Gambling’s a scourge that should be banned

WHAT should a government do when confronted with the conclusive evidence that a product, or activity, is harmful for its people? Should it ban it outright, or try to mitigate its harmful effects?

Mitigation can take many forms, from the ‘nudge’ behavioural measures of, say, increased taxation, to that of industry-contributed voluntary funds that pay for the treatment of gambling-related mental ill-health.

If governments choose to mitigate with increased taxation, we need to understand who is paying.

On the face of it, consumers are when they exchange money for harmful things, the tax element being passed to the Treasury.

However, so are the rest of us, in at least three other ways.

First, the product is harmful, therefore valueless, even if people are willing to buy it. But the overlooked aspect is that all the resources consumed in the process of manufacture are wasted; money that could otherwise be used for truly valuable purposes is squandered.

However, in our finance-dominated economic system, the product is, nevertheless, measured as positive wealth-creation. In so doing, the system devalues the money used as the measure.

Second, there is nothing in harmful products of meaningful value to tax, although they are taxed. Consequently, taxing harmful products devalues money further, which, in turn, makes beneficial products and activities more expensive than they need to be.

Third, because medical treatment is provided in this country by a publicly funded health service, people have to pay through their taxes to treat the adverse effects of harmful things.

When you add all these costs together, they amount to a great deal that could be expunged by banning outright the sale of harmful products and activities.

GEOFF NAYLOR By email