Although this newspaper remains concerned that the Innovation Group report and the task force on gambling will come up with a predetermined result, they deserve credit for canvassing a wide range of viewpoints on the issue.

This newspaper has historically opposed the idea of casino gambling, and if any further form of gambling is to be legalised, would support a lottery instead.

But that does not mean that a full debate on the whole question of gambling is unnecessary. The current patchwork of laws and policies is irrational and has been overtaken by technology.

At the same time, allowing limited gambling in the hotels or in a casino for tourists might well help the tourism industry. However, even the Innovation Group has stated that it should not be seen as a panacea.

Part of the support for the idea of hotel gambling is that one in four Americans on the US East Coast take gambling into account when deciding where to vacation. That's a substantial number, although it also means that three in four do not consider it, and it may be that some of them at least would prefer to vacation in a resort where there isn't gambling.

What is not in the Innovation Group's terms of reference is any consideration of the social effects of gambling on the community, and in that context, the study is flawed, because it will inevitably come back with a finding that gambling could help tourism, the only question being how much.

The notion that some of the tax revenue taken from legalised gambling can then be used to help people who have become addicted is of course circular; you would not need to raise the money to help gambling addicts if they could not gamble in the first place.

It is to be hoped that the task force chaired by lawyer Wendell Hollis will give broader consideration to that question.

It is true that other jurisdictions, notably the Bahamas, have successfully enforced rules restricting casino gambling to tourists. That is a model worth considering, although it starts to veer into the conundrum of all sin taxes; that although a form of behavior may be harmful or immoral, it is somehow acceptable as long as Government is deriving some revenue from it, or the community as a whole gets some other benefit, such as employment.

Still, this has been a good debate to have, and people who have not yet submitted opinions on it – for and against – should do so while there is still time.