Making Self-Exclusion Work Better
- posted by Jim @ 2:40 AM

While Vice Squad is a big proponent of the principle of vice self-exclusion programs, the practice in US casinos leaves much to be desired. It seems to be relatively easy, for instance, for some self-excluded gamblers to return to a casino without much hindrance. A check of IDs for all gamblers, or a more universal use of smart cards that hook into gambling machines, might help to make self-exclusion programs more reliable.

One of the standard features of a self-exclusion program is that someone who has volunteered to join the excluded ranks is removed from the list of those who are sent promotional material. This is another area of slippage between theory and practice, apparently. The Illinois Gaming Board is fining a casino $800,000 for not sealing off the self-excluded from marketing appeals. The same casino received a $600,000 fine for similar activities two years ago. I would think that these significant fines will concentrate casino minds on providing a more effective barrier between their promotions and self-excluded gamblers.

Labels: gambling, Illinois, self-exclusion

 
Hey, I Am Not That Self-Exclusion Guy...
- posted by Jim @ 7:19 AM

...I am a different self-exclusion guy. Recently, a man from Delaware wanted to remove himself from Atlantic City's gambling self-exclusion list, in part because he found that the privately-owned AC casinos also barred him from their establishments in other locales. There was a fair amount of media (and Vice Squad?) coverage of his case, which he lost, but the excluded gambler was identified only by his initials. It turns out that initials are not like fingerprints, one unique set per person. (Maybe fingerprints are not like fingerprints, either.) A man in Florida has same the initials as the fellow excluded from Atlantic City casinos -- and the Floridian is none too pleased about the publicity surrounding the case. Seems that people keep suspecting that he (the Florida man) is the current litigant -- though he is not. Those folks might be confused because, in addition to the eerie initial coincidence, the Florida man is a known gambler and a former self-excluder, having signed up for a one-year ban in 2003. How to end the confusion? The Florida man wants the court to release the full name of the litigant. But full names are not unique, either....

I like to think of myself as the Self-Exclusion Guy.

Sorry for disappearing under the blogoscope. My temporary relocation has made it hard to participate in Web 2.0.

Labels: gambling, litigation, self-exclusion

 
Vice Squad Returns
- posted by Jim @ 11:16 AM

Well, sort of returns. Vice Squad is now firmly settled in Tbilisi, after passing through the UK. The vice news there was that yet another head of government, this time Gordon Brown, joined a long, distinguished list of past potentates who made the mistake of convening an expert panel on marijuana policy. As usual, the experts reported back that mj should be essentially decriminalised, and as usual, the government immediately ignored the report -- this time even moving to increase penalties for marijuana possession. (That two years you could get for possession of a joint just wasn't sufficient, so Class B status was necessary to put potheads away for five years.)

London has a new mayor, and a new policy on its underground and bus system -- as of June 1, no more (legal) drinking on the Tube. Americans can file this one under "What, you mean you used to be able to drink openly on the Tube?" Speaking of the new mayor, he celebrated his swearing in by going to a casino. During the campaign, he was a bit wobbly on Britain's smoking ban, too.

Labels: alcohol, Britain, casino, marijuana

 
Beijing Bans Public Smoking
- posted by Jim @ 11:29 PM

The ban applies to public buildings, but not to bars and restaurants -- those establishments must have no-smoking sections, however. There are apparently 100,000 current government employees who will be enlisted as enforcers, according to this BBC report, which also provides an interesting factoid: "For every three cigarettes lit worldwide, one is smoked in China." (I just lighted three cigarettes -- how does China know to have someone take a smoke?)

Vice Squad, indolent of late, is taking to the road for a couple of months. For the next week or so, blogging will be minimal, I fear. Perhaps I will light three more cigarettes to deal with my apprehension.

