Observing recent debates in Congress concerning online gambling, internet pornography, and other controversial “vice” related subjects, I’m reminded of an experience I had about 12 or 13 years ago, towards the end of my (protracted) career as a college student.Sitting on a bench outside a coffee shop near the University of Arizona, my attention to my studies waning, I watched as a pickup truck laden with bumper stickers shuddered across the uneven pavement into a nearby parking space. The vehicle’s bumper was a virtual bulletin board, awash with pasted paper platitudes that sounded a distinctly political theme.
A slightly faded “Bush-Quayle ‘92” sticker kept company with a variety of catchier, slogan-based entries, including an apparent local favorite I had seen many times before, proclaiming “Take Responsibility for What You Say and Do.”
“Sound advice,” I thought, trying unsuccessfully to return my attention to the dull academic tome in my lap.
Out from the truck popped an earnest-looking fellow, not much older than me, with a clipboard tucked beneath his arm. Contradicting my better instincts, I made eye contact with the man, who was, I quickly realized, a petitioner of some kind.
After an introduction that was in equal measure brief and awkward, he got to his point; he was circulating a petition opposing the operation of “Indian Casinos,” gambling establishments that would be opening soon near Tucson, “unless ‘we the people’ do something about it, immediately!” the petitioner warned me.
Not one to miss the opportunity to make someone professing to have my best interests in mind explain themselves in greater detail, I asked him for his reasoning in opposing the casinos.
He furrowed his brow and counted out the reasons on his right hand as he blurted out his case in an appropriately grave tone.
“Because gambling is wrong!” he proclaimed. “Because gambling destroys families! Because gambling ruins communities!”
Then, the kicker: “Because gambling is an addiction!”
“Hmmm,” I murmured, “I’m afraid I can’t sign your petition.”
Puzzled, he clutched his clipboard close to his chest and asked, in a pathos-drenched whine, “Why not?”
“Because I believe what it says on your bumper sticker,” I said. “You know, ‘Take Responsibility for What You Say and Do.’”
Before the petitioner could respond, I added “You see, while you have given me several reasons why I might not want to gamble, you have not given me any reasons why gambling itself should not be allowed.”
The petitioner looked at me as though I had descended from Parliament Funkadelic’s Mothership wearing purple sequined bondage gear.
It’s a look I’ve grown accustomed to over the years, and I’m sure many of my peers in the adult industry are familiar with it, as well.
It’s that look that some people get when you suggest that over-indulgence, questionable choices and irresponsible behavior are not caused by external influences; rather people’s choices and actions are in large part a manifestation of that which is already “inside of them,” so to speak.
“Addiction” is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days, often as a substitute for “compulsive behavior” or “indulgent behavior.” These terms simply are not synonymous.
There is a reason why the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association and others in the scientific community have not accepted “sex addiction,” “porn addiction,” “gambling addiction,” “video game addiction,” and other purported addictions as forms of actual addiction. There is no actual scientific evidence to support classifying these popular rhetorical devices as real addictions.
Real addictions have demonstrable, physical consequences, withdrawal symptoms, etc. – things that can be observed, confirmed, and quantified in a clinical studies and laboratory research. There is no such body of evidence to support the existence of the so-called “addictions” many activists and politicians have hitched their argumentative stars to.
Beyond that, being an actual addict should not absolve an individual of responsibility for their actions. In fact, being an actual addict does not indemnify a person under the law in any way, nor does it relieve consumer or individual responsibility under policies maintained in the private sector, even against the consequences of behavior that arguably stems directly from a real addiction.
If a consumer runs up a large credit card debt by way of hitting the ATM machine at the edge of the casino floor too frequently, my hunch is that VISA will not much care about that customer’s “gambling addiction.” On the contrary, I bet VISA’s only stated concern would be that customer’s financial responsibility to make good on his or her credit card debt.
This is as it should be.
People who gamble excessively have one person to blame and that person can be found by taking a square look in the nearest mirror. In this world, nobody plays so much as a hand of poker without realizing their money’s voyage into the pot is quite likely to be a one-way trip.
However people acquire a taste for gambling, I suspect they are not tricked into it, not intimidated into it, probably not even talked into it. They cast the dice, take the deal, and spin the wheel voluntarily. They do it as something they choose to do as an adult, an adult responsible for the consequences of his or her own deeds.
True – many have, in fact, lost their life savings sitting at blackjack tables, spinning roulette wheels, or pulling the lever on a one-armed bandit; so too have many citizens racked up crushing credit card debt by purchasing frivolous wares at the local shopping mall.
Anyone want to sign a petition calling for a ban on the sale of all goods and services?
Hey – given the substantial risk to the American consumer presented by the evil scourge of “shopping addiction,” how can you refuse?
