Comment on Kindt's paper

Kindt is a dedicated advocate to the position that legally permitted gambling - either of the commercial or government variety - is an activity that society should strive to do without. In advocating this position, Professor Kindt has decided that his means of contributing to the debate are justified by the ends for which he is striving. If the rigors of good scholarship must be sacrificed for the greater good of saving mankind from the spread of gambling, then so be it. The main difficulty with Professor Kindt's paper, 'The costs of addicted gamblers: Should the states initiate mega-lawsuits similar to the tobacco cases?' (Kindt, 2001), is that it is a polemic dressed up as an academic treatise. Kindt selectively chooses facts, opinions, sources, claims, and slogans that are consistent with his views toward gambling. He ignores or omits any studies or findings that might suggest anything else to be the case. Kindt clearly does not like gambling or the political events that have led to its expansion in recent years. That is his prerogative. What is not his prerogative is to misrepresent the existing base of knowledge about this controversial subject under the guise of science and objectivity.