Yesterday we dropped a bombshell that, despite a great increase in gambling opportunities, problem gambling is on the decline. A Harvard University study found that over the last 35 years, the gambling industry has seen tremendous growth, but problem gambling decrease from 0.7% of the population to 0.6% during that time. It was also found that 75% of problem gamblers had been addicted to other substances or behaviors prior to developing a gambling addiction.

That news was surprising to most people. Even most gambling supporters figured that there would have been a small increase in gambling addiction because casino games are more accessible. So the question is why has the problem decreased?

At this point we don’t know for sure, though that is certainly bound to be the topic of numerous studies. For now, all we can do is guess, so guess we shall. One possible reason for a decrease in problem gambling is that people are more aware of the issue now. In the past, addictions were the type of things people whispered about, but didn’t openly discuss. Now there is less of a stigma and we hear about addictions in the media all the time, including from otherwise healthy and productive members of society. Because of that, it’s reasonable to conclude that more people have been getting help and that those who think they could be predisposed to problem gambling will stay away.

There are also more means of getting help now than ever before. There are treatment centers, phone hotlines, websites and more. People can get help with their addiction without sacrificing their confidentiality, which makes them more likely to seek treatment.

Self-exclusion lists are another big change that we have seen lately. Online casinos and the brick and mortar variety use self-exclusion lists to allow problem gamblers to voluntarily ban themselves from playing. That helps them avoid the temptation, which they can’t do on their own.

With more openness about the problem, more access to treatment and greater technology, it shouldn’t be surprising that problem gambling has gone down. Perhaps the biggest surprise is that we were so surprised.

For those who oppose online gambling, the number one reason is that they are worried about problem gambling. It is a valid concern and it is good to be concerned about the ills of society, but is it a realistic concern? As a knee-jerk reaction, many repeat the line that allowing online gambling increases problem gambling. It seems to be common sense. If you increase the availability of gambling, surely you will increase the number of people who have gambling addictions, right? Wrong, says Harvard University.

Recently two Harvard professors, Howard J. Shaffer and Ryan Martin published a paper called “Disordered Gambling: Etiology, Trajectory and Clinical Considerations.” In that paper, the professors shot down many of the beliefs people have about gambling and problem gambling. The researchers found that although gambling in the United States has experienced huge growth during the last 35 years, problem gambling has decreased from 0.7% of the population to 0.6%. The number of problem gamblers declined despite not only having more access to land casinos but also despite the advent of Internet gambling.

Research also found something that gambling advocates had suspected for some time: those who become addicted to gambling have pathological disorders that cause them to be more susceptible to addictions. The research found that 75% of those people who suffer from problem gambling have some other addiction outside of gambling, such as drugs or alcohol, and those other addictions were present before any gambling addiction. Of those with other addictions, 75% them are related to alcohol, 38% are related to drug abuse and 60% are dependent on smoking.

This seems to suggest that it is not the game that is the problem. Instead, it is people who are prone to addictions finding another source to feed their compulsion. Another interesting fact uncovered in the report is that online gamblers spend less money over time. Shaffer said that “people gambling on the Internet change from gambling more to less in weeks. We never would have predicted that. The extent of Internet gambling for most is astoundingly moderate.” With most gamblers behaving responsibly and most of them getting more frugal over time, the activity seems less dangerous than ever.

Problem gambling has never been treated the same as any other type of addiction. Unlike the physiological addiction to things like drugs and alcohol, problem gambling is a compulsion to commit destructive behavior. As such, many people view it as being not as bad. Others think that the gambler should be able to control the problem; I mean, it’s not like being addicted to heroin!

While there are certainly differences, mental addiction can be just as strong as physiological addiction. The mind is a very powerful thing. A person’s own mind can mess them up much worse than any drug. Just stop by a mental hospital if you don’t believe me.

The point is that gambling addiction, or problem gambling, or whatever you want to call it, is a very real problem. It needs to be treated as such. A British charity is doing their part to help spread awareness about the problem and help those afflicted with destructive gambling compulsions to get some help. The Responsible Gambling Fund (RGF) has launched a campaign to train general practitioners across England, Wales and Scotland.

RGF is hoping to train 1,500 doctors in the UK within the first two years of the program.  Baroness Julia Neuberger, the chair of the RGF, said the problem is that “only a small proportion of people get the help they are looking for by going direct to specialist treatment services. We want to see them being identified earlier and helped to get access to services they need.”

The program will train doctors to identify patients with gambling problems or who are at risk to develop gambling problems. Doctors are already trained to identify physical or mental illness and this is only an addition to the current expectations. Dr. Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that the program will “support patients and doctors by building the knowledge, skills and competence of GPs” to identify and support those with gambling problems.

A portion of the revenue from the Iowa Lottery and Iowa casinos goes to “nonprofit” organizations tasked with treating problem gambling. A recent state audit, however, found that one such center wasn’t using those funds as directed and criminal prosecution may be in the future.

State auditors found more than $114,000 in alleged misspending by the Eastern Iowa Center for Problem Gambling located in Davenport. The Davenport location closed in June 2008. The problem may have been much bigger than that. Auditors were missing a lot of information due to records that were either shredded or lost (both are violations).

On Monday, State Auditor David Vaudt said that his staff had begun investigating the treatment center after receiving a tip in March of 2008, only three months before the center closed, alleging a misuse of funds. Vaudt then tried to get information from the center and the center was not compliant.

“The director and her attorney definitely fought giving us access to their records. We did what we could,” Vaudt said. You can imagine why the director, Janet Meisenbach, didn’t want the records turned over to state auditors. She is alleged to have been overpaid by $38,693 in addition to taking an improper vacation payout of $4,872, making improper credit card purchases equaling $14,254, making credit card purchases that are being called “unsupported” to the total of $27,032 and taking an improper travel payout of $4,872.

Another issue is that the board of directors rarely met with Meisenbach and did not play an active role in the organization. Usually in nonprofit organizations, the director reports to the board of directors. In this case, though, Meisenbach appointed the board and rarely consulted them, possibly because they would say something like “hey, why don’t we use some of this money to treat problem gambling rather than to give you a nice vacation?”

The center operated thanks to a $672,000 yearly contract with the Iowa Department of Public Health. It had offices in Davenport, Washington, Clinton and Cedar Rapids, but only the Davenport location was implicated in any wrongdoing. Copies of the audit were sent to state and county prosecutors.

Charles Barkley seems to be having a little trouble defining what a problem is. In a recent interview, he said he doesn’t have a gambling problem, contradicting earlier statements that he does having a problem but agreeing with other earlier statements that no problem exists. Sort of. Understand?

Charles Barkley’s business is no concern of mine. He is a grown man and can spend his money however he wants. Furthermore, I would never judge the gambling behavior of a man I have never even met, let alone observed. However, it is worth pointing out the statements and contradictions he has made because it might help you notice similar behavior in yourself and in others.

During his playing days, NBA star Charles Barkley was known to be a high-stakes gambler who would at times blow huge amounts of money. Like Michael Jordan’s gambling habits, people pretty much forgot about it until Antoine Walker’s recent problems brought them into the spotlight again.

In a recent GQ article, Barkley defended his gambling habit. He said that, after facing criticism for his habits, he “quit gambling for a while. But then I was like, ‘Why am I quitting gambling? I don’t have a problem?’” He then decided to start gambling again, whether people like it or not.

Though he currently seems to be convinced that he doesn’t have a gambling problem, he didn’t feel that way back in 2006. In an interview with ESPN, he said that gambling “is a problem for me,” admitting to losing “probably $10 million.”

So it seems that in 2006, he recognized that he had a problem, but now, removed from gambling, he is in denial again? Well…no. It’s not that simple. In the same ESPN interview, he said this:

“Yeah, I do have a gambling problem but I don’t consider it a problem because I can afford to gamble.” So when is a gambling problem not a problem? Apparently, when you’re rich. Tell that to Antoine Walker.

However, despite his gambling problem not being a problem, Sir Charles said that he does gambling too much money and it’s a problem he needs to address. He told ESPN that “I am addressing it.”

So it seems that back in 2006, Charles Barkley had a gambling problem that he didn’t consider a problem, because he has plenty of money, but the problem still needed to be addressed because he’s losing too much money. Now, four years later, he’s sure that he doesn’t have a problem.

Are you confused? So is Charles.

“Gambling is a dangerous and potentially destructive activity,” says the government, “and must be carefully regulated, or sometimes even banned, for your own good. Unless, of course, we are the ones offering the gambling games – in which case it’s totally safe.”

It may sound a little odd hearing it said like that, but such a statement is made by the government’s actions every day. How many countries ban casino gambling but offer a lottery? How many U.S. states do the same?

Now the state of Florida is adding a new game to their lottery: Lucky Lines. Already a hit in Michigan, Lucky Lines is an electronic game that allows players to win, or lose, instantly. Like some scratch-off games, there is no need to wait for a drawing later on. Players instantly know whether they have won or lost.

Experts say it is exactly that type of instant gratification that is attractive to people with gambling problems. The statistics back that up as well. Of those who have contacted Gamblers Anonymous because of a problem with lottery games, 81% indicated that their problem is with games that have instant results.

Lucky Lines plays like a combination of bingo and keno, which is a casino game that the state of Florida only allows in tightly-regulated tribal casinos. In the game, players choose seven numbers ranging from 1 to 49. They can also have the computer randomly choose some or all of the numbers for them. The computer terminal then prints a game board that has spots for 49 numbers. If any three of the player’s chosen numbers appear in a line – vertical, horizontal or diagonal – the player wins. Players can win up to $3 million on a single play.

Though there is a $5 limit to the amount you can bet on each card, there is no limit to the number of cards you can buy, so a compulsive gambler can keep buying card after card. Anytime he doesn’t win, buy another. With a game like the Lotto, where you have to wait for the drawing, compulsive behavior like that is not rewarded, because you still have to wait for your results. If you know right away that you didn’t win, though, that is incentive – for some people – to buy another one.

If the game we were talking about was keno, slots or roulette, Tallahassee would say that the games were dangerous and they must protect people from their compulsive behavior by only allowing those games in regulated tribal casinos. Since it’s a lottery game, though, players can find this at any convenience store, gas station and many other retail locations.

Here at Gambling Review, we always urge you to gamble responsibly. I have said more times than I can count that you should never gamble money that you can’t afford to lose. Perhaps I should be more specific. That does not mean you should steal money from other people to gamble with. That’s exactly what a slimeball insurance broker named Daniel Trolaro did, according to authorities.

Trolaro used to work as a insurance broker for Prudential Insurance Company of America. Aside from his day job, he enjoys playing games at online casinos, but figured he would enjoy them a lot more if he could somehow spend someone else’s money instead of his own. The genius then decided to defraud nine of his clients, stealing approximately $1.9 million, and use that money at the online casinos.

A New Jersey grand jury indicted Trolaro on one count of first-degree financial facilitation of criminal activity – in this case, money laundering, eight counts of second-degree theft by failure to make required disposition of property, and two counts of third-degree theft by failure to make required disposition of property.

According to the indictment, Trolaro bilked nine of his clients out of sums ranging from $46,000 to $910,000 from June 2008 until February of this year. At that time, an internal investigation by Prudential uncovered his wrongdoing and Trolaro was fired. Prudential then referred the matter to state authorities. According to a Prudential spokesman, Trolaro “misappropriated multiple clients’ funds withdrawn from their checking accounts, savings accounts, annuity contracts and/or brokerage accounts for his own benefit and borrowed money from several clients without firm approval.”

The good news is that I haven’t heard anyone use the “gambling addiction” excuse yet. “Oh, he has a gambling problem. That’s why he had to steal from his clients!” Though there are people with gambling problems, more often than not it’s simply a convenient excuse. In this case, like in many, greed, stupidity and selfishness seemed to be the largest factors at play – not gambling addiction.

Drugs can lead to addiction. We all know that. However, a new lawsuit is alleging that drugs designed to treat the effects of Parkinson’s disease have caused gambling addiction. That’s news to me.

A group of more than 100 people have joined a class action lawsuit in Australia. They are seeking legal action against two companies: Pfizer Australia, who makes the drug Cabaser, and Aspen Pharmacare, who makes the drug Permax. Both drugs are used to treat the tremor symptoms that are associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Those involved in the lawsuit – which will be heard in a federal court in Melbourne, Australia – allege that the drugs led to compulsive gambling behavior that resulted in the losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the loss of jobs, and a breakdown in their family situations. Some also allege that since taking the drugs that have developed compulsive sexual habits, such as becoming addicted to looking at internet pornography.

So is there any substance to the claims? The court will decide that and there is still debate about the causes of gambling addiction and whether it is really even “addiction” in the same way that people can become chemically addicted to drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.

It should be noted, though, that both drugs are classified as dopamine agonists, which are drugs designed to mimic the natural effects of the brain releasing dopamine. There is an established link between dopamine agonists and several harmful side-effects, which includes pathological addiction. That link that been explored in medical and psychological journals.

However, if those possible side effects were noted when the patients decided – of their own free will – to take the drugs, how can the drug companies be held accountable? I don’t know about Australia, but in the United States, all known side-effects for drugs must be disclosed before the drugs can be taken. There are no secrets. Anyone who takes the drug is agreeing that there is a possibility they will have those side-effects. If a blood thinner says it carries a risk of stroke and a person who takes it has a stroke, the drug company can’t be blamed – at least in America (and in the court of Common Sense). I don’t know about in Australia, though.

There is some good news for people who take dopamine agonists, though. Among the bad side-effects, there is also a very good side-effect. The use of dopamine agonists is known to cause increased orgasmic intensity. Isn’t that worth the risk of addiction?

