Taking a Hard Look at Gambling : Is a federal study of wagering a good idea? You bet it is

Rocked to attention by the explosion of legal gambling across the country in the past two decades, Congress is belatedly, but sensibly, considering legislation calling for a comprehensive national study on the social and economic effects of gambling. Lobbyists accuse government of trying to stack the deck to expand its regulatory reach. But without a study and reliable data, what conclusions can be drawn?

The bipartisan legislation, endorsed by 143 cosponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, calls for the creation of a commission to conduct a two-year national study of the effects of gambling. Its recommendations are expected to provide guideposts for states and localities in dealing with legal gambling’s transformation from sleepy enterprise to a national economic force.

As recently as 1984, just two states, Nevada and New Jersey, allowed casino gambling. Today, nearly half the states have casinos on land, water or Indian reservations. Only Utah and Hawaii have no state-sanctioned gambling.

The increase in the number of gambling outlets clearly seems to have changed the public’s betting habits. According to the General Accounting Office, between 1984 and 1994 the annual amount bet on legalized gaming--including casinos, lotteries, parimutual betting and sports books--jumped by 137%, from $147 billion in 1984 to $482 billion in 1994, more than twice the current annual budget deficit that consumes so much congressional attention.

Rapid-fire expansion of legal wagering has meant new jobs and tax revenues to state and local governments, but it has also resulted in serious problems. Though most of the evidence is anecdotal, signs of the social and economic downside are proliferating, from housewives blowing monthly household budgets to sharp-suited toughs showing up in town.

What is the extent of gambling addiction? Has its expansion increased criminal activity? Has political corruption become a problem? Is there a multiplier effect on jobs from gaming? Or does legal betting drain money away from other businesses and drive them into the ground?

As it now stands, there are no clear answers to these questions. Opponents, including the American Gaming Assn., argue that by involving itself in an expansive gaming study, the federal government is potentially interfering in local matters. But this is only a study. If gambling is the sure-fire winner that proponents say it is, there ought to be nothing to worry about.