer serves as the sole basis for a serious dialogue on gambling. In our pluralistic democracy, many people of faith oppose the belief that gambling is intrinsically wrong, and should therefore, always be prohibited.

They find no compelling scriptural argument for such a policy leap of faith. There is a moral arrogance to some opponents who fail to appreciate that the ethics of gambling are not all on their side. Proponents should not be intimidated when pressing their case.

But they should recognize that there are principled religious and secular arguments underpinning the prohibition stand. These include: a potential increase in compulsive gambling and related effects on family life; the potential for additional crime and official corruption; and the potentially greater negative effect gambling may have on poorer citizens.

However, ethical and public policy choices are filled with paradox. Might prohibition have similar or even worse effects than legalization? In 1920 the United States banned alcohol production and consumption.

The experiment ended in 1933 because drinking may have actually increased; was too costly and difficult to enforce; spurred public corruption and organized crime; and lacked the social and moral consensus needed for its continuation. It also failed because surrounding jurisdictions, like the still wet Bahamas, launched many booze cruises to their dry neighbours.

Historically, many of those opposed to gambling favoured a prohibition on alcohol. Yet the public case for the latter is rarely made today. Why? Is the production and consumption of alcohol less harmful to individuals and the wider society? Though gambling and drinking are not the same, they share significant social and ethical terrain.

The socio-economic and moral costs resulting from alcohol abuse stem less from legalization and more from a cultural context struggling to promote a responsible use of alcohol and a commitment to enforcing basic laws.

Cigarette smoking, which is more addictive, also comes with enormous social costs. But thus far, we have avoided a major health crisis on this front. Yet our poor diet and sedentary ways produce a Russian roulette of preventable diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure.

So cigarettes, inherently more injurious, is less of a social problem for the Bahamas, while something as mundane as food may be more of a problem because of ingrained social norms. Many of our habits are not inherently immoral but pose a moral problem if abused. Gambling fits within this ethical context.

Sitting in a casino for hours surrounded by glitzy lights, blaring music, fellow gamblers, endless quantities of alcohol and other inducements, is psychologically much different, and seemingly more addictive, than playing the lottery.

Drawing a simplistic moral equivalence between these forms of gambling is intellectually and ethically tenuous. It is telling that the ban on casino gambling for citizens and residents, widely supported by Bahamians, has generally worked, while the numbers ban has been an abysmal failure.

Because legalizing casino gambling for residents may do so much social harm, arguments of individual liberty and my right to play the slot machine pale in comparison. Like most Bahamians, I support a continuation of the ban.

But I find unpersuasive the argument that legalizing the lottery will produce the extraordinary social harms some suggest. Indeed, lifting the ban may be the more ethical and workable course of action.

Just as with Prohibition, the social and ethical consensus underpinning the numbers ban has crumbled at home, while regional neighbours from Trinidad to the Turks and Caicos to the United States offer some type of legal lottery. The public costs of more vigorously enforcing a ban are too high, and its chances of success extremely low.

In most Caribbean countries with a legal lottery, the great social harms predicted have not occurred. Moreover, a legal lottery might enable us to tackle gambling addiction more openly and intelligently, while decreasing the official corruption associated with the illegal numbers trade.

But a legal lottery is not an easy bet. It requires clear thinking and a strong regulatory framework. For example, should the lottery be publicly or privately owned? What should be done with the lottery profits? At minimum, a legal lottery would help redirect what are now purely private profits into more public purposes.

Similar to Barbados and Jamaica, a Bahamian lottery system could be used to sustain various cultural and sporting programmes which can have an extraordinarily positive effect on the country. Or the proceeds could be used for other public purposes such as education.

These are much better bets than millions of dollars from individual Bahamians going into the hands of a few. Everybody cannot possibly win the lottery. But the odds are that many more are bound to win with a legal lottery than under the current prohibition.

Comments

[Bob Knaus]

I have often said that a lottery to fund education is a marvelous idea.

Most government-run lotteries return about 50 cents in prizes for every dollar you invest. Doesn't that seem a stupid way to spend money?

So, the lottery is a tax on stupidity which supports education. It solves its own problem! Who could be against that?

[Ryan Knowles]

Very well put. Your thoughtful arguments put most of our current political and religious leaders to shame. I'm a libertarian at heart, so it's easy for me to agree, but hopefully this will convince others as well.

[Dr. Speedy Gonzales MD LLP]

"... lottery system could be used to sustain various cultural and sporting programmes"

Why does everyone care so damned much about these f*cking athletes. Don't get me wrong, I like watching a good game and seeing Bahamians win Gold at the Olympics but the Honor Rollers and computer nerds who get picked on or outcast by the athletic types will be 100 times more important to the future of the country than all these kids who'll run track in high-school then not even try to go to college.

[John Doe]

http://www.bahamasissues.com/showpost.php?p=328634&postcount=1