The U.S. House of Representatives Committee held a hearing on the gambling bill, at which 18 speakers took the floor. Both supporters and opponents of the bill presented their arguments, but no new and significant information emerged.
Internet gambling has been a worldwide trend for quite some time. As soon as people realized all the advantages of playing over the Internet, the number of gamblers has increased manifold. As improved and the variety of operators themselves, as eloquently evidenced by online casino review sites like the leader of the search engine PlinkoGames.
But the most amazing growth is in the games themselves. And today the catalog of the average virtual gambling establishment can easily exceed the number of games in the halls of the largest casinos in Las Vegas. In addition to thousands of slots and roulette people are offered a variety of arcades, including virtual analogs of such famous games as plinko. We can say that the latter has become a real hit, and if you go to the site with reviews of casinos with plinko games, you can easily find the most famous international operators. And in the portfolio of a number of them can be found dozens of similar games that are at the top of the most popular.
Obviously, such a variety of gambling entertainment can not pass by the government. The whole point is that the current American laws do not take into account the many nuances that accompany the iGaming market in its current state. However, the adoption of new laws is greatly complicated by the multitude of polar opinions and the presence of not only supporters, but also opponents of such entertainment.
Hearings on the gambling bill
The past hearings on the gambling bill in the United States did not surprise those involved with new revelations, but became an arena for emotional speeches. Over the course of an hour, a host of speakers, alternating three-minute statements, voiced their thoughts on the future of the bill. The important topic of drug addiction was touched upon: stories of people who have an addiction led to serious thoughts about the consequences of legalizing gambling. In the background, there were anecdotes about rising crime and human trafficking, many of which were criticized.
However, not all speeches were permeated with negativity – some participants expressed support for the bill, emphasizing positive changes for society. Particularly positive was a speech by the executive director of the Alabama Behavioral Health Council, who explained in detail how gambling taxes can help address serious mental health issues for state residents.
It is projected that the implementation of this bill, which would create state lotteries, authorize sports betting, and open several gambling establishments, could generate about one billion dollars in tax revenue for the state each year. The bulk of that money would be spent on health care and mental health care, a concern among many Alabama residents. The hearing showed that the issue of gambling in the state remains a hot-button issue that requires careful consideration of the pros and cons.
What the opposition is saying
Opponents of the bill are actively sharing personal stories of how gambling addiction has touched their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Many of these people have faced similar problems in neighboring states where access to gambling facilities and help for people with an addiction was better. Using personal experiences, they emphasize the lack of practical help in Alabama, causing them to seek support in other regions. The situation is exacerbated by the market of illegal gambling, which the state authorities have not been able to control adequately.
In addition, among the critics of the bill there are many concerns about the inevitable increase in crime associated with the opening of casinos. For example, one Vestavia Hills city council member claims that with the new gambling facility in the area, there is expected to be an 80% increase in human trafficking. These words about the proliferation of crime, drug trafficking, money laundering and prostitution into the casino’s surroundings add to public discontent.
It is worth noting that many of these claims have no basis in reality. Studies show that the link between casinos and increased crime is in most cases a myth supported by thought rather than bare and verifiable facts. Therefore, it is important for anyone who opposes the initiative to realize that opening up gambling addiction prevention and treatment services can not only help those affected, but also be a step toward a safer and more responsible gambling industry in the state.
