Yes that's perfectly true. Sharp accountancy has reduced their profits (and their tax liabilities). Having said that, even if they were struggling, I'm not so sure I'd celebrate (I never celebrate when a business, large or small, struggles).
Never having been the victim of any sort of addiction (unless you count my predilection for wine gums and jelly babies) I speak from a fairly weak position. However, there is no doubt in my mind that gambling can become an addiction and in some cases quite a devastating one at that. I suppose the analogy that baz and Jordy are drawing is that to provide facilities to feed an addiction is perhaps not desirable. But this accusation can be levelled at any legitimate business providing such facilities (those selling alcohol or tobacco, for example). It can even be levelled at businesses like fast food outlets.
Parliament has decided that gambling and the other potentially addictive activities I’ve mentioned are legal whilst drug possession and dealing are not. It’s hard to see why this distinction should be drawn. Certainly in the case of gambling and alcohol, in moderation those products cause little or no harm to the consumer or anybody else. But the same certainly cannot be said of tobacco. But we are where we are.
Moderate affordable gambling gives pleasure to many people. The problems only start when addiction kicks in. I’m not so sure the same can be said of illegal drugs. Most of them are harmful even in small amounts and the effects that they might have on those taking them usually impinge on those around them (and this, too, can be levelled at alcohol).
On balance I don’t think I would put High Street bookmakers on par with drug dealers. They provide a service which many people enjoy without any problems. Problematic addiction levels to gambling are, I believe, fairly low whereas addiction to illegal drugs is considerably higher. Some reports say that up to 80% of acquisitive crime is committed to feed a drug habit. So I think the analogy is a little harsh.