BETTING AND GAMBLING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21542, 14 January 1932, Page 10

BETTING AND GAMBLING

NOTED CLERICS ANALYSIS NEW ZEALAND MENTIONED (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 7. The Dean of Winchester has contributed to The Spectator’s new Theological Series an article on “ Betting and Gambling,” in which he refers to the considerable diversity of opinion that exists as to whether betting and gambling are an evil. If I ask myself why I do not indulge in it, he writes, I have to admit that the reason probably is that it never had any attraction for me, and fell outside my upbringing. I believe that that was a good thing, andcould wish iqy children to be in the same position; but the fact that a course of action is outside one’s traditions and habits does not prove that it is in itself intrinsically wrong; and that is the position which I am in fact prepared to defend. I do not, that is to say, know of any fundamental moral principle which forbids a man, in Archbishop Magee’s words, to “ buy a chance.” The case of betting and gambling seems to be closely parallel to that of alcoholic drink. Both are harmless in moderation, harmful in excess. Betting is not a sin, it has been said, but may easily become one; and no one who has had any experience of pastoral or social work can doubt that betting is to-day more .dangerous even than drink to the well-being of society. The effects of excess, moreover, are so similar in the two cases —instability of eharacter._ weakness of will, dependence on excitement, ruin of homes—that we may expect remedies which have been largely successful in the one case to succeed also in the other. There are others, of course, who hold that it is intrinsically wrong in itself to take alcoholic drink; and no one to-day has anything but respect for the teetotaller; but there would also be general agreement, at least in this country, that the great improvement in temperance which has taken place in the last 20 years has been due not so much to the acceptance of teetotalism as a principle as to other causes such as the spread of education, the limitation of hours, etc., which have led to a much greater moderation in drinking. And to this result it should probably be admitted that the moderate drinker has contributed no less than the teetotaller. I believe that the same attitude will prove most helpful in the matter of betting and gambling. All honour to the total abstainer, but do not let ns claim that total abstinence—here any more than in regard to alcohol —is the only virtue. . . CASE OF NEW ZEALAND. “ It is often said that social conditions have much to do with the growth of betting; but this is questionable. At any

rate, in New Zealand, where social conditions are perhaps as favourable as anywhere in the world, betting is almost universal, and has increased greatly in recent years. The best prophylactic would seem to lie in an attitude of mind which finds its interest and excitement in the business of living itself.' SIZE OF PRIZES. “ The second kind of danger is from the civic point of view, no less important. It lies in the gigantic size bf the prizes, of which the Dublin sweepstakes afford perhaps the best example. That a person who has never been accustomed to handle more than a, few pounds, and never been educated to do so, should suddenly become possessed of £30,000 is a patently anti-social occurrence. It advertises before the eyes of the unthinking a wholly false example of the way in which wealth is properly acquired; it indoctrinates the. public with the notion that money is a matter of purely individual gain instead of one of trusteeshipand it involves great economic waste through the passing of large sums into purely fortuitous pockets. “ The case seems obviously one that could and should be dealt with by legislation, and even those who are oppposed to all betting in principle may bp prepared to agree that, where prohibition (as in this case) would go far beyond the general moral sense of the public, sumptuary legislation of a less drastic kind should he given a fair trial. CHARITY OR HYPOCRISY. "A particular question arises in regard to the use of sweepstakes and other forms of gambling for purposes of charity. Charity, it has been said, will cover a multitude of sins; but surely hypocrisy is not among them. We do not remember any widespread solicitude for the care of sick people in Dublin before the Dublin sweepstakes came into view. The chance of gain ie the only motive which, in point of fact, appeals to people in these cases, and charity is not really in the picture; and further, the charities thus supposed to be helped would, in fact, suffer seriously if this method of raising funds became widespread. Not only will ordinary subscriptions fall off—an^,. on the occasion of the second Dublin sweep--stake, the Lord Mayor of Dublin said that this had already happened—but tho competition between _ rival charitable agencies in the promotion of. sweepstakes will become so severe that the divisible profits of every particular flotation will steadily diminish. The Dean concludes:— “ I cannot share the_ view that all betting and gambling are in principle wrong;

and in any case it is impossible to-day to impose that view, by means of total prohibition, on the whole population. “ 2. The effects of sweepstakes as organised to-day are none the less seriously anti-social, and the State should intervene by legislation. ,“3i Such legislation should impose a limit on the size of prizes which may be won, and I suggest a limit of £SOO. Steps should also be taken to bring all gamblingwithin the compass of the entertainments tax.