Vancouver Courier
for January 11, 1998

Two Roman soldiers cast dice for Christ's clothes as he died on the cross demonstrating, if proof were necessary, that the instinct to gamble transcends all moral concerns.

Not that morality is not involved, of course. I suspect that many who oppose gambling do so for the reasons expressed by Macaulay when he observed "The Puritans hated bear baiting not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

Remember when gambling was a sin unless you went to the race track, where you could gamble your heart away scarcely discouraged but greatly encouraged by the government? Indeed, the race track was even permitted liquor licenses long before there were cocktail bars in legal existence.

Now you weren't, mind, permitted to buy a lottery ticket based upon a horse race in Ireland to the benefit of hospitals. That was a crime and purchasers invariably used a an alias though winners were always exposed by headlines reading "unemployed factory hand wins $100,000 fortune" ... which tells you a bit about inflation, if nothing else.

The slippery slide to eternal perdition began back in the mid seventies when B.C. and Ottawa agreed on a lottery. It was to be strictly limited, of course. To those who claimed that full scale gambling would be right behind, the authorities were contemptuous. But it was. My oh my, how it was!

Now the arguments proceed down a number of paths - which is how governments like arguments to proceed.

First, there's the question of destination casinos. It used to be that just Vancouver - and perhaps Whistler - were considered but now, believe it!, there'll be one in Campbell River. Somehow people will stack up in major U.S. airports to take the two or three legged trip to Campbell River whose airport cannot take a jumbo jet for the pleasures of Blackjack, Roulette (no craps though!) and badly paying slot machines.

Sure they will. Especially in February.

Then there is the question of the charitable casino which had, until the government got even stickier pinkies into the chips, raised considerable money for good causes. All I can tell you about those places is from working directly upstairs from one - they're smoky as hell and give off an odour reminiscent of a bus stop mens' room. This, evidently, is just another smell of money because the joint was always jammed.

Then there's the type of gambling permitted. Having decided, as a society, to refrain from impeding citizens throwing money at Blackjack, Roulette and money gobbling slots, one would have thought we'd be tolerant of other sorts of gambling - such as what's one of the better games in terms of payback, a good old fashioned crap game.

But no! Not only is craps not permitted but there is a hell of a row about slots with valiant, if losing (in the long pull), battles by the cities of Vancouver and Surrey.

Now I take the argument. Slots are addictive and leave almost no possibility of the player actually walking away with some profit. The addictiveness usually ensures that the winner will patiently wait out his hot streak until the machine starts to get even and then will not only dump it all back in, but when the need arises (as it surely must), will haste himself back to the cashier for more coin.

And there's no question but that there are problem gamblers and that families specifically and society generally must pay the bills.

The questions we must ask, however, are surely these.

Who should decide, Victoria or local government, whether gambling is acceptable and, if acceptable, what kind of gambling should be permitted?

Now it seems - and the goal posts wander the hell all over the field here - that the Province decides but only after meaningful consultation with local citizens. Victoria has decided that "meaningful" doesn't necessarily require a referendum. Just what is meaningful is a mystery.

Secondly, as a general question, if we are to permit someone to spend what he likes at blackjack (at $500 a throw you can get rid of a lot of money in a short time if the cards are misbehaving) or bet what he likes on a horse race, is it society's business that some wish to throw their money into a machine?

I make no case for slots - though I play them sometimes - but I wonder if we're not a bit like Macaulay's Puritans. Are we perhaps not condemning the game because it's not our game? That people should take their gambling pleasure in a civilized way, just as we do.

The end result will be, trust me, wide open gambling. And it will bring much misery as it has in so many other places. Bet on it.

But we committed to that the moment governments started fleecing the people in lotteries which are far bigger ripoffs than the Harlem numbers games we used to love to condemn as stealing from the poor.

The die has, so to speak, been cast.