Transcript Can the Canadian Gambling Industry be Sustained While

Can the Canadian Gaming Industry be
Sustained While Minimizing Harm?
Dr. Kerry G.E. Chambers
“Driving Downtown” – Proposed Vancouver Facility
The facility will comprise 2 buildings, 125 yards apart,
golfers on top of one building and a net on the other;
It will contain restaurants, lounges, live entertainment;
Expected to service downtown golfers and draw locals
and tourists to the city core;
Estimated generation of 70 jobs, $1 million in municipal
taxes and $20 million to the province.
Proponents cite one minor issue: 1 – 2% of golfers
will be unable to hit net and restrain themselves from
‘driving;’ some pedestrians below will be injured by
stray balls with the odd smashed window.
Golfers will be asked to play ‘responsibly’ – only play
if they know they can hit the net and stop if they
lose control of their swing; golfers are accountable
for injury/damage to pedestrians and property.
The city will post signs and warn businesses;
informed choice among pedestrians and businesses
that choose to walk/locate in the area.
“Driving Downtown” has all of the typical arguments
used by governments/gaming industry to justify harm:
• entertainment;
• maximize recreation for the majority;
• employment, profit, tax revenues;
• freedom of choice and individual responsibility.
But is “Driving Downtown” sustainable?
Can we justify it as a legitimate activity despite the
certainty of harm to some golfers and others?
It Depends:
Golf is enjoyed by millions, but “Driving Downtown”
means some will be injured, perhaps killed.
Can reasonable steps be taken to minimize and reduce
potential harm?
Political-economic solutions and laws develop
out of ethical judgements and are not
value neutral – sustaining the industry while
minimizing harm is no exception.
Sustaining the gaming industry while
minimizing harm would mean:
• Reconsidering utilitarian arguments;
• A precautionary approach embedded in
contractualism;
• Reflexive collaboration among stakeholders
that is adjudicated by an independent 3rd
party without vested interests.
Millian Utilitarianism
• Actions that promote the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people are morally right; the
reverse are morally wrong.
• Liberty - freedom to choose our path to happiness is
paramount.
• Actions should not be constrained by a sense of
duty as long as we do not violate the rights of
others.
Reconsidering Utilitarianism
for Harm Minimization
• We can justify any harm to maximize the benefits of
the many at the expense of the few (Scanlon 1998).
• Freedom of choice as advocated by the industry and
Reno Model of responsible gambling (Blaszczynski et al.
2004:311) is problematic:
1. All actions are influenced by political, economic, social, and
cultural factors – e.g. suicide, the most individual act of all;
2. Mills own ‘Harm Principle’ – individual actions must be
constrained when they produce harm to others (Mill 1859).
3. How do we reconcile freedom of choice with harm to others?
Precautionary
Approach
Precautionary
Contractualism
Contractualism
Precautionary Approach
• Upholding healthy activities for all individuals;
• Take action when credible evidence exists even if
nature and magnitude of harm is unknown;
• Identify, evaluate and implement safest feasible
approaches to meet community needs;
• Responsibility is on originators of risk to study and
minimize risk, choose safest alternatives, with
independent review of studies and implementation;
• Transparent and inclusive policy making to increase
participation among all, especially those impacted
(Benevides and McClenaghan 2002:13).
Contractualism
• Based in a social contract of agreement between
rational autonomous actors (Scanlon 1998);
• Under contractualism, actions or outcomes are
wrong when they cannot be reasonably justified to
others;
• “Rescue principle:” if we can alleviate the suffering
or plight to others by making a modest sacrifice to
ourselves it would be morally wrong not to do so (p.
224).
Precautionary Contractualism
• Stakeholders must make their case to reasonably
reject precautionary measures that would protect
people from harm;
• It is incumbent upon originators of risk to provide
resources for stakeholders to undertake their own
assessments to inform individuals in their groups;
• Transparent and inclusive policy making would seek
reasonable compromise among those harmed,
communities, industry, and government;
Example: Pre-Commitment Strategies
• Industry interpretation of evidence from Nova Scotia
indicates smart card is best suited for prevention
– may increase harm to some problem gamblers.
• Independent research suggests otherwise: many
moderate risk and problem gamblers could benefit if
card is mandatory (Schellinck, Schrans, & Focal Research Consultants 2010).
• Using precautionary contractualism, we might
legitimately reject voluntary use to minimize harm and
enhance industry corporate social responsibility;
however, what is reasonable could differ by jurisdiction.
Reflexive Collaboration – True Idealism
• Governments are in a conflict of interest;
• Gaming industry puts profits before people;
• Both largely ignore any precautionary principle.
 Need a collaborative structure where stakeholder
groups reach compromise and implement
precautionary contractualism – must be a level
playing field.
Reflexive Collaboration – True Idealism
 Requires government and industry funding for
independent 3rd party research to inform dialogue.
 Independent 3rd party necessary for adjudication.
 Precedent: Virginia tobacco growers, health
advocates and anti-tobacco lobbyists collaborate
(Linden 2010).
• Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement 1998 (Tobacco
Companies also fund anti-smoking advocacy group).
 Public concern is mounting – industry may not be
sustained without minimizing harm in some fashion.
Ouroboros
• Creation from destruction; but also
• Self-reflexivity
• Balance between dualities
• Public concern has always been high in Canada –
industry may not be sustained without a concerted
push toward harm minimization
“I sit on a man's back, choking him
and making him carry me, and yet
assure myself and others that I am
very sorry for him and wish to
ease his lot by all possible means except by getting off his back”
Tolstoy (1886: 55).
Questions?
Sources:
•
Benevides, H. & T. McClenaghan (2002). Implementing Precaution: An NGO Response to the Government of
Canada’s Discussion Document: “A Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Approach/Principle.”
Prepared for and with the assistance of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Report No. 419.
Toronto, Ontario.
•
Blaszczynski A., Ladouceur R. & H.J. Shaffer (2004). A Science-Based Framework for Responsible Gambling: The
Reno Model. Journal of Gambling Studies. 20 (3). 301 – 317.
•
Linden R.M. (2010). Leading Across Boundaries: Creating Collaborative Agencies in a Networked World. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
•
Mill, J.S. (1859 [1999]). On Liberty. Bartelby Com. NY, New York.
•
Scanlon T.M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
•
Schellinck, T., T. Schrans & Focal Research Consultants Limited (2010). Evaluating the Impact of the “My-Play”
System in Nova Scotia, Phase 1: Regular VL Player Benchmark Survey Technical Report”. Halifax, Nova
Scotia. Nova Scotia Gaming Foundation.
•
Tolstoy L (1886 [1934]). What then must we do? (A. Maude & J. Adams Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Recommended:
•
Borrell J. (2008). The ‘Public Accountability Approach’: Suggestions for a Framework to Characterise, Compare,
Inform and Evaluate Gambling Regulation. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction. 6: 265281.