|
Making the Wrong Bet
Since a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2018, sports betting has gained legal status nearly nationwide — in 38 states, plus Washington, D.C. This has been a boon for sports fans and recreational gamblers, allowing the establishment of legal venues for betting with consumer protections. However, in quasi-Newtonian fashion, this action has produced a perhaps not quite equal but certainly opposite reaction, as skeptics of sports betting have worked to dam up the tide of legalization — and to roll it back. The concerns raised shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. Skeptics worry that a world of legalized sports betting — especially online sports betting, which makes sports books ubiquitously available on the nation’s smart phones — is a poorer, worse-off world. They worry that individuals who gamble — especially the kind of impulsive young men attracted to gambling — will suffer grave financial losses, and that legalized betting causes other, more pernicious social dysfunctions. The term “gambling addiction” stalks the pages of anti–sports betting op-eds. Moreover, they say gambling threatens the very integrity of the sports on which wagers are being placed. However, conceding that these concerns should be considered seriously doesn’t mean they can withstand evidentiary scrutiny or close analysis. In the end, it seems clear that the right path forward is consumer freedom.
First, it isn’t clear that individuals in states that have legalized sports betting spend significantly more on their bets than those in prohibitionist states. “Comparing gambling expenditures in 2015 and 2023 across states that did not legalize sports betting, only legalized retail sports betting, and legalized both retail and online sports betting, suggests that legalization did not drive significant increases in gambling behavior,” a recent report from the American Consumer Institute found. “In fact, a weighted average of inflation-adjusted changes in per capita gambling expenditures shows similar increases in states that did not legalize sports betting and those that only legalized in-person betting, and far less in states that legalized both retail and online betting.” This suggests that increases in American gambling rates are not the product of legalization and, therefore, cannot be reversed by a return to prohibition.
On the matter of “addiction,” as the Taxpayers Protection Alliance recently reported, “the average monthly outlay for two-thirds of sports betters’ is less than $100, while only one in ten spends more than $500 per month and the vast majority spend less than $2 per quarter.” And as the Reason Foundation’s Guy Bentley has noted, the scant evidence available for addiction-level gambling rates pre- and post-legalization do not support the proposition that legalization drives gambling. Take the case of New Jersey: “In 2021, the latest year for which we have data, problem gambling in New Jersey was 5.6 percent,” Bentley wrote. “But in 2017, before sports betting was legal, New Jersey’s problem gambling rate was 6.3 percent.” Data from other countries, he continues, further support the claim that addiction doesn’t increase following legalization. The fact that some sports betters gamble irresponsibly does not mean such activity is the norm. Stories of lives ruined because of gambling addiction are heart-breaking — as are stories of alcoholism — but with the larger context, they shouldn’t be taken as conclusive arguments for reinstating sports-betting bans.
Conservatives, especially, should realize that prohibitionist regulation is often not the best strategy to help those struggling with addiction. In a recent piece on gambling addiction, Ericka Andersen, recounting her own road to recovery from alcoholism, makes this case forcefully. “[T]he solution for me never centered on access to alcohol,” Andersen stated. “When I was in the worst phases of my addiction, no bureaucratic government ban would have convinced me to stop seeking another drink. The real battle was internal — mental, emotional and spiritual. I was wrestling with past trauma, dysfunctional relationships, and a growing disconnection from my faith.”
If sports betting is truly posing a threat to the integrity of sport, leagues should deal with this threat internally instead of appealing to regulators. It is quite sensible that players should not be allowed to bet on their own sports, much less their own teams. But recent moves to legalize betting aren’t responsible for the siren song of gambling. Pete Rose’s machinations and the Black Sox Scandal occurred decades before 2018. It might be fair to say that legalization has, by making gambling far more easily accessible, added new pressures, but the obvious answer isn’t prohibition. The answer to whatever problems or complications legalization has, in fact, introduced is for adults to take responsibility for their own actions and for parents to parent their children well. The modern world is very prosperous, which means, in a free society, that excess is more affordable and closer to hand. Almost anyone can afford to eat too much fast food and sugar or to spend too much time on social media or playing video games. Extending the logic of the anti–sports betting crowd to other parts of life would lead to full-scale paternalism. Hewing closely to the principles of freedom and individual responsibility is a far better path.
Make America Healthy Again Report Missed the Mark
Since his confirmation as Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made it his mission to drown America’s food and drug industry in a sea of red tape. The recently released Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Report is a 72-page testament to RFK Jr.’s misguided approach to implementing his agenda. The report has come under great scrutiny for obvious reasons. These include fake studies on direct-to-consumer drug advertising, mental illness and medications prescribed for children with asthma. The report has supposedly been corrected, but it is far from reassuring that the “substance of the MAHA report remains the same.” The report was developed far too quickly to have involved the academic rigor required for such an ambitious document. Questions have also been raised about the role of artificial intelligence in the drafting process. RFK Jr. and his team should go back to the drawing board and take the necessary time to produce a more thorough and accurate report. The MAHA Report is mainly concerned with American children’s health, stating, “The health of American children is in crisis. Despite outspending peer nations by more than double per capita on health care, the United States ranks last in life expectancy among high-income countries — and suffers higher rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.” There is no question that America has historically struggled with health care on both a public and individual level. The United States spends more per capita on health care, with suboptimal outcomes.
