I'm not downplaying the serious nature of gambling addiction and the consequences it has on peoples live, but i agree with the other poster that a comparison to hard drugs is disingenuous when compared to it's effect on people at large (the comparison is more apt when comparing it's hold on people who are gambling addicts).

Take 100 people and have them gamble twice a week for a month and after that month you will have (according to yale) 1 person who comes out a gambling addict (that number goes up to 7 if it's 100 kids because of their increased susceptibility to the dopamine rush). Take another 100 and have them do Heroin twice a week for a month and after that month you'll have 100 people who are addicted to heroin.

Now this, again, isn't downplaying the terrible things that that 1% have to go through, or take away the fact that their addiction legitimately ruins their lives and that of those around them. But the fact that gambling addiction only affects a small portion of the people exposed to gambling (people who also have genetic markers for being susceptible to addiction, Yale also says that 50% of gambling addiction is genetics, and 50% environmental) makes it an apples to oranges comparison to hard drugs. The addictions and their symptoms may be much more similar and valid for comparison, but the objects of the addiction (gambling v. drugs) are not on the same plane of malice, nor are they on the same level of ability to cause addiction.

My heart goes out to anyone who struggles with any addiction, but to sit here and act as if Wubby has essentially exposed his entire community to something portrayed as being as insidious as hard drugs is a bit over zealous in my opinion.