Why Opposing Online Gambling May be Counterproductive

Posted by Harry Kane on Thursday, April 6, 2017

While the UK and Europe may have adopted a progressive stance on the topic of online gambling, it appears as though the vast majority of nations remain resistant to the overtures of a significant growth market.

Australia is the latest nation to consider implementing more stringent and prohibitive online gambling laws, as it looks to clarify the terms of its 2001 Interactive Gambling Act.

With so many authorities quick to clamp down and prohibit the practice of online gambling, however, we ask whether this is a reasonable measure or something that remains counterproductive to society as a whole?

From Australia to the U.S: Why Major Authorities Are Missing the Point

In the case of Australia, authorities are looking to officially ban all forms of online gambling, after the 2001 act failed to specify strict rules regarding virtual casino games. In this respect, the nation will follow in the footsteps of most U.S. states, which continue to oppose the notion of online gambling on the back of supposed moral objections.

Clearly, these authorities have what they believe are well reasoned arguments for their continued opposition to online gambling. While this is not in dispute, the question that does remain is whether or not implementing a total ban on the practice helps government’s to actively achieve their aims? In fact, it can be argued that this endeavour is totally counterproductive, while it also prevents government’s from taxing a lucrative and sustained revenue stream.

To begin with, banning online gambling does little to prevent aspiring players from accessing their favourite games. This is due to the presence of multi-national sites on the black market, which operate outside of any official jurisdiction and provide free online gambling to millions. National law can do nothing to restrict or ban these sites, meaning all their own ban achieves is the prevention of access to reputable and well-regulated resources.

With this in mind, a far more preferable tactic would be to legalise all forms of online gambling and establish independent commissions with the power to regulate these. National and local authorities can then establish a set of criteria that all online operators must meet if they are to be granted a license, while laws can also be passed to control access and safeguard potentially vulnerable users.

The Last Word: Why the Moral Objection Does Not Hold True Under Scrutiny

There is also an argument that government’s are missing out on a key revenue source (that can be reinvested into the economy) by failing to legalise online gambling. Authorities may counter this by claiming that they do not wish to generate tax revenue from a practice that they believe to be morally questionable, but this carries little weight in instances where the opportunistic hobby of sports betting is allowed.

Overall, the continued resistance to online gambling appears to be as unfounded as it is counterproductive in the modern age. Even the question of the morality is tenuous given the fact that sites are only accessible to consenting adults, while failing to embrace online gambling and legalise the practice prohibits authorities from creating a safe environment for individual players.