However, there is a little more gray area than the black-and-white picture painted by the MAHA Report. As the research blog Random Critical Analysis has repeatedly noted, per-person American health care spending does appear high as a percentage of national wealth. Yet, much of that is attributable to America being a high-consumption (e.g., personal spending) country across the board. In reviewing the evidence, famed economist Tyler Cowen notes, “American health-care spending is typical of this nation’s habits and mores. Relative to GDP, Americans consume a lot more than Europeans, and our health-care spending is another example of that tendency … Once we focus on consumption, America’s high health-care expenditures no longer appear so unusual.” To the report’s authors, this misstated and misdiagnosed problem has a sinister culprit: greedy corporations. It notably glosses over the degree to which government failures have contributed to the current state of play. The report emphasizes “corporate capture” as a key driver in shaping public health policy and high health care costs. Crony capitalism is indeed a problem in Washington, D.C. However, the federal government has distorted the medical marketplace in a number of ways. One such way is through the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, resulting in higher costs and reduced patient choice. Fifteen years on, the Affordable Care Act is nothing more than a giant broken promise, which has resulted in higher care costs, increased deficits and the cancellation of over 7 million plans for patients on preferred insurance. One cannot forget the U.S. Food Guide Pyramid disaster (mentioned briefly on one page of the MAHA Report), which emphasized a diet mainly comprising carbohydrates and grains. It has been linked to obesity and other health issues. The dietary recommendations made by the federal government were not based on science, yet it was taught in public schools for decades following its 1992 debut.
Constricting choice through overzealous government regulation is to miss the point altogether. America’s health woes are very often because (rather than in spite) of ambitious regulators. Further, Americans ought to be free to make their own choices. Many of the societal ills described by RFK Jr. in his public statements — and this report — are indeed concerning. However, America will be far better off when the impetus to adopt healthier habits falls on individuals and families, rather than Uncle Sam. Americans aren’t better off without freedom of choice — even, and especially, if bureaucrats of different political stripes disagree with those choices.
BLOGS:
Monday: Global Panel Urges Rapid Reform of WHO and FCTC to Embrace Science, Transparency, and Consumer Voices
Tuesday: Removing Barriers to Prosperity: A Free Trade Center Interview with Iain Murray
Wednesday: Removing Barriers to Prosperity: A Free Trade Center Interview with Iain Murray and Why Banning Sports Betting Isn’t the Answer
Friday: TPA Reemphasizes Support for SAMOSA Act following Senate Reintroduction
MEDIA:
June 12, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on Baltimore city spending.
June 13, 2025: Manila Standard mentioned TPA's in their story, “WHO’s prohibitionist stance costs lives, harm reduction experts say”
June 13, 2025: 24 Share Updates mentioned TPA's in their story, “Public health advocates decry WHO’s ‘prohibitionist’ nicotine stance”
June 13, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on a Baltimore County man who was accused of bribing an ex-city finance worker for favors.
June 13, 2025: The Herald (New Britain, Ct.) ran TPA's op-ed, “Small businesses thrive on e-commerce, search platforms.”
June 13, 2025: The Chronicle (Willimantic, Ct.) ran TPA's op-ed, “Small businesses thrive on e-commerce, search platforms.”
June 13, 2025: The Bristol Press (Elbert, Co.) ran TPA's op-ed, “Small businesses thrive on e-commerce, search platforms.”
June 13, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Baltimore City budget doubles down on DEI.”
June 13, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their news segment on Baltimore budget decisions.
June 13, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Comptroller abstains from travel votes, calls for board reform”
June 15, 2025: Arkansas Online mentioned TPA's in their story, “Veterans need statewide protection.”
June 15, 2025: WHK-AM (Cleveland, Oh.) interviewed Dan Savickas for their news segment on the Big Beautiful Bill.
June 15, 2025: DC Journal (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “With the Right Training, FDA AI Rollout Can Save Lives.”
June 16, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Gov. Wes Moore announces plan to save taxpayers $300 million.”
June 16, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on Baltimore building renovation spending.
June 16, 2025: FilterMag.org ran TPA's op-ed, “Governments “Hate” Big Tobacco—Yet Hand Them the Nicotine Market.”
June 16, 2025: WCNC NBC (Charlotte, N.C.) interviewed TPA for their story on paying the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Chief moving fees.
June 16, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Baltimore's $4.6B budget passes with fee hikes; critics say it lacks long-term solutions.”
June 17, 2025: The Associated Press and 39 other outlets ran TPA’s press release, “Global Panel Urges Rapid Reform of WHO and FCTC to Embrace Science, Transparency, and Consumer Voices”
June 17, 2025: WBT (Charlotte, NC) interviewed David McGarry for their story on paying the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Chief moving fees.
June 17, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned TPA in their story, “Baltimore's budget per capita soars, surpassing major cities like LA, Boston, and Chicago.”
June 19, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on the Baltimore City budget.
June 19, 2025: WBOB-AM (Jacksonville, Fl.) interviewed me about tax cuts. Social Security, and Medicare
Have a great weekend!
Best,
David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. xxxxxx
|
