As New Hampshire expands legalized gambling, there isn’t really a standardized model for the state to follow. Every state has different laws and regulations, and they differ greatly from those imposed in other countries.
New England Public Media’s Karen Brown took a trip to Europe to study how gambling is regulated and viewed there, and she joined NHPR’s All Things Considered host Julia Furukawa to talk about how that compares to the U.S., and what lessons can be learned here.
Transcript
Karen, one of the countries you visited on this trip was Norway, where gambling is strictly regulated by the government. Briefly, what did you see there?
Well, it was interesting how tolerant so many people were there to being so tightly regulated. So there they have rules around loss limits, which means every person who gambles in Norway can only lose a certain amount of money every month. It comes to about $2,000 per month. There's also limits on how long you can play, how many hours you can play per month. There are limits on the kinds of games that you can play, and they have no casinos there. So, it's all online or it's in kiosks and in some sort of slot machines that they have at convenience stores. So there's just a lot of rules. And one thing that I think is very important is that the government owns the entire gambling industry or almost the entire gambling industry. So they both run the gambling and they get to make the rules and regulations.
So, can you contrast that with what we see here in the States, maybe starting with Massachusetts?
Well, there are very few rules of that ilk in a state like Massachusetts. What you have here in Massachusetts are rules that say casinos and gambling operators have to give players the option of setting limits for themselves. So there's a program called Play My Way in Massachusetts that if you sign up for it, you can say, ‘I only want to spend this much money,’ or ‘I only want to lose this much money,’ or ‘I only want to play this many hours per day.’ But you can override those limits, and they're all voluntary. So, the idea of there being mandatory limits that are across the board for all players is a very foreign concept, I think certainly for Massachusetts, but also for all of the United States.
We know that gambling is addictive, like tobacco or alcohol, and yet those industries are regulated very differently. And this was something people you talked to had called out. Can you give us some more context on what they said?
I think one issue is that a lot of people don't understand that gambling is an addiction, in the same way that substances like tobacco or opioids are addictive. So, just the whole concept of behavior being an addictive thing is unusual. And I think possibly for that reason, a lot of the health agencies that might otherwise limit access don't consider it to be their problem. But in fact, their suicide rate for gambling addiction is thought to be among the highest among all the addictions. So, there seems to be a disconnect between how people understand gambling addiction versus how they understand other addictions and why there should be rules for it. Because the gambling industry says, if you use our product as intended, you should just be able to have fun and entertainment. But a lot of health leaders feel there's a lack of recognition that, actually, it's a bona fide health problem and it can affect a lot of people. It's not just a very tiny percentage.
How realistic do you think it is that federal legislation could pass on this?
Well, even the proponents of federal legislation and national standards acknowledge that now is probably not the best time for more federal government and more federal rules to pass. The appetite is fairly slim, but they're hoping that at least individual states will look at some of the models elsewhere and put in some rules and regulations on the industry that don't currently exist.
