Do we really want London to be the new Las Vegas?

Click here for more Evening Standard columnists

Forget about Blackpool and Brighton becoming the new Las Vegas. If the Government's proposed gambling reform is implemented, Las Vegas will come to London. We had better decide what to do with it. London is already the drugs capital of Europe. Now it is to be the gaming capital as well. The Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, wants an almost total decontrol of gambling, at present severely limited by law. All forms of betting will be permitted anywhere, from one-arm bandits to roulette and blackjack, and for stakes as high as £1 million. Casinos will be able to advertise, set up shop anywhere and mix gambling with drinking, lap-dancing and shopping. Nor in centralist Britain will there be any American nonsense about local option. No other big city has gone down this route. It could be seriously tacky.

At present, casinos are for members only and restricted to gambling alone. Betting shops must be as austere as funeral parlours. Gambling cannot be linked to drinking. Bingo and lottery jackpots are limited to £2,000. Even so, 23 big London clubs dominate Britain's £3-billion-a-year casino industry and London mops up two-thirds of the £7.3 billion that Britons spend on gambling. Its sheer population size will make it the chief magnet for new casino investment.

The one thing certain about decontrol is that gambling will soar. It is the most addictive of risk activities and, unlike drugs, is not confined to specific age groups or lifestyles. The big American gambling centres are kept well away from centres of population, for the simple reason that local voters want their streets free from such evident temptation. New Yorkers must travel to Atlantic City to place a bet. New Englanders must visit casinos located up country in Pequot Indian territory. Californians must go to Nevada.

In London, casinos are likely to proliferate in every neighbourhood, as did offcourse betting when permitted in the 1960s and pubs after the 19th century decontrol of alcohol. (The banning of brothels had the reverse effect: it drove temptation underground.) Betting shops must now become corner casinos to survive. Highstakes fruit machines within easy reach of casual punters will be attractive investments. The proposal that they be allied to eating and shopping, with free gifts and free drinks for players, will make gaming a major feature of London's leisure and retail life. Is this what London wants?

I must admit that this reform tests my libertarian instincts to the limit. The existing laws on gaming, as on drinking and drug-taking, are archaic and need changing. Of that there is no doubt.

But excessive drinking and drug- taking are harms already rampant. If anything, I would like to bring them and their public manifestation under greater control.

The proliferation of drugs and drink in public places is offensive to most people. The case for regulating (not banning) them is strong, as was the case for driving prostitution off the streets. Instead, the Government wants to put harm in temptation's way. Releasing the full power of modern marketing onto casual gambling implies an impressive belief in British self-control. That this faith should be shown by a Government that still cannot bring itself to license cannabis use, a less addictive and harmful leisure pursuit, is bizarre. Indeed, it is mind-boggling that easing the gambling laws should take priority over reforming the now dangerous and discredited drug laws.

Gambling may be a pleasure to some but it is a menace to many. Unlike drug-taking, it is not illegal. It is available to those who want it and can be indulged by them at will. While some updating of the existing law might be in order, decontrol seems reckless. I might tolerate cannabis in pubs and coffee shops and would welcome clinics for hard-drug users. But I would not license opium dens and crack houses. This is what the Government is, in effect, now doing. How odd that this one retreat from the nanny state is in an area where ministers have been fiercely lobbied by business. If I did not know ministers to be incorruptible, I would see the hand of the Mob.

The commercial victims of the reform will be existing fruit-machine franchisees and National Lottery outlets. These are mostly local pubs and Asian newsagents, for whom the small-time gambler is one sure source of profit. Here is another reform that sacrifices small business to big. This is not a sufficient reason to oppose libertarian reform, but it is a reason to demand caution.

At the very least, this change should not be rammed down the throat of every community in the land, any more than it is in America or on the continent of Europe. Neighbourhoods should be able to say yes or no to casino licences. Magistrates can restrict alcohol outlets, as planning committees regulate entertainment and retailing. They do so because that is what local people want. The right not to be offended needs protecting as does the right to abuse one's mind or body with narcotics or gaming. What is acceptable to some people can be deeply offensive and threatening to others.

Gambling, like alcohol, is harmful. It is therefore proper for the community to help limit its abuse. Regulation does not stop people enjoying what they enjoy. It merely stops them causing offence to others in doing so. This is the fine line that freedom must tread.