Labels: China, smoking ban, tobacco

 
The Poisoned Fruits of Comstockery
- posted by Jim @ 1:03 PM

Anthony Comstock, licensed vice suppressor, would brag of the people he drove to suicide by prosecuting them for their First Amendment-protected activity. (Though it took a long time and much persecution for their activity to receive First Amendment protection.) Comstock's victims included Ida Craddock, whom he pursued Javert-like.

Our current Comstockery has claimed another victim, it seems, today. Comstock would be proud. This victim even was convicted in Comstock-fashion, for misusing the mails. Hers is the second needless death from this pointless prosecution of voluntary adult behavior. Madness envelops us.

Labels: policing, prostitution

 
Anti-Gambling Legislation Successful!
- posted by Jim @ 11:07 PM

Um, well, except the legislation is not passed as an explicit anti-gambling measure. Nevertheless, public smoking bans are reliable in decreasing gambling (as long as those bans apply to on-site gambling venues). [Smoking bans put quite a crimp into bingo, too.] The most recent evidence comes from Down Unda (a curiously north-centric term), in New South Wales: "The ban on indoor smoking is ripping tens of millions from the pub and club industry, and poker machine turnover fell almost 20 per cent in hotels last month."

Of course, declines in gambling are always over-determined. Sure, there's the smoking ban, but there are also high petrol prices, wetter-than-usual-weather (which reinforces the smoking ban in that fewer bettors are desirous of stepping outside for a cigarette), internet-based competition, and (according to the linked article), high interest rates. This is the first time I have run across the claim that high interest rates deter gambling, but there does seem to be a certain logic to it.

Labels: Australia, gambling, poker, smoking ban

 
Self-Exclusion, Unabridged
- posted by Jim @ 4:03 PM

Vice Squad has something of a fixation with self-exclusion, those programs whereby problem gamblers (or people who fear that they might become problem gamblers) can volunteer to be barred from access to casinos. I have a short article in the Winter, 2008 Milken Institute Review on self-exclusion, arguing that parallel programs should be part of the mix when the currently illegal drugs are legalised. That article was a by-product of a longer paper that I let languish in an unfinished state. But now I have finished it, after a fashion, and posted it on SSRN, free for the downloading. The longer version isn't really all that much longer -- it's 20 pages. If that is too daunting, here's the rather tepid abstract:

Gambling jurisdictions around the world have adopted self-exclusion programs in which gamblers can voluntarily agree to be barred from further gambling. The popularity of self-exclusion stems from its aid in combating problem or pathological gambling, along with its non-coercive nature. To bolster the self-control of problem gamblers, exclusion programs combine physical inaccessibility and reward diminution: bettors are supposed to remain (or be kept) away from gambling sites, and the gambling winnings of excluded bettors can be confiscated. Other elements of program design that can affect the workings of a self-exclusion program include the duration of an exclusion, its revocability, and the breadth of gambling activities to which the prohibition applies. Self-exclusion or broader user licensing programs can be helpful for control of vices other than gambling. I argue that self-exclusion should form an integral component of drug regulatory frameworks that offer substantial improvements over drug prohibition.

The title of the paper is tepid too: "Self-Exclusion". But the ideas, well, they are revolutionary (in a tepid sort of way).

Update: There were some annoying ersatz characters at the beginning of the abstract on the SSRN page, so I just made a bid to remove them. We'll see if this works...

Labels: addiction, drugs, gambling, self-exclusion

 
Apostasy: Something More Important Than the Drug War
- posted by Jim @ 7:53 PM

It's that little matter of winning the war in Afghanistan. A British outpost is surrounded by poppy fields. So of course, the soldiers are out in the fields, pulling up poppies and ensuring that the opium crop is not replanted, just like the head of the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime wants. Oh no, that's not right: the soldiers ignore the poppy fields and their diligent custodians:

Sometimes they even help them. When one poppy worker arrived at the camp gate suffering from heat exhaustion recently, he was referred to the main base in Garmser town, less than a mile away. He was treated by a military doctor. "We're not much interested in what they are doing with the poppy," said Sgt Russell. "We know it's going on but we're soldiers, not politicians. And we're here to do a good job."

