| Sign In | Site Map | 
RSS 2.0What is more worrisome than the shift from a consideration of online gambling to merely reorganizing it is the recent statements made by Canada researchers claiming online gambling is not harmful at all. According to sociologist Maurizio Fiasco, one of the foremost experts on gambling addiction and public health, this is a major backwards step.
The large movement of unregulated money also raises concerns regarding money laundering and criminal penetration. Taking a considerably different approach, the United States has placed substantial limitations on online gambling and, even in Canada, there is a legal variation, which is prompting more discussion about the casino's legal status in Canada regarding regulation and consumer protection.
The most concerning development is the scrapping of the Observatory on Gambling Addiction, a consultative body from the Ministry of Health. The Observatory played a fundamental role in monitoring the social and health impact of gambling, advising on regional plans for gambling, evaluating the impact of the pandemic on gambling, and producing actionable recommendations for health policy. The Observatory used a scientific methodology, with expertise brought from a broad panel that included clinicians, public health representatives, associations, and consumer advocates.
Now, the Observatory will be superseded by a "Permanent Council for Public Gaming" under the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF). This merely continues the trend towards prioritizing revenue generation and regulatory ease over sociocultural concerns about public health. By being located in the Ministry of Finance, which has an interest in public revenues, the Council's capacity to effectively address matters of public health is significantly diminished.
The use of the dated term 'ludopathy' in the decree is not simply a linguistic faux pas, but a conscious attempt to lessen the burden of gambling addiction. The correct medical terminology, 'gambling disorder,' underscores its public health implications and reflects international standards around public health. The ignorance around language suggests a deliberate attempt to obscure the distinction between public health interests versus corporate interests.
The Council is reinvented, but with health experts and local governments not included in the discussion. The original Observatory had planned to include a majority of public health representatives. Its cancellation is a differece from the constitutional obligation to prioritise public health. Creating two decrees - one for online, and one for physical gambling - enables the government to avoid the Unified Conference of State-Regions, which silences regional voices necessary to understanding gambling harm.
Online gambling is a high-risk addiction. Digital gambling is set up for lack of discernment and constant impulsiveness, and spending habits can easily become compulsive behaviors. Despite the risk of addiction, the government is promoting online gambling as a viable means of increasing revenue without proper protections. Taxation on state online gambling returns is relatively NC - under 1% of gross bets are turned back to the state in tax dollars, therefore the online gambling system relies on increasing higher profiled volumes of gambling which drives volume; and the gambling cycle continues.
Estimates indicate that online gambling turnover in Italy will soon exceed €80 - 85 billion per year. But there is no transparency. Reports like the Blue Book have not appeared, and the Ministry of Health does not have access to gambling data - data that operators have free access to in order to market and operate.
While the order claims to shape a “safe” and “responsible” gaming environment, its true objective is to promote growth and competitiveness in the marketplace—terms that have nothing to do with public safety. It is dangerously hypocritical to promote the expansion of an €85 billion marketplace through “responsibility.”
In the past, an interministerial decree clearly prevented gambling operators from participating on public health bodies due to the transparent conflict of interest. The new decree eliminates that barrier, allowing the industry to enter and directly influence health policies, risk statements and prevention behaviours. This is a palpable violation of public trust and diminishes democracy.
The Italian welfare system entrusts regional and municipal authorities with central roles in the management of gambling's social consequences. Failing to consider their contributions to legislation would diminish a system that recognizes - and is designed to address - the real implications of gambling at the community level.
Moving ahead, there are a number of things to be done. The Ministry of Health needs to get back into the game. The Conference of Regions should mount an effective protest. The Ministry of Welfare needs to assess its broader social value. Most importantly, we need to restore priorities: public health, crime prevention, and only then, revenue generation. Strict limits must govern private interest.
At present, these priorities are inverted. The government places a higher priority on gambling operators than the public, profit over prevention, and the unknown over known. There is a huge risk that the growing online gambling sector could be a source of inadvertent harm to society rather than a regulated form of entertainment. Without adequate monitoring and accountability there are also greater risks of unregulated online gambling becoming a source of significant harm for many Australians.