Prohibition Does Not Work

A recent op-ed in Alabama masterfully makes the case for legalizing gambling by focusing on a very simple truth: Prohibitions don’t work.

Convincing a state to expand its legal gambling options ranges from complex to near-impossible.

I often say that making the case against legalizing online gambling is easy, and the message can be conveyed with simple, hyperbolic talking points. Meanwhile, supporters counter these claims and make the case for legalization with bulky white papers and lots of nuance. Further muddying the waters, there are often conflicting coalitions of support, each highlighting their own specific policy aims.

My biggest gripe is that there is an equally simple argument for legalization. That argument was recently made in Alabama.

---

SPONSOR’S MESSAGE - Sporttrade was borne out of the belief that the golden age of sports betting has yet to come. Combining proprietary technology, thoughtful design, and capital markets expertise, our platform endeavors to modernize sports betting for a more equitable, responsible, and accessible future.

Sporttrade’s newest feature, The Tape, prints all trades made on the app in real-time.

---

Tim Whitt, CEO and Owner of Policy Intelligence, wrote what could be the best op-ed on the expansion of gambling I have seen outside of gambling media. The column, which appeared in AL.com, expertly and simply lays out why legalizing and regulating gambling is the right approach.

Whitt focuses on two fundamental but often neglected concepts:

1. The lack of legal gambling options doesn’t mean there isn’t gambling.

2. Prohibition doesn’t work, and “Dry” gambling states are merely exporting the benefits and importing the harms.

Whitt smartly compared gambling prohibitions to dry counties:

“Dry counties went extinct because the tide of history was against them. And regardless of how you feel about gambling, Alabama’s odd position as the only non-Mormon state in the continental United States without either a lottery and/or full casino gaming cannot last forever.”

It’s a great analogy (and I love a good analogy), as anyone in a dry county can hop in the car and purchase alcohol.

As a longtime resident, I remember when Massachusetts prohibited liquor sales on Sundays and how much New Hampshire liquor stores loved that policy. There are still plenty of Massachusetts residents who make the trip across the border since liquor is tax-free in New Hampshire.

Another useless Massachusetts prohibition was tattoo parlors. Although tattooing was illegal in Massachusetts until the year 2000, there was no shortage of inked-up bodies. Weird, isn’t it? Apparently, driving between 10-40 minutes to New Hampshire or Rhode Island or knowing someone who would come to your kitchen wasn’t a nonstarter for Massachusetts residents.

A Moot Point

Whitt also makes a key point that I simply don’t hear enough: You can be against gambling and for legalization.

“I understand the arguments of gambling prohibitionists,” Whitt wrote. “I don’t gamble myself. I don’t think it is the best way to raise state revenue. It tends to prey on the poorest in society. There is a large social cost.”

But as Whitt notes, none of that matters:

“Gambling is here. It is all around us, and it is IN ALABAMA, even though – in 2024 – elected officials will tell you that they are “against legalizing gambling in Alabama.”

The commentary goes on to list some of the ways Alabamans can already legally gamble, and it’s a long list: