Sports betting: Acceptable vice or deadly addiction?- The Malaysian Insider
July 29, 2010 - The current controversy over the legalisation of sports betting has looked at the issue largely through the economic or the religious angle. The debate has been framed either as one of the quantum of revenue lost to illegal gambling or the moral impact on such activity in a largely Muslim nation. In fact, a more handy way to look at this might be to interrogate our society’s approach to the ideas of vice and addiction.
Vice is generally defined as a moral fault or failing which is habitual yet generally trivial, and addiction on the other hand is the compulsive need for something known to be harmful. Vices are tolerated as they are seen as necessary to the human condition though not necessarily desirable, addictions are deemed unhealthy and the cause of anti-social and criminal behaviour, and require rehabilitation.
In social terms, what is acceptable in general terms is a vice. So alcoholics, shopaholics, bookworms and smokers may be looked on as engaging in unhealthy pursuits, but not to the point that the state intervenes to prevent the majority of people from partaking of these activities. But drug addicts, serial rapists and pimps are simply not tolerated. Put another way, we see a middle-aged makcik having a flutter at the races or a glass of wine very differently from her dealing syabu or exchanging sex for cash.
What complicates the matter is that for some people, what starts out as a vice rapidly develops into an addiction, while for others it remains an occasional indulgence. In general, when the latter predominates, society is lenient towards these vices.
So we don’t lock up gamblers and smokers, but we set up mechanisms such as GRCs (gambling rehab centres) or Alcoholics Anonymous to protect the minority for whom vice develops into an addiction. But drug addiction, for example, is seen as a grave threat to the stability of our social structure.
We believe that left unchecked, these kinds of activities can cause the collapse of our families, our youth and indeed our future. So we try our best to prevent these by using the full might of the state by criminalising this behaviour, shaming those who partake of it, and rehabilitating those who succumb.
By pushing these acts outside the pale of decent society, we send a strong signal as to what will not be tolerated. By making it impossible to indulge in these acts openly, society ensures that the consequences for such behaviour are the harshest it can impose. If as a collective we feel threatened by the harm individual acts of addiction cause to us, we act decisively and with great force.
Of course, cultural mores also change over time. Remember the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when long hair and the hippie lifestyle were seen as such strong threats to our way of life that foreign visitors who looked the part were promptly given haircuts, warnings or simply deported? If not, here is a refresher from the Bangkok Post:
Malaysia to arrest hippies ‘on sight’
January 28, 1977
KUALA LUMPUR(AFP) — Immigration officers have been given orders to arrest all hippies on sight, it was announced here yesterday. The Director-General of Immigration, Hashim Naemat, said “we are now hot after these hippies to safe-guard Malaysian morals.” Immigration officers at various checkpoints have been told not to allow any person sporting long hair, wearing dirty clothes and looking shabby to enter the country. The government banned the entry of hippies into the country on September 1, 1972. A statement issued then by the Home Affairs Ministry said the identification of a hippie was left to the discretion of immigration officers.
So what about sports betting? From a social perspective, because various other types of gambling have been allowed for such a long time, it seems that it falls into the category of vice rather than addiction. If this was not the case, instead of looking at adding to the avenues available for gambling, we would have in fact been agitating for banning all types of gambling.
Clearly our culture and society are not as threatened by sports betting as is made out in some quarters. It is the politics associated with the decision which have made it such an emotive issue, and status quo the most likely outcome. Now what were the odds on an Argentina-Brazil final again?
Vice is generally defined as a moral fault or failing which is habitual yet generally trivial, and addiction on the other hand is the compulsive need for something known to be harmful. Vices are tolerated as they are seen as necessary to the human condition though not necessarily desirable, addictions are deemed unhealthy and the cause of anti-social and criminal behaviour, and require rehabilitation.
In social terms, what is acceptable in general terms is a vice. So alcoholics, shopaholics, bookworms and smokers may be looked on as engaging in unhealthy pursuits, but not to the point that the state intervenes to prevent the majority of people from partaking of these activities. But drug addicts, serial rapists and pimps are simply not tolerated. Put another way, we see a middle-aged makcik having a flutter at the races or a glass of wine very differently from her dealing syabu or exchanging sex for cash.
What complicates the matter is that for some people, what starts out as a vice rapidly develops into an addiction, while for others it remains an occasional indulgence. In general, when the latter predominates, society is lenient towards these vices.
So we don’t lock up gamblers and smokers, but we set up mechanisms such as GRCs (gambling rehab centres) or Alcoholics Anonymous to protect the minority for whom vice develops into an addiction. But drug addiction, for example, is seen as a grave threat to the stability of our social structure.
We believe that left unchecked, these kinds of activities can cause the collapse of our families, our youth and indeed our future. So we try our best to prevent these by using the full might of the state by criminalising this behaviour, shaming those who partake of it, and rehabilitating those who succumb.
By pushing these acts outside the pale of decent society, we send a strong signal as to what will not be tolerated. By making it impossible to indulge in these acts openly, society ensures that the consequences for such behaviour are the harshest it can impose. If as a collective we feel threatened by the harm individual acts of addiction cause to us, we act decisively and with great force.
Of course, cultural mores also change over time. Remember the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when long hair and the hippie lifestyle were seen as such strong threats to our way of life that foreign visitors who looked the part were promptly given haircuts, warnings or simply deported? If not, here is a refresher from the Bangkok Post:
Malaysia to arrest hippies ‘on sight’
January 28, 1977
KUALA LUMPUR(AFP) — Immigration officers have been given orders to arrest all hippies on sight, it was announced here yesterday. The Director-General of Immigration, Hashim Naemat, said “we are now hot after these hippies to safe-guard Malaysian morals.” Immigration officers at various checkpoints have been told not to allow any person sporting long hair, wearing dirty clothes and looking shabby to enter the country. The government banned the entry of hippies into the country on September 1, 1972. A statement issued then by the Home Affairs Ministry said the identification of a hippie was left to the discretion of immigration officers.
So what about sports betting? From a social perspective, because various other types of gambling have been allowed for such a long time, it seems that it falls into the category of vice rather than addiction. If this was not the case, instead of looking at adding to the avenues available for gambling, we would have in fact been agitating for banning all types of gambling.
Clearly our culture and society are not as threatened by sports betting as is made out in some quarters. It is the politics associated with the decision which have made it such an emotive issue, and status quo the most likely outcome. Now what were the odds on an Argentina-Brazil final again?
Comments
Post a Comment