Preston Leader
Edition 1 -WED 18 JAN 2006, Page 007
City's lotto
of payouts
By Natalie Robertson

DAREBIN had the second-largest number of winners in Saturday Tattslotto division one in Victoria last year, with lower socio-economic areas dominating the top 10 list.
The area had eight winning entries paying out $6,571,700 and was surpassed only by Brimbank, which had 10 winning entries totalling $6,280,100.
The other top 10 municipalities were Kingston, Boroondara, Knox, Yarra, Mornington Peninsula, Shepparton, Geelong, Hobsons Bay, Moonee Valley and Frankston.
Tattersall's Lotteries representative Gerry Devine said the top 10 municipalities changed from year to year and were based purely on chance.
In 2004, Darebin had four winning tickets paying out $3,126,500.
``With division one wins, it's a pure luck thing,'' Mr Devine said.
``Dandenong was number one last year (2004) but didn't get in the top 10 this year (2005).
``Some areas have bigger populations so that might make a difference, but some of the top 10 areas are not heavily populated.''
Many of the suburbs within the top 10 municipalities were in the lower socio-economic range but Mr Devine said a link could not be made between this factor and the amount of Tattslotto winners.
He said Tattersall's Lotteries did not keep records of the number of tickets bought in each suburb.
He said the only possible link between lower socio-economic areas and the top 10 areas could be that lower socio-economic areas usually had greater populations and therefore more ticket sales.
Gamblers' Help Service chief executive Eddie Chapman said more research needed to be done to determine whether people in lower socio-economic areas were spending a disproportionate amount on Tattslotto tickets.
``But what we are more concerned about is Tattersall's announcing these figures, which implies that these areas are lucky or certain ticket outlets have been lucky,'' Mr Chapman said.
``It perpetuates superstitions around gambling that does not help problem gambling.
``These messages chip away at people's self-control.
``It's telling them that you are lucky if you live in these areas, so go for it.''
Mr Chapman said statistics releases by Tattersall's focused on the winners and ignored the vast majority of punters who played every week without getting anything in return.
Section:  NEWS

Sunbury Macedon Leader
Edition 1 - MRVTUE 17 JAN 2006, Page 001
Anger at pokies bid
By Ben Oliver

KYNETON'S community support sector is aghast at plans to increase the RSL's number of poker machines.
Neighbourhood House, St Luke's Anglicare and the Macedon Ranges Residents' Association have banded to renounce the proposed expansion, arguing it will create greater social problems in a community already disadvantaged by high unemployment and lower weekly incomes. Census figures show Kyneton has the one of the highest levels of unemployment in the Macedon Ranges at 7.2 per cent compared with the region's 5 per cent average.
The town's median weekly income is nearly a third behind the shire's average of $905, while 39.8 per cent of residents hold non-school qualifications against the shire's 48.7 per cent average.
Kyneton Community and Learning Centre co-ordinator Mary Hogarth-Ball said the proposal would be highly detrimental to the people of Kyneton.
Mrs Hogarth-Ball ran a State Government-funded gambling support service for women until September last year, and continues to steer residents with gambling problems towards more constructive pursuits such as further study, sport and recreation.
``Kyneton is a vulnerable area with a lot of vulnerable people,'' she said.
``I don't think this (poker machine application) would be a good thing for Kyneton.
``It would not be helpful for businesses. Kyneton is one of those low-income areas and those people are always the hardest hit.''
St Luke's financial counsellor Julie Smith said studies showed a direct correlation with gaming accessibility and addiction.
Mrs Smith said resources at St Luke's were already thin on the ground.
``There are already plenty of machines in the area,'' she said.
``There is the potential for extra poker machines to increase the number of problem gamblers.''
Macedon Ranges Residents' Association's Christine Pruneau said there were ``enough problems in the community without adding poker machines to them''.
``Poker machines don't add anything to a community,'' she said. ``They take out but they don't give back.''
Section:  NEWS

// BASIS Online / Science & Education / The WAGER

Volume 11, Number 1 - January 18, 2006

“Parkinson’s Drug Sparks Gambling Fever!” Evaluating the scientific evidence that Mirapex causes Pathological Gambling

In July, 2005, newspapers all over the world reported that Mirapex, a drug used to treat Parkinson’s disease, caused some patients to become addicted to gambling. A recent issue of Time Magazine identified the finding as one of the most important medical breakthroughs of 2005 (“The Year in Medicine,” Song, Park et al., 2005). In their eagerness to report these interesting results, however, the media failed to emphasize that the research is in its very preliminary stages and much more research is necessary before scientists can establish that a direct causal link exists. In this issue of the WAGER, we evaluate the evidence for the claim that gambling addiction is a specific side effect of Mirapex (i.e., Pramipexole dihydrochloride, in the class of dopamine agonists, or DAs).

Research by clinicians at a Parkinson’s disease clinic (Dodd, Klos et al. 2005) stimulated the media reports about the Mirapex-gambling problem link. In this research, clinicians described 11 cases of Parkinson’s patients who reported during routine visits that they had developed a Pathological Gambling disorder (PG) after taking high doses of either Mirapex or another DA. Like most clinicians, the clinic’s staff do not routinely ask patients about gambling or other unusual behaviors; these patients freely volunteered the information. All 11 patients reported that they had not been frequent gamblers before DA treatment and that the problems ceased after withdrawing from, or lowering the dose of, the DA.

Below we discuss two major limitations of this study (Dodd, Klos et al. 2005) and evaluate the validity of the authors’conclusions in the context of other relevant research.

“A mountain or a molehill?”

Scientists and interested observers must consider the size of causal effects. Understanding effect sizes can help scientists and science journalists from over-stating the conclusions that can be drawn from rare events or small differences between groups. In the Dodd et al. study, only eleven cases of self-reported PG were identified in two full years of treating Parkinson’s patients. The authors did not report how many patients were seen during that time, or how many patients received DA treatment. Presumably, for a clinic that specializes in Parkinson’s disease, 11 patients reflects a very low prevalence rate. For example, a previous study with 250 Parkinson’s patients on DA drugs (Molina, Sainz-Artiga et al. 2000) found that only 1.5% of these patients had been diagnosed with PG. This prevalence rate falls within the rate normally observed among the general population. In addition, as the authors did not routinely ask patients about PG, we do not know the prevalence of PG among Parkinson’s patients who were not taking a DA. Therefore, the rate of PG prevalence among these patients might not differ from the rate in the general adult population. Although anecdotal or case-based evidence can suggest important research questions, only studies with certain characteristics (e.g., random assignment of subjects to groups, standard treatment within groups, a comparison group without treatment, and sufficient numbers of subjects) can identify the source of an observed phenomenon and rule out other factors, including chance, as an explanation.

“Do not seek and ye shall not find.”

Researchers can report only the data they chose to obtain. In their study, Dodd and colleagues (1995) focused on patients who reported gambling problems, and they did not ask these patients about other related behaviors or disorders. Interestingly, three of the six patients whose cases were described in more detail reported experiencing compulsive behaviors in addition to PG (e.g., compulsive shopping and hypersexuality), but this overlap was not discussed in the report. (See Table below for characteristics of these six patients.) Through these omissions, the authors implied that PG is a unique “side effect” of DAs. However, other research suggests that DAs might facilitate or trigger a larger problem of which PG is only one part. To illustrate, in two studies, DA patients developed a variety of excessive behavior patterns, including compulsive eating, PG, increased alcohol use, hypersexuality, addiction to the DA itself, and increased cigarette cravings. These studies’ authors suggested that the variety of compulsive behaviors might reflect a “global sensitization of appetitive behaviors in susceptible patients” ((Nirenberg and Waters 2005), p.4) or an “addiction-like” syndrome referred to as “Hedonistic homeostatic dysregulation” (Giovannoni, O'Sullivan et al. 2000). Alternatively, the gambling problems exhibited by the patients in Dodd and colleagues’ study might have been the result of a manic or hypomanic episode. These episodes, usually seen in the context of bipolar disorder, can manifest in excessive behaviors like compulsive gambling and hypersexuality.

If PG is not a specific “side effect” of DAs, but rather just one aspect of an addiction-like syndrome or of a manic episode that emerges secondary to DA use, perhaps high doses of DAs trigger these behaviors in patients with personal histories of, or genetic or psychosocial predispositions to, addiction or bipolar disorder. If this were the case, the DA would be said to play a faciliatative role or serve as a partial cause in developing these behaviors.

Table 1: Characteristics of “representative” patients in Dodd et al. (2005)

The current evidence for a direct causal link between DA drugs and PG is quite weak. Although the case studies are suggestive enough to warrant future research on the possible link between DA drugs and PG and/or other excessive or compulsive behaviors, at this point several factors limit the research. Among these factors are the small number of subjects and the absence of sufficient and relevant information. Further, the Dodd et al. article overstates its conclusion – that “DA drugs appear to be uniquely implicated as a cause of pathological gambling” (Dodd et al., 2005, p. 1381). In addition, Dodd et al. fail to take into account previous findings suggesting that PG is just one of a variety of addictive behaviors possibly linked to DA drugs.

What do you think? Comments on this article can be addressed to Cheryl Browne at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

References

Dodd, M. L., K. J. Klos, et al. (2005). "Pathological gambling caused by drugs used to treat Parkinson Disease." Archives of Neurology 62: 1-5.

Giovannoni, G., J. D. O'Sullivan, et al. (2000). "Hedonistic homeostatic dysregulation in patients with Parkinson's disease on dopamine replacement therapies." Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry 68(4): 423-428.

Molina, J. A., M. J. Sainz-Artiga, et al. (2000). "Pathologic gambling in Parkinson's Disease: A behavioral manifestation of pharmacologic treatment?" Movement Disorders 15(5): 869-872.

Nirenberg, M. J. and C. Waters (2005). "Compulsive eating and weight gain related to dopamine agonist use." Movement Disorders. In Press; Published online 31 Oct 2005.

Song, S., A. Park, et al. (2005). The Year in Medicine. Time. December 5: 63-87.

January 18, 2006

Is There A Law Against Gambling On The Internet?

I. Nelson Rose, J. D.
Professor, Whittier Law School Costa Mesa, CA
BASIS, editorial board member

The question I get far more than any other is, “Is gambling on the Internet legal?”

Often it comes from regular players. It is interesting how many gamblers are concerned about making sure they are not breaking the law. Advocates of legalization often say that people are going to gamble anyway, and that when an activity is illegal there is the temptation of “forbidden fruit.” Both are undoubtedly true. But there are also millions of people who won’t break the law, even if there are no adverse consequences, just because it is the law. This is also a good indicator of how much growth there would be if Internet gambling were made clearly legal.

Of course, many players are worried about getting into trouble. My favorite emails are from gamblers who have won big and now want to know if they will get arrested.

I have a standard answer: There is no federal law against being merely a player. About half the states do have ancient laws on the books that sometimes make it a crime to make a bet. But you have a better chance of winning the World Poker Tour than of being arrested. After all, there are WPT winners every year. Yet only one person has ever been convicted of the crime of betting online.

In 2003, Jeffrey Trauman was charged with “placing a wager over $500,” which is a misdemeanor under North Dakota state law. Jeff was a car salesman during the day, but made most of his money betting on sports. The State Gaming Division got a tip from an outside source and started an investigation.

Jeff told me that he thinks he was turned over to the state by the I.R.S., because he put “professional gambler” as his occupation on his federal tax return. I told him the I.R.S. is not allowed to do that, and I thought it was his bank, since large sums of money were going in and out of his account. They probably thought he was a drug dealer. And once the government starts investigating, they have to charge someone with something. The latest theory from Jeff’s friends is that his family turned him in, because their strict religious beliefs forbad gambling.

Jeff pleaded guilty, paid a $500 fine and left North Dakota, for a state where there is no prohibition on betting.

Although it is extremely rare to get into trouble for merely placing bets online, gamblers can be prosecuted for related offenses. Helping the operators, such as collecting debts from other gamblers, puts the player into the business of gambling. And the state and federal tax authorities may not care where you get your income, but you still have to report it.

For gaming operators, there are both federal and state laws that can kick in. The major federal statute is the Wire Act. This makes it a crime for anyone in the business of gambling to use a wire to send bets or information useful in the placing of bets across state or national boundaries.

The federal Department of Justice believes this statute covers all forms of Internet gambling. But the three federal courts that looked at this issue all agreed that the prohibition is limited to bets on racing and sports events. Online casinos, lotteries and poker do not fall under this law.

The cases involved players suing credit card companies to get their losses back. The D.O.J. feels it is not bound by these decisions, I guess because it was not a party to the lawsuits. But that is not the way the law works.

The D.O.J. might be able to find a federal judge somewhere who would disagree with this interpretation of the Wire Act, but it is doubtful. First, one of the courts was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, so all federal courts in that circuit are bound by the decision. Second, one of the cases involved consolidated class actions that had been filed all over the country and, although not legally binding, would be very strong precedent for every other court. In fact, it is safe to say that the only way the D.O.J. could prevail is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case involving the Wire Act and for the justices to disagree with every other judge who has interpreted this law, which is not going to happen.

Even though the Wire Act does covers bets on horse and dog races and sports events, this does not mean that overseas operators are going to be prosecuted. Besides the practical problems of going after operators in foreign countries, there are legal barriers. Only a few recent extradition treaties, like the one the U.S. entered into with Hong Kong in 2000, include gambling. And there are other sovereignty issues. For example, the U.S. and U.K. have a treaty, a Mutual Lateral Assistance Treaty or MLAT, which requires that before the U.S. can take criminal action against a British citizen who is physically in England, there must first be top government to government discussions. The President and Prime Minister have more important things to talk about at the moment.

Licensed bookies still have to be careful. I worked with a British bookmaker who made the mistake of having $734,578.82 in a bank account in New Jersey. Although I raised the MLAT issue, the court decided that it did not apply, because this was a civil forfeiture and no criminal action was being taken in England.

Besides the Wire Act, there are few other federal crimes that might apply. RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, does includes gambling, but it is expressly limited to state felonies. Most state gambling crimes are misdemeanors.

There is one federal law that could apply. The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 created a new federal crime, “illegal gambling business.” Because Congress has to find its power from a provision of the U.S. Constitution, it declared that large (5 people, $2,000 a day for 30 days) illegal gambling businesses have an impact on interstate commerce. What makes this crime unique is that it does not say that the state illegal gambling has to be felonies.

So, it is possible that an Internet operator may be violating this federal law by committing gambling misdemeanors under state law. And every state has laws on the books against taking bets without a license.

Still, there are problems. Would a federal prosecutor today charge someone with a federal felony, merely for committing state misdemeanors? And exactly what state crimes are being committed?

There is a strong presumption that laws do not have extraterritorial reach. Unless they expressly say they are intended to cover activities outside their borders, state statutes cannot reach into other states or nations.

Also, all the sovereignty issues kick in. Nevada does have a statute that clearly makes it a crime in Nevada for someone in a foreign country to take a bet online from someone in Nevada. But can Nevada do that, when the operator is a citizen of a foreign nation, licensed by his own country? What if it is the foreign country itself, accepting bets on its state lottery?

And exactly how is the state of Nevada going to go about arresting someone in a foreign country, with gambling not covered by an extradition treaty?

Somehow I cannot see the governor sending the Nevada National Guard to make an arrest in England. Even if that were legal.

As the English would say, it’s just not done.