Sir, Christopher Caldwell in “Online gambling can be regulated”, July 15, does not get to the real dilemma which is whether society can afford to prohibit something when doing so could mean opening up another growth opportunity for all those informal illegal and illicit activities that, if we are not careful, might one day signify more than the legal and formal economy. Before anyone is allowed to prohibit anything he should first have to present an enforcement plan that makes sense in terms of recourses and results, and that foremost has the backing of his constituency. Prohibiting online gambling while allowing Vegas and when gambling itself is exposed to a minuscule fraction of that social sanction that weighs down on smokers, does not make a lot of sense.
Since even online gamblers would probably like to know who they are dealing with, and at least who deals them the cards, perhaps much more could be gained by allowing online gambling and developing some good governance principles. Alternatively, let society bear down its full weight on gamblers. Most of us who have stopped smoking have not done so because it was prohibited, in fact in many cases that might even been the reason why we started, but because there is a quite obnoxious but extremely effective social pressure against it and which, to top it up, does not cost a lot of taxpayer dollars.
Christopher Caldwell online gambling