Of course, the US and the UN haven't given up on eradication of the poppy fields. (Remember, the UN is committed to a drug-free world by...er, 2008):

US-funded efforts to destroy the crops with tractors and sticks have produced meagre results. This year's campaign left several eradication workers dead, dozens more injured and destroyed just 4,000 hectares of poppy - a sliver of the total. But officials are pleased that some major drug cultivators were hit. About a fifth of the crop of Abdul Rahman Jan - until two years ago the provincial police chief - was destroyed.

That last is quite a resounding victory in this war on an unapproved plant. Shout it from the mountaintops! One producer's output is but 80% of what it used to be! We might never achieve this level of success again.

Labels: Afghanistan, opium, UN

 
Another Cost of Criminalising Vice
- posted by Jim @ 9:40 PM

The officers responsible for killing Sean Bell following his bachelor party at a strip club have been acquitted of all charges by a New York judge. I have not followed the case or the testimony so for the sake of this post I will accept that the verdict is reasonable. Other cases of police shootings of unarmed people -- most notably the Diallo killing -- also have resulted in exoneration for the police. (There might be an argument that those shot in the Bell case used their car as a weapon, but even if true, that only occurred because they were suddenly cut-off and boxed in by unmarked police cars. Here's a New York magazine article with many of the details.)

Sean Bell is dead, and there is no criminal responsibility for the police. It isn't hard to understand the latter part. Police have to make split-second decisions in highly uncertain and stressful situations. Lethal force, which can be applied at a distance, is widely available. A police officer who guesses that a suspect is holding a cell phone could easily be killed, if that guess is wrong and the object turns out to be a gun. (The first police officer to shoot in the Bell case believed from overheard conversations inside the club that a gun might be present.) I think that this is one of the main reasons that courts are extremely reluctant to convict police after the shooting of an unarmed citizen.

But what is the lesson? Well, it is a general point in public policy: the less effective are after-the-fact sanctions, the stronger the case for imposing before-the-fact controls. It is very difficult, and perhaps even undesirable in most circumstances, to hold police accountable for errors in judgment that result in the death of innocent (or even guilty!) civilians. Therefore, one should only initiate police/citizen encounters when the stakes are high. The police who killed Sean Bell were at the strip club as part of an anti-prostitution sting operation.

The criminalisation of prostitution puts prostitutes, clients, and police at great risk. The toll in the US is small relative to the deaths brought on by the criminalisation of drugs, but it is significant nonetheless. The criminalisation of prostitution isn't necessary -- many places get by just fine with legal, regulated prostitution. Even if prostitution policing were perfect and costless, and even if prostitutes were not put at great risk from clients in a prohibition regime, I would not favor the criminalisation of prostitution. But the violence suffered -- by prostitutes, johns, and police -- as a result of criminalisation makes a strong case for a legal, regulated adult sex market. One of the enduring mysteries of vice policy is why this steady violence has had so little impact on improving public policy towards prostitution.

Labels: policing, prostitution

 
Bingo and Smoking; Bingo or Alcohol
- posted by Jim @ 8:11 PM

Vice Squad has been trumpeting the smoking-ban induced decline in bingo for so long now that it is amazing there is any bingo left. But there is, and today the New York Times catches up to bingo/smoking ban complemetarity: "[Managers of charity bingo parlours] say smoking goes with bingo like peanut butter with jelly."

