Real Clear Politics this month republished a debate on state-sanctioned online sports gambling, featuring Dr. Harry Levant of the Public Health Advocacy Institute and William J. Pascrell III, a lobbyist with the Princeton Public Affairs Group. It originally aired in 2025.
I can’t recall seeing it last year, but it’s vaguely familiar to me. At any rate, I gave it a watch and a quote from Pascrell aged like a cup of milk in the middle of Las Vegas.
Nothing personal against Pascrell, but his comments to kick off the debate were sick and sinister. It’s because the online gambling product he’s supporting is devastatingly addictive.
Let’s take a look at what he said:
“I’m on the National Council on Problem Gambling’s federal affairs board. I represent organizations from IC360, to EPIC [Global Solutions], to Kindbridge [Behavioral Health], and working with all kinds of organizations to try to put forward the proposition that it’s on the industry and the regulatory regime to do better. There’s no bulletproof solution that is going to solve problem gambling … Between 96% and 99% of all gamblers in all markets, not just in the US, don’t have a problem with gambling. They use it as entertainment, as fun. Put a bet on the game, you’re gonna be more inclined to watch the game, and kibitz, and joke. That’s all safe and fine. The problem is that 1, perhaps 2%, that have the problem using gambling as a coping mechanism … This is not a public health crisis. There is no empirical data that shows that.”
Bullsh-t Data
First off, the statistic he’s citing was a population-level figure that includes both people who gamble and those who don’t. It’s just wrong how he framed that data point.
Furthermore, the NCPG’s own website states the following:
“The rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as among gamblers in general. When sports gambling is conducted online, the rate of problems is even higher, with one study of online sports gamblers indicating that 16% met clinical criteria for gambling disorder and another 13% showed some signs of gambling problems.”
The Levant vs. Pascrell debate was about sports betting specifically.
It’s remarkable that he omitted the NCPG’s report after mentioning that he represents the group. It’s also shocking to me that someone who publicly represents a telehealth treatment provider can be so misleading. It’s fair to question whether someone with addiction should get treatment from such a company.
To make matters even worse for his argument, other surveys show that half of online sports bettors chase losses.
Levant later corrected Parscell, saying that he was using statistics on gambling from decades ago. Levant also highlighted how doctors rarely screen for gambling addiction, which suppresses prevalence data.
Another key point is that a person with problem gambling typically harms numerous others, according to a 2017 study.
Offensive Language
I personally take offense to his “bulletproof solution” comment considering that gambling addiction is associated with higher rates of suicide, and some people with addictions take their own lives with a gun.
In follow-up comments, he said that some gamblers are “going down the rat hole.” That’s hugely stigmatizing phrasing to describe addiction. People with the addiction aren’t dirty or degenerates, which is what “rat hole” sounds like to me. I’m not trying to put words in his mouth here, but a rat hole is not supportive of people with this affliction.
I need to stop writing here to manage my cortisol levels. The online sports betting industry is parasitic, and its biggest proponents really flounder trying to defend it. Watch the debate for yourself.
