Gambling - addictions, laws and opinions

Imposter

I'm just after reading an article on the BBC website about the new proposed gambling laws in Britain. Seeing as Ireland's laws are closely related what do people think of this and should it be introduced in Ireland? Also read the comments from people which are linked to from this article.

Most of the comments seem to be against the proposed laws using reasons such as not wanting large American style casino corporations to gambling addiction and the social problems that it can cause.

The few that seem to agree with whats happening come from the view that gambling is a personal decision and the people should be free to make up their own mind on whether they should gamble or not. They also say that although there will always be a minority of cases of people who become addicted or otherwise affect people and/or society negatively it is no worse than alcohol, smoking or other activities and pursiots that can have negative effects.

So what are peoples opinions on how much control governemnts should place on companies who offer these services and people who wish to participate in these activities? Does your opinion differ for different types of gambling (lotteries, casinos, cards, bookies etc.)?

My opinion is that people should be able to make up their own mind. The government should regulate and licence the various companies and perhaps the companies should be forced to contribute (quite significantly) to the costs of dealing with addictions and any other social problems.

I also think that governments have to legalise casino and other gambling that is currently illegal, or otherwise they can and probably will have the same problems, albeit on a smaller scale, as people will gamble online or go on gambling holidays.

Sleepy

People also get addicted to painkillers, over the counter cough-syrup, alcohol, the internet and sex. Should these be outlawed too? I think not.

Large casinos are certainly evil things, I mean, they entertain people, employ people and pay taxes, but what you have to remember is that they make profit and that's bad. In the eyes of some kids who haven't read No Logo with a pinch of salt at least.

There are only two real winners that will benefit from the liberalisation of gambling laws: the gaming industry through massively increased profits, and the government through increased taxation.

So the population at large doesn't benefit from extra tax being received by the government? :rolleyes:

What a crock.

chill

Gambling is no different from any other activity... drinking, sports, cinema, shopping, theatre etc. and Adults should be free to engage in it like the free citizens we are supposed to be.

The only controls that the governbment should be applying are those that restrict children and protect people from excessive indulgence that would be dangerous to their well being. So children should only be allowed access with an adult and be prevented from gambling themselves, and there should be some restriction on adults spending more than they can afford to lose - though this is a very difficult thing to apply in practice.

The planning laws can be applied to prevent unsightly or inappropriately large premises, like any other business being built.

But in general we need to get away from the Nanny State attitude sponsored originally by the Catholic Church in this Country.

simu

Casinos wouldn't be so bad if the general public had better understanding of mathematics.

Silent Grape

i dont think the casinos are the problem, just like alcohol is not the problem, its how people react to these things which needs to be addressed, like better support systems etc,

ill give you an example, my brother is currently is cork undergoing rehab (three month programme) for three addictions, he was previously in the Rutland centre in tallaght for 6 weeks. he is addicted to gambling, food, and alcohol. we could take away the alcohol from everybody, but the people with addictive personalities will just end up gambling to ease it. so we could take away gambling from everybody and the people would over eat. and we cant take food away from everybody.

its the persons own choice to gamble or not. i choose to smoke, although i know its doing me harm. its the same kind of thing. i dont blame the government or anything like that for causing my brothers addictions, he chose to follow this path, regardless of how dire his life was, noone pushed him into going on two week beer binges.

i do think that ireland could have a better mental health situation, including better support systems for addictions.

MrPudding

Sleepy wrote:

...... but what you have to remember is that they make profit and that's bad.

Sorry if this is a stupid question but, why is this bad?

MrP

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that is a very, very stupid question.

read his post again.

MrPudding

Mordeth wrote:

that is a very, very stupid question.

read his post again.

OK. It is amazing the difference actually being awake makes when reading posts. Please accept my most sincere apologies for my offensively stupid post. In my defence, at least I did realise it might be stupid.

MrP

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Gambling is no different from any other activity... drinking, sports, cinema, shopping, theatre etc. and Adults should be free to engage in it like the free citizens we are supposed to be.

I wouldn't be me if I didn't mention drug use here too

Imposter

What gets me about the article and especially the comments from the public was the sheer number that were just against gambling. Everyone that has posted here seems to think that there is nothing wrong with people having the option to gamble but obviously boards is not a true reflection of the real world . Why do opinions such as these still exist in society. Surely people should realise that pretty much everthing we do can be abused in some way and it should be up to people to decide what they want to do and not up to the government to outlaw everything that can cause problems.

Capt'n Midnight

Sleepy wrote:

People also get addicted to painkillers, over the counter cough-syrup, alcohol, the internet and sex. Should these be outlawed too? I think not.

While the trill of a small flutter is good, gambling of large amounts on money is anti-social in that you can only benefit if others are harmed by a greater amount. The other things you mentioned are beneficial to society when used properly, some are even essential..

And I consider the lottery to be a self-assesment tax on optimism.

And the money from lottery etc. is not all going to the most worthwhile causes, has affected charity donations and is used to subsidise the health care system that really should be funder by the state . I like the way it's called VHI when it really ain't voluntary if you value your health.