For the vice policy aficionado, however, this week's premier bingo-related story derives from Carlisle in the UK. Remember those ASBOs of questionable constitutionality (British constitutionality, that is)? One 23-year old gentleman had a history of being a troublesome drunk, so he was given an ASBO prohibiting him both from drinking and from patronising drinking establishments in Carlisle city centre. (Incidentally, the idea that a troublesome drunk can have his drinking privileges revoked is consistent both with Vice Squad's robustness principle and with John Stuart Mill's interpretation of his harm principle.) But this particular yob, er, gentleman, also enjoys a bingo hall in Carlisle. Alas, the bingo parlour is a drinking establishment (no longer a smoking establishment in England!), so the terms of his ASBO would keep him from bingo-ing. This will not stand, cried the Cumbrian magistrates, and voila, an exception was granted: he can go to the bingo hall, but he cannot drink there. (Vice Squad is touched by this act of mercy.) If the exception is abused via bingo-hall drinking or other unseemly behavior, there will be consequences to pay -- perhaps a curse will be imposed.

Vice Squad has been on the road, or at home, nodding; apologies for the interregnum.

Labels: alcohol, bingo, Britain, complementarities, licensing, Mill, robustness, smoking ban

 
Aaland
- posted by Jim @ 11:09 PM

The introduction of smokeless tobacco snus, a popular product in Sweden and Norway, into US markets is proceeding apace. Snus isn't very popular in the rest of Europe -- or at least any notional popularity is ineffectual -- because sales of it are banned in the EU (excepting Sweden). [Surely we all recall that Norway is not in the EU.] Two years ago Vice Squad noted how snus was certain to doom the EU, thanks to Finland's Aaland archipelago -- historically, culturally, and linguistically Swedish, Aaland is none too pleased at not being allowed to sell snus, because of Finland's membership in the EU. And none of those Finnish EU parliamentarians represent Aaland.

Aaland is currently reflecting its sense of abuse over snus by threatening to vote against the EU's Lisbon treaty. (Recall Vice Squad's post from late March.) That alone would not keep the treaty from entering into force, as long as EU-member Finland (and all other EU members) do ratify the treaty. An Aaland rejection, though, would complicate internal Finnish politics, as it would have to be settled to what extent EU rules would apply in Aaland. Here's an article with some helpful background, suggesting that Aaland's principled position is one of opposition to prohibition (of snus) without (EU) representation.

Labels: EU, federalism, Finland, snus

 
Self-Exclusion is For Keeps in New Jersey
- posted by Jim @ 11:07 PM

Vice Squad is a longtime fan of self-exclusion programs, those voluntary lists gamblers can join to be barred from entering casinos or collecting significant winnings if they do happen to sneak by. [Self-exclusion could profitably be employed for many vices, even the currently-illegal ones, I maintain.] Nevertheless, there are many ways in which existing self-exclusion programs can be improved, and lots of tricky issues concerning the details of their operation. Two issues concern the length of time over which an exclusion operates, and how to ensure that people do not self-exclude in a moment of intemperance. Both of these issues were under review in a recent New Jersey court case, in which a man was hoping to remove himself from Atlantic City's self-exclusion list. He signed up for a lifetime ban -- New Jersey also allows gamblers to choose one year or five year bans -- which he claims he joined impulsively. The erstwhile gambler was particularly distressed to learn (once he self-excluded) that those corporate Atlantic City casinos would not just exclude him from their Atlantic City locations, but from their casinos worldwide. This is a common practice. The court refused to remove him from the ban, which I think is probably the right decision.

Nevertheless, there are two obvious reforms that can help. First, people considering joining a self-exclusion list should be warned that their action might spillover to other jurisdictions. Second, long-term bans should themselves require a waiting period. A person who approaches a casino about self-exclusion should receive an immediate short-term exclusion, but for a lengthy term, he or she should have to take further action at a later date. (See the Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, and Nower suggestion noted here.) This action probably should be arranged to take place at a non-gambling locale, to reduce temptation.

Labels: gambling, litigation, self-exclusion

 
"Defend Our Porn"
- posted by Jim @ 9:57 PM

That's the title of a website that has just been launched by the company and individual recently charged with federal obscenity crimes. (The subtitle is "Protect Our Freedom.") The site has news about the case, a guest book with some interesting posts from supporters, and information about donating to the cause. Seems the Justice Department was so enamored of this case that its press release announcing the indictments preceded (by days) any official notification to the targets.

