Nothing in recent memory has stirred such inflamed passion and augment as the gambling case in Ashville. Soon, Judge Robinson will have to decide if in fact gambling is legal or illegal and based on that ruling the fate of gambling in Alabama may rest with the Alabama Supreme Court.

The case before the judge is not whether gambling is moral or ethical, right or wrong, but simply is it legal according to the Alabama Constitution of 1901.

However, there is grave concern among many St. Clair residence as to the moral and ethical ramifications of gambling. There is certainly an ethical case that can be made as to why gambling is unacceptable, and yet, there is a freedom of personal choice argument that can be made as well.

Factors that beg attention and answers are the emotions and logic of the zero-sum game.

A zero-sum game is simply defined as a situation or interaction in which one participant’s gains result only from another’s equivalent losses.

In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other.

A game of Bingo, Blackjack or Chess, is a zero-sum game. When one bets on these games, one’s winnings are the sum total of everyone else’s losses.

There is a difference between taking a chance or risk and gambling.

What is the difference between investing in stocks and gambling?

In an investment such as a stock or company there does not have to be losers for there to be winners.

Gambling is an, I win, you lose; or, you win, I lose proposition. In its total form, it holds that not only does one person win and the other lose, but in order for one to win, the other must lose.

When carried to its logical conclusion, a society built on such practices will develop an emotional mindset that thinks, if you gain, I lose, your misfortune brings me gladness, your success diminishes me, I’m bigger because you are smaller; and lastly as long as you have more success than me, I despise you, even if in secret.

I think even a lay theologian can find ample scripture to denounce such behavior.

That being said, the premise of the American system is based on individual responsibility. Fundamentally, we expect people to be able to make choices free from government intrusion and to face the consequences of their decisions. Therefore many states have opted to legalize gambling, without concern of the overall morality of the practice.

To summarize Alabama law, gambling is only illegal if some one makes a profit.

By example, Joe and Harry decide to have a poker night at Joe’s home. Three friends come over and they play Texas Hold ‘em, and everyone losses a $1000.00 dollars except for Harry who wins all the money. Under Alabama law that is perfectly legal. However, if during the game Joe sells some drinks to the players, then that game becomes illegal because Joe has made a profit.

That is the way the law stands and what is before Judge Robinson is if the electronic Bingo proposed in Ashville is legal according to the law.

The judge is not being asked to make a moral judgment but a legal one.

Hypothetically speaking, if Judge Robinson rules that electronic Bingo is illegal for Ashville to institute, then the issue will most likely die on the spot. However, if Judge Robinson decides electronic Bingo is legal then the case will be appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The outcome is all but assured that the Alabama Supreme Court will strike down the ruling and that will be the end of gambling in Alabama.