Part 4
The higher rates of Level 2 and 3 gamblers found in this study may be due to a response bias. Individuals who liked to gamble or who had a problem with gambling may have been more likely to complete the questionnaire. However, considering that 74.0% of the participants were classified as nonproblematic gamblers and that 58.2% scored 0 on the SOGS, the majority of participants who completed the questionnaires had no apparent gambling problems. Another explanation for the higher rates of disordered gambling in this population may be related to the demographics of the sample. People who seek services at UCHC dental clinics have risk factors for disordered gambling identified in other studies of special populations, such as relatively younger age, lower income, and less education (Cunningham-Williams, Cottler, Compton, & Spitznagel, 1998; Feigelman, Wallisch, & Lesieur, 1998; Pasternak & Fleming, 1999; Shaffer et al., 1999; Stinchfield & Winters, 1998; Volberg, 1998; Westphal & Rush, 1996). The prevalence of disordered gambling in this sample of medical and dental patients is similar to rates reported in substance abusing populations (Feigelman et al., 1998; Lesieur et al., 1986; Petry, 2000b; Shaffer et al., 1999).
Because only one other known study reported on the prevalence of Internet gambling, comparisons of the rates of Internet gambling found in this study to other populations are premature. Only Petry and Mallya's (2001) study provides a comparative perspective. Using a methodology similar to
[Page: H4989] GPO's PDFthat of the present study, Petry and Mallya examined rates of Internet gambling among UCHC health center employees (n = 907) who, as a group, had an almost identical mean age (42.8) but higher annual income and educational achievement than participants in the present study. Yet Petry and Mallya found a prevalence rate of Internet gambling of just 1.2%, which is a considerable departure from the present study's findings of 8.1%. Because access to the Internet is traditionally correlated with populations that have higher income and educational attainment, the present study's higher rate of Internet gambling was not expected.
The relative difference in Internet gambling rates between the present study and that of Petry and Mallya (2001) may be due to the higher percentage of Level 2 and 3 gamblers found in the present study. Among UCHC employees, Petry and Mallya found a much smaller overall percentage of Level 2-3 gamblers (4.8%) than the present study (26.0%). With the present study's higher overall percentage of problematic gamblers, an associated increase in percentage of Internet gambling may not be surprising. Indeed, 74.2% of Internet gamblers were found to be Level 2 or 3 gamblers, with 64.5% classified as Level 3 gamblers.
Although Internet gambling was the least common gambling activity, the 8.1% (n = 31) of participants who reported experience with Internet gambling remains an important finding. Accessibility and use of Internet gambling opportunities are likely to increase with the explosive growth of the Internet. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Internet Report (UCLA Center for Communication Policy, 2000) indicated that the number of Americans using the Internet exceeded 100 million by 1999. During each day of the first 3 months of 2000, approximately 55,000 individuals logged on to the Internet for the first time (UCLA Center for Communication Policy, 2000). Thus, an increase in Internet use may foster the development of more Level 2 and 3 gamblers, or attract individuals who already have a gambling problem. Indeed, the availability of Internet gambling may draw individuals who seek out isolated and anonymous contexts for their gambling behaviors.
The high rates of disordered gambling found among UCHC patients illustrate the potential for proactive screening and interventions by health professionals. Health professionals typically attend to a range of patient health and behavior correlates, such as alcohol use, sleep, diet, exercise, and other psychosocial factors. These behaviors and contextual attributes are understood to affect, in complex ways, the health outcomes of patients. Yet attention to gambling as a marker of potential comorbidities is still lacking within health clinic settings. Persons struggling with gambling behaviors are often burdened by health and emotional difficulties (Daghestani, 1987a; Pasternak & Fleming, 1999). These problems include substance abuse, circulatory disease, digestive distress, depression, sexual dysfunction, pervasive anxiety, and risky sexual behaviors (Daghestani, 1987b; Lesieur et al., 1986; Miller, 1996a; Petry, 2000a, 2000b). Screening for disordered gambling among patients may enhance the ability of health professionals to intervene in the physical and emotional health of individuals. Screening strategies are particularly important when dealing with populations in which regular visits to dental or general health clinics may be the exception rather than the norm.