I’ve always said that if you want to have really bad gambling odds, you should play the lottery. Well, some genius in Ohio tried to use lottery tickets to fund her gambling habit. In her defense, she was stealing the lottery tickets, so she wasn’t really losing money there.

Deborah Strong used to work at a Kroger store and part of her job duties involved refilling the lottery scratch-off ticket machine when it was empty. Somewhere along the line, she got to thinking, Hey, I bet no one would notice if I just stuck some of these tickets in my pockets. I can steal thousands of them over time and scratch them off and win big money! I can then blow that big money by spending it at a casino! And the best part is that no one could ever find out! It’s perfect! I really am a genius!

I have not analyzed Ms. Strong and cannot testify to her level of intelligence but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I believe she was wrong if she actually thought that “genius” part. Depending on who you ask, Strong stole either $189,000 or $530,000 worth of scratch-off tickets. Yeah, I know that’s a big difference. Kroger officials estimate that they lost out on $530,000 of revenue from Strong pocketing the tickets, but in court Strong admitted to a theft of $189,000, though she didn’t seem clear on that amount, either.

When asked about the money, she said that it didn’t seem like that much and was quick to point out that “a lot of them are losers,” so it’s not like she “got that much money.” So her defense against prison time only makes her plan look way dumber. Yeah, a lot of the tickets she stole are completely worthless, and yet she’s going to prison just the same.

Yesterday, the judge sentenced Strong to five years in prison.

Of the many flaws of Strong’s plan, this one sticks out: If none of the tickets are big winners, then she risked going to jail for nothing and didn’t make enough money for it to be worth the risk. However, if she were to scratch off any big winners, when they are redeemed the Lottery Commission requires that the winner submit her Social Security number. That’s how she was caught.

Once Kroger determined that they had a problem with lottery ticket theft, they began to go through the names of lottery winners who redeemed big cash prizes. They then found Strong’s name next to tickets worth $5,000 and $10,000. After that, it didn’t take much time to build a case against Strong.

After all, this isn’t her first time stealing from an employer. In 2001 she stole $14,150 from Cash City and while working as a teller for Provident Bank, she stole $20,000. In both cases, she stole the money to fund a gambling habit. As a result of her prior convictions, she was placed on probation for four years and was ordered to repay the employers, stay away from the Indiana riverboat casinos and attend weekly Gamblers’ Anonymous meetings.

Now she has a lot more money to pay back. In addition, though I don’t think she’ll be able to attend her meetings, Ms. Strong has plenty of time to think about gambling responsibly or not at all. A lot of people will look at her prison sentence and ask “was it worth it?” For me, there’s something else, though. If Strong stole $530,000 worth of tickets, that’s a lot of tickets to scratch. As the judge joked, she must have carpal tunnel by now.

When I first read this report, I had to double-check to make sure my source wasn’t The Onion, The Daily Show, MSNBC or some other source of fake news. It wasn’t. It seems as though this report I’m about to give you is actually true.

A Pennsylvania man forfeited $2,000 in casino winnings and was arrested for violating his self-imposed ban. The 55-year-old man, who has not been named, placed himself on Pennsylvania’s self-exclusion program in April 2009. Many people place themselves on a self-exclusion list if they have a gambling addiction or some other problem of irresponsibility and they want to make sure they are unable to go to a casino and lose money.

If you are on the self-exclusion list, no casino is allowed to admit you and let you play. Somehow, a Pennsylvania casino – the Presque Isle Downs & Casino in Erie, PA – did let him enter and play. Not only that, but he won a $2,000 jackpot. Once it was learned that he was on the self-exclusion list, his winnings were forfeited and he was arrested for trespassing.

And there’s where I think this goes into the realm of insanity. Players like this man have a problem controlling their urge so to take away the temptation of gambling at a casino, they voluntarily place themselves on an exclusion list. It is the choice of the individual to place themselves on the list as a way of helping them fight the temptation to play at a casino. The casinos then oblige by helping them with that. Why are criminal charges involved?

I get the forfeiting of the money. That makes sense because if he gets to keep it he is being rewarded for giving in to temptation and playing at a casino. Since the man wants to avoid that, you don’t want to reward that behavior. I don’t think a punishment in the form of criminal charges is warranted, though. Did he know when he agreed to the self-exclusion that he could be charged with trespassing if he violated the self-imposed ban?

It seems to me that if people with gambling problems learn that putting themselves on a self-exclusion list could bring criminal charges against them, they won’t do it. Let’s face it, if they didn’t have a problem with willpower, they wouldn’t be trying to exclude themselves. If relapsing can result in a criminal conviction, though, it seems like many will say “no thanks” and will not get help with their gambling problem.

Charging this man with trespassing is wrong and the charges need to be dropped immediately. Anything else is absurd and just morally wrong.