Google “responsible gaming” and you will uncover a broad list of entries that all offer some variation on this: “Responsible gaming refers to the practice of gambling in a way that minimizes the potential negative effects that gambling can have on individuals and society.” (Thanks to the Association of Certified Gaming Compliance Specialists for that succinct definition.)
But then Google “irresponsible gaming” and you will uncover bupkis—a technical term that translates roughly into: See the opposite of “responsible gaming.”
We all must recognize that the principles and practices of responsible gaming have evolved dramatically over the past half-century. When the modern gaming industry was born in 1978 in Atlantic City, the responsibility of operators to address problem gambling began and ended with a seven-word slogan emblazoned on slot machines: “Bet with your head. Not over it.”
Responsible operators and the regulatory agencies that oversee them have since adopted still-evolving practices that address what was once little known, and that progress is laudable. The key component of that evolution is that legal operators recognize that they play a critical role in assuming responsibility, and they continue to take measured steps to address problem gambling.
That evolution is laudable, spurred on by the commitment of regulators across the legal gaming landscape to require that applicants for licensure submit effective, practical RG plans and to make such plans a requirement for licensure.
Now, it is time to define “irresponsible gaming,” a practice that demands a broad definition that is more than the opposite of “responsible gaming.” I respectfully suggest that “irresponsible gaming” should implicate those who ignore the principles that have led to the significant expansion of legal gaming across the world.
The core principle is that participants in legal gaming must affirmatively demonstrate that they possess the requisite good character, honesty and integrity necessary for licensure. A corollary to that principle is that legal gaming has been authorized to advance particular state policies.
Paying constant heed to those principles is the secret sauce that has led to the creation and expansion of an industry that is trusted by the public, by investors and by participating communities and government agencies.
When elected and appointed state policymakers endeavor to modify or ignore such principles, they are, by definition, acting irresponsibly. The growing consideration by states to take various forms of illegal gaming and bring them inside the legal tent is worrisome. Such efforts would address “skill” slot machines, sweepstakes and other forms of unauthorized gaming by recognizing, regulating and taxing them.
The evolution of unauthorized gaming has brought even more verbiage into the gaming lexicon, including whether such offerings are part of a “gray” area of gaming. I submit there is nothing gray about them. The core definition of “legal gaming” is any form of gambling that is expressly authorized by statute, regulation and policy.
Turning that black-and-white definition into something hazy or gray is wrongheaded and irresponsible. It undermines the proven principle that licensure and all related policies must precede gaming operations, and not follow them. Maintaining that order is critical to ensure public trust, and to attract capital investment.
States that endeavor to dilute the standards of licensure by allowing illegal operators to participate are far less likely to advance “responsible gaming” practices. The core lesson is simple and undeniable: Retreat is not advancement.