With the expansion of localized and Internet gambling, a rise in disordered gambling may be inevitable as individuals gain easier access to gambling opportunities. The consequences of gambling expansion may continue to negatively affect the health and social contexts of individuals. As interest in treatments for disordered gambling grows (Petry & Armentano, 1999), health professionals should be aware of the signs of disordered gambling and proactively inform patients of the risks involved.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who represents Lehigh University.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that Lehigh University was mentioned. That institution is in my district.
And just to drive the point home, just in today's paper, the father of the young man who was alleged to have robbed a bank to support his gambling habit said that this bill was something that could have helped his son. He said this: ``He was addicted. He gambled 12 hours at a time. He gambled everything he had.'' The father went on to say, ``When he was out of money, he did what most addicts do when they are out of their supply. The Internet is flagrantly recruiting under-21-year-olds to gamble ..... This bill would have definitely helped my son.''
Finally, while Internet gambling is a $12 billion worldwide business, it is not by anyone's definition economic development. The revenue from these enterprises is not job-creating. Most Internet gambling funds are destined for locations that exist offshore.
[Begin Insert]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.
This legislation gives law enforcement the tools it needs to fight Internet gambling, which is already illegal in this country. Much Internet gambling originates from off-shore locations and thus is dependent upon the electronic transfer of money and wagering information between sites in the United States and these off-shore locations. Unfortunately, one of the major tools in this fight, the Wire Act, which is codified at title 18 United States Code Section 1081, was enacted in 1961, well before the establishment of the Internet or other forms of similar electronic communication. H.R. 4411 clarifies in statute that Internet communications made in furtherance of gambling transactions indeed fall within the scope of the Wire Act and are thus prosecutable.
H.R. 4411 also gives law enforcement some additional authority to block these transactions. It requires the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to promulgate regulations aimed at preventing transfers of funds related to illegal Internet Gambling. It also gives law enforcement the ability to seek injunctions against those individuals who act to facilitate this gambling.
While Internet gambling is a $12 billion worldwide business, it is not, anyone's definition, economic development. The revenue from these enterprises is not job-creating; most Internet gambling funds are destined for locations that exist off-shore. Internet gambling is, instead, wealth transfer--in most cases, from many who can least afford it to very few who don't need the cash. The proliferation of gambling in America--whether it involves playing the slots at a local racetrack, betting on roulette at a tribal casino hundreds of miles from the nearest Indian reservation, or placing wagers on college basketball games with an Internet site headquartered in the Bahamas--has done nothing to make this a healthier, more productive nation. That is why I support this bill.
[End Insert]
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been a phenomenal advocate of this issue.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to begin by thanking Mr. Leach and Mr. Goodlatte for staying in there when the outside lobbyists were trying to control this institution. And people must know, if you go back and look at history, this institution, this institution, was manipulated by outside lobbyists. So there is a test today whether that outside lobby, outside influence will continue to take place.
With the guilty plea of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information revealed about his role in the defeat of the Internet gambling ban a number of years ago, it is time to strengthen the law enforcement tools to crack down on illegal gambling.
With online gambling, people can do it in their bathrobes, as Mr. Leach said. They can do it when they are standing in line. This is a test. Quite frankly, this is a test for this institution about outside influences, ones that all you have to do is read The Washington Post and the New York Times over and over and over to see what they have done. They have manipulated this place.
And today, with Mr. Leach and Mr. Goodlatte and others, you have an opportunity to reverse the manipulation and pass this bill without amendment.
[Begin Insert]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation offered by my colleagues Jim Leach and Bob Goodlatte. I want to take this opportunity to commend them for working together and really sticking with it so that we could have a strong bill on the floor today that takes the strengths of each of their measures to comprehensively address Internet gambling.
As the author of the legislation which established the National Gambling Impact Commission, I have long been concerned about the predatory nature of gambling and the corruption that is often associated with it.
It seems as though every day in the news there is a new scandal related to gambling. Without this important legislation, there is no way to regulate Internet gambling.
Today, gambling is legal in almost every State in the Union and more than 400 tribal casinos operate in over 30 States. Sadly, Internet gambling is a growing problem in America, particularly for our young people.
You may recall that last December, Greg Hogan--a Lehigh University sophomore--made headlines when he robbed a bank in |
