禁止在线博彩是为了保护收益而非保护用户

　　谁说欧洲不产互联网大亨？至少，在电子商务的某个方面，欧洲的公司是独占鳌头的。Betfair，一个总部在伦敦的在线博彩中心，被人们称为运动博彩界的eBay （参见文章）。除此之外，绝大部分允许用户在线打扑克牌和玩其他博彩游戏的网站的总部都在欧洲。

　　一方面是因为欧洲是在线博彩的最大市场：欧洲人的在线博彩金额占了所有网上赌资的40%之多。然而更主要的原因是：美国是禁止在线博彩的。美国人以爱好赛马，运动，赌场而闻名，而且又拥有世界上最有竞争力的技术水平，按说美国理应是在线博彩这一新兴行业的发源地。但美国却拘捕了该行业的企业主并勒令银行停止向这些在线博彩公司转帐。今年六月，欧盟委员会提出抗议，认为美国方面对欧洲的在线博彩公司的限制违反了世界贸易组织的有关规定。

　　然而，就是欧盟内部各国对于在线博彩行业也是意见不一 （参见文章）。理论上来说，欧洲是一个整体的市场，然而实际上27个欧盟成员国中仅有13个国家是允许在线博彩的。其余的国家里，有7个只允许由少数几个赌博业巨头经营的或获得国家批准的在线博彩网站营运，另外的7个则和美国一样试图取缔在线博彩行为。在荷兰，银行如果被发现转帐给境外的在线博彩公司甚至会遭到法律起诉，而德国，意大利和西班牙则尝试通过让网络运营上屏蔽在线博彩网站的方法禁止在线博彩。尽管有国家想要禁止，欧盟委员会仍然出面维护那些提供在线博彩的公司，这一做法也让人们开始对欧盟各国家是否能够在一些有争议的领域采取与欧洲整体市场不同的规定产生了更多的疑问。然而，抱怨归抱怨，欧盟委员会也不愿轻易承担更高的法律风险。

　　别指望禁令能有用

　　政客们都认为禁令可以帮助那些易成瘾的网络用户免受在线博彩的诱惑。然而，这些法律禁令中却有让人费解的地方，让人不免觉得政府的做法不过是种伪善。不管是在美国还是在欧洲，本地的赌博业巨头可以提供各种赌博形式，而如果换做国外的公司就要受到法律的禁止。这说明，那些禁止在线博彩的国家不过是为了保证本国那些有经营权的博彩巨头的收益而已。

　　可是，这种通过强制银行和网络营运商来阻止人们到非本国的在线博彩网站下注的方法未免太一厢情愿了。赌徒们都知道在一个更为开放的市场上下注有更高的胜算，因为庄家只收取赌注的3-5%.而在传统的赌马赌球或者彩票业中则通常高达四分之一。事实上禁令并没有完全根除美国的在线赌博：源源不断出现的相关法律指控正说明了人们对其不减的兴趣。相反，禁令倒是促使那些在线博彩公司包装得更为隐蔽，也使那些铁了心要赌的人不得不偷偷摸摸在网上下注，而这些人也正是这些禁令声称想要保护的容易受到赌瘾危害的人。

　　想力挽狂澜禁止在线博彩是徒劳的。与其用法律惩治让那些追求更高赢利的赌徒，政府还不如给他们还有那些提供在线博彩的公司创造一个更加安全，合法，规范的市场，同时还能收取适当税收来填一填自己的财政亏空。

　　译文：

　　Prohibition of online gambling is driven by a desire to protect revenues, not consumers

　　WHO says Europe cannot produce internet giants? In one area of online commerce, at least, its companies dominate the world. Betfair, an online-betting exchange based in London, has been called the eBay of sports betting （see article）， and the vast majority of the websites that allow people to play poker and other games of chance or skill for real money are based in Europe.

　　In part, this is because that is where the market is: Europeans place some 40% of all online wagers. A bigger reason, however, is America’s prohibition of online gambling. With its love of horse racing, sports and casinos, and its world-beating technology industry, America ought to be the natural home of this burgeoning field. But it has arrested industry entrepreneurs and ordered banks to halt payments to online-gambling firms. In June the European Commission grumbled that American restrictions on European online-gambling firms break World Trade Organisation rules.

　　Yet Europe itself is deeply divided when it comes to online gambling （see article）。 In theory there is a single market, but in practice only 13 of the European Union’s 27 member states approve of online gambling. Seven countries restrict it to gambling monopolies owned or licensed by the state, and another seven have followed the Americans and attempted to outlaw it. Dutch banks face prosecution if they transfer money to online-gambling firms abroad, and Germany, Italy and Spain are trying to get internet service-providers to block access to gambling websites. That the European Commission is defending European firms’ right to offer online gambling, even as some countries try to ban it, raises difficult questions about individual states’ ability to override the single market in sensitive areas. But despite much huffing and puffing, the commission seems reluctant to raise the legal stakes.

　　Don’t bet on prohibition

　　Politicians argue that prohibition is the best way to protect vulnerable consumers from a potentially addictive pastime. But kinks in the law expose their hypocrisy. In both America and Europe, local gambling monopolies are allowed to offer the same sorts of bets that are outlawed if placed with firms abroad. This suggests that the prohibitionist governments’ main aim is to protect the revenue that they earn from their state-approved gambling monopolies.

　　The belief that they can do so by bullying banks and internet companies into stopping people from placing bets abroad seems naive. Gamblers know that they can get better odds when placing bets in more open markets where the house’s take is usually 3-5% of the stake wagered. Traditional bookmakers or lotteries may keep as much as a quarter for themselves. Prohibition has not eliminated online gambling in America: a steady stream of prosecutions attests to its continuing popularity. It has, however, driven the reputable internet gambling firms to friendlier shores and has pushed those Americans most determined to bet—the very people who are the most vulnerable to gambling’s excesses—to place their wagers in the murkier bits of the internet.

　　Trying to stem this tide is pointless. Rather than criminalising gamblers for trying to get a better deal, governments would do far better to offer punters and online-gambling firms a safe, legal but regulated market—and gain some tax revenues to help plug their deficits at the same time.