The recent spate of news items and comments in the media about gambling was no coincidence, nor was it a random event. It was closely connected with the news that Maltco has not only introduced a €1,000,000 jackpot lottery, it has also re-adjusted many of its Lotto and other game prizes upwards.

One shudders to think what the children in these families have for lunch and dinner on the days leading to the big draw

Just in case it needs pointing out, this was not done out of the goodness of the company’s heart; nor was it prompted by an incontrollable impulse or unstoppable urge to spread joy around the Maltese community. It was a calculated, business-oriented – one tries to avoid adjectives like ‘cynical’ – decision with one design in mind: to attract more financial traffic towards the company’s office and increase profits. Needless to say, higher profits totted up on Maltco’s financial registers are counter-balanced by losses in the punters’ wallets.

Do not be surprised if defenders of the company which runs Maltese lotto and its ilk – or portly knights in shining armour of neo-liberal attitudes towards economic activity associated with gambling – come out with arguments, or even with the result of some study or other, which actually purport to show that increasing winning prizes is not directly related to an upsurge in profits for the company concerned. If they do that, it only means that they consider the reading public to be as gullible as the one which unfortunately gambles and actually expects to win.

So what’s our gripe? What’s wrong with gambling on a lottery ticket? The answer is nothing much, if anything at all – as long as the right perspective on the whole business of winning is maintained. The punter should know that the chances of winning a first prize – or indeed any prize at all – are truly negligible. It’s just a bit of fun costing an affordably small sum, done while perhaps smilingly indulging a fantasy that the truly unexpected will happen on the day, while still getting on with lives and working hard to make ends meet and possibly put a little aside.

However, the temptation of the big prize is such that there is a lowering of normal standards of judgement on the part of many people practically in direct proportion to the size of the jackpot on offer. We all know what happens when the first prize in the Super 5 lottery goes up beyond €500,000-€600,000. Had most of us not realised what was happening, the complaints voiced by several retailers (including, would you believe it, pharmacists) regarding lower sales on the days building up to the draw would have alerted even those most oblivious to events around them.

Gambling activities of this sort rely heavily on advertising. At present, while it is legal to advertise many forms of gambling on the print media, according to Broadcasting Act regulations it is permissible to publicise gambling activities on TV as early as 7pm. With regard to radio, gambling advertising is allowed also between 9am and 2pm. The Maltco adverts, obviously designed to persuade punters to part with their cash, may thus be aired for 16 hours a day.

The higher the jackpot, the more frenetic the gambling activity is. Even those who do not normally participate in lotteries may be lured into having a go. Nothing very worrying there.

However, the fact that the vulnerable and those subsisting on low levels of income become likely to gamble quite heavily should worry all those with a semblance of a social conscience.

The poor are more likely to be taken in by the wiles and stratagems of the gambling industry, perhaps out of desperation due to their plight, perhaps because they think they lack the conventional means of working their way out of their poverty. They spend good money, and in ways disproportionate to their income, when jackpots stretch skywards. One shudders to think what the children in these families have for lunch and dinner on the days leading to the big draw. Moreover, how does one explain the drop in sales for pharmacies? Let’s hope it means people buy fewer cosmetics and similar products.

Not too long ago governments ran the lottery sensibly and sensitively enough to realise that capping the jackpot was an eminently intelligent and effective way of limiting social problems while ensuring a decent amount of revenue for state coffers. Privatisation has meant that the maximisation of profit seems to have become not only the foremost but virtually the only consideration, and capping has been abandoned. The results are inordinate spending by those who can least afford it – and probable suffering on the part of innocent and even more vulnerable third parties.

The Government may have sold the rights to hold organised lotteries to private interests but it still retains the responsibility for upholding that most sacred of social principles: the protection of the vulnerable. One would hope it still has the privilege to act in defence of those who require safeguarding from the ploys of the powerful. One expects the State – society’s political and administrative apparatus – to intervene and negotiate or impose a capping of prizes at no more than €450,000.

Of course, measures like this are bound to raise the hackles of the knight-defenders of laissez-faire economics and deregulation. Indignant fulminations against the “nanny state” will undoubtedly be levelled at whoever is bold enough to take the necessary measures in defence of the vulnerable. However, even as those who decry this sort of intervention splutter into their breakfast coffee, the announcement of such measures would be passing on the message that society still cares about the protection of the vulnerable.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.