People should have the option to gamble with disposable income but not 1c more. The old laws limiting one armed bandits to 2p bet with a max payout of 50p reflected this.

Perhaps you could change the law on Casino's such that they would be held liable for any changes in a persons circumstances as a result of gambling there. Damn sure they would get upset, but it might stop explotation of those who can't afford it. (I'd include the national lottery in this too - if we could figure out a way.)

JohnK

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

...
Perhaps you could change the law on Casino's such that they would be held liable for any changes in a persons circumstances as a result of gambling there. Damn sure they would get upset, but it might stop explotation of those who can't afford it. (I'd include the national lottery in this too - if we could figure out a way.)

I'd hope that under your plans above that Casinos and the like would be rewarded if a person's situation was to change for the better. After all, if they should be punished for a person losing money then it's only fair they get rewarded for someone gaining money.

On the main topic, my own personal view is that people have to take responsibility for their own actions so I would welcome that bill. To this end, I think that "Ms Jowell" hit it on the head when she said "Adults need to be treated as grown ups and allowed to choose what they do in their leisure time."

The way I look at it is if somebody goes into a casino and loses all their money it's their own fault. Virtually anything in existence can be abused so people have to learn to take care of them selves and stop relying on the government for every little thing. That’s not what government is for.

Imposter wrote:

I also think that governments have to legalise casino and other gambling that is currently illegal, or otherwise they can and probably will have the same problems, albeit on a smaller scale, as people will gamble online or go on gambling holidays.

This is a good point. If people want to gamble they will gamble. If the government does not provide a legal option then others will step in to fill the void and these are probably not the sort of people you want getting more money.

meepmeep

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Perhaps you could change the law on Casino's such that they would be held liable for any changes in a persons circumstances as a result of gambling there. Damn sure they would get upset, but it might stop explotation of those who can't afford it. (I'd include the national lottery in this too - if we could figure out a way.)

Theres no way you could do that. People know the risks they take when the play in a casino, thats why its called gambling. You can't hold the casino accountable if someone is stupid enough to go in and waste his life savings on the roll of a dice or turn of a wheel.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Capt'n Midnight

meepmeep wrote:

Theres no way you could do that. People know the risks they take when the play in a casino, thats why its called gambling. You can't hold the casino accountable if someone is stupid enough to go in and waste his life savings on the roll of a dice or turn of a wheel.

Gambling is an addiction for some people. So for some people it has nothing to do with stupidity. Bartenders have been prosecuted for serving people who have drank themselves to death. Look at the French couple who were charged with allowing someone to drive while drunk.

JohnK wrote:

I'd hope that under your plans above that Casinos and the like would be rewarded if a person's situation was to change for the better. After all, if they should be punished for a person losing money then it's only fair they get rewarded for someone gaining money
....
This is a good point. If people want to gamble they will gamble. If the government does not provide a legal option then others will step in to fill the void and these are probably not the sort of people you want getting more money.

Casinos already get rewarded - the lowest return would probably be on the roulette wheel they get 1/37th on average. If you gamble with your winnings then their average take goes up again. In gambling you can only WIN if others have LOST and even then you don't even get as much as the others lost due to the house take.

Since there is no tax on betting it does not reduce the taxation burdern on the rest of us. Have to agree that you don't want underground gambling, but lets face it not a lot of people make money on gambling and fewer still can make a living at it so there is no reason to allow someone to able to gamble large amounts.

Capt'n Midnight

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

ROFL

Seriously, there are major differences - the average return on the stock market is far more than 1. There was a quote that said that over almost every 5 (or was it 10) year period the market index has gone up. Many forms of gambling are random where past performance has NO bearing on future performance and also you are guaranteed that if you don't win you loose everything you've spent. Another interesting thing is that managed funds are basically people making educated guesses/gambling on how the market will perform. In most cases they under perform the market average !!

Now rogue traders, thats a different matter - soon as the banks (Feb?) have to transfer standing orders I'm moving to a different one.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chill

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

While the trill of a small flutter is good, gambling of large amounts on money is anti-social in that you can only benefit if others are harmed by a greater amount. The other things you mentioned are beneficial to society when used properly, some are even essential..

And I consider the lottery to be a self-assesment tax on optimism.

And the money from lottery etc. is not all going to the most worthwhile causes, has affected charity donations and is used to subsidise the health care system that really should be funder by the state . I like the way it's called VHI when it really ain't voluntary if you value your health.

People should have the option to gamble with disposable income but not 1c more. The old laws limiting one armed bandits to 2p bet with a max payout of 50p reflected this.

Perhaps you could change the law on Casino's such that they would be held liable for any changes in a persons circumstances as a result of gambling there. Damn sure they would get upset, but it might stop explotation of those who can't afford it. (I'd include the national lottery in this too - if we could figure out a way.)

What a terminally stick in the mud, boring and Nanny State view of the world.....

ionapaul

Trading stock is NOT the same as gambling. I have traded stock since my first days in college almost ten years ago, and am an enthusiastic gambler as well. I think it would be fair to state that the gains I have made owning and trading stock have (in part) funded my gambling! Equities give a historical return of around 7% a year (or is that 11%?) - despite Ireland's obsession with owning property