Here's the site's Mission Statement, from the "Donate" page:

DefendOurPorn.org is a site started in 2008 as a direct result of the Federal government filing an obscenity indictment against John Stagliano, John Stagliano Inc and Evil Angel Productions for the traffic and interstate commerce of two pornographic movies and the website available of a trailer for a third pornographic movie.

In the days following the indictment, Mr. Stagliano received an outpouring of support from adult industry members and fans, asking how and where they could donate money to help fight the legal case. DefendOurPorn.org was founded.

Any money which is donated and not used towards the legal defense of the John Stagliano / Evil Angel case will be rolled over in the DefendOurPorn fund and will be earmarked for future First Amendment / obscenity prosecutions.

Note from Karen Stagliano:
In the very near future, DefendOurPorn.org will be formed as a non-profit organization. Unfortunately, the Justice Department released a press release about the indictment against John Stagliano / Evil Angel before actually notifying the defendants, so we have been organizing things here while keeping day-to-day operations on schedule.

Thanks to AVN.com for the pointer -- link Not Safe For Work.

Labels: obscenity, pornography

 
Nudge
- posted by Jim @ 10:49 PM

Vice Squad was in the audience this evening when Cass Sunstein spoke about his new book with Richard Thaler, Nudge. Sunstein and Thaler are the impresarios behind Libertarian Paternalism, an approach towards public (and private) policy that is fairly congruent, in the case of vice, with the Robustness Principle. ("Nudge" is a less off-putting synonym for Libertarian Paternalism: the authors also considered "One-Click Paternalism," the idea that you could override a default setting pushing you in a presumably desirable direction with one click of your mouse.) Nevertheless, Nudge does not address policy towards illegal drugs, though it looks as if alcohol, smoking, and gambling receive some attention; I am relying upon the index here.

Sunstein provided a bit of a road map about how he and Thaler were led to collaborate on Libertarian Paternalism and then Nudge. By the late 1990s, behavioral economics (with Thaler in the vanguard) had established fairly convincingly some common shortfalls from rationality, including over-optimism and a rather general disability in dealing with risky situations. Two types of interventions seemed to offer some hope for better results: (1) changing default options to those presumably desirable settings, as many people would just stick with the defaults, even when it was almost costless to choose differently; and (2) allowing people to precommit to putting some of their future raises into savings (Thaler is a co-inventor of "Save More Tomorrow" plans, of which I am a beneficiary). Since then, the idea that "Choice Architecture," the setting in which choices are made, is a powerful determinant of the choices that actually are made, has taken on equal prominence in Nudge. (Shades of "Drug, Set, and Setting.") Sunstein talked about the desirability of "Give More Tomorrow" plans that would allow people to precommit part of their future raises to charity. He also suggested that those of us (the vast majority of the audience) who had not bothered to sign up for automatic bill-paying options were mistaken and paying more (via late fees) while enduring higher transaction costs, too -- we were being overly influenced by the inertia that he also attributed to his continued paid subscriptions to five magazines that he originally received on a temporary, no-charge basis. In the question and answer period -- the architecture was such (involving a walk to a centrally placed microphone) that I did not trouble him with any queries -- Professor Sunstein mentioned the difference between thin and thick concepts of consent. A miner (to use Professor Sunstein's example) can be said to give thin consent to the risk of working underground by taking the job. Thick consent requires more, the notion that adequate information should be absorbed as well -- with the fact that a job was accepted without force or fraud being insufficient to establish thick consent. I am a fan of measures to assure thick consent for legal participation in some vices.

Professor Sunstein currently is guest-blogging about Libertarian Paternalism at the Volokh Conspiracy; his initial contribution is here. [Update: Nudge has its own blog!]

Labels: robustness