But the measure has had mixed success, as the good intentions set out by the law have been followed up with conflicting and incomplete practices. The Ministry of Health has called the treatment on offer ‘inappropriate’. There has been no state funding for regional health authorities specifically for the treatment of gambling addiction, partly because the government’s gambling revenue has been slashed by the lower tax rate, which has dropped from 29.4% in 2004 to 11%.

But between morality and practicality, the state’s management of casino gaming remains somewhat questionable. A European directive on the subject is still in the green paper stage, but until it comes to fruition, Italy, like other EU countries, has a state monopoly on gambling, managed by its agency for customs and monopolies (AAMS). However, the various gambling contractors (including Lottomatica and Snai), which comes under the AAMS’s supervisory remit, have been accused of lax regulations and checks on their betting activities between 2005 and 2007. The final ruling on this matter is due and the Treasury could stand to be compensated by about €98.5 billion.

Moreover, with regards to the quotas that gambling companies must spend on activities to protect against gambling addiction, the state no longer manages these directly, delegating the task of promoting therapy and support programs to private companies who are managed and financed by the big casino gaming companies themselves. It is strange not to assess the risks of such an obvious conflict of interests, which involves extremely sensitive data. Will such projects bring results? I wouldn’t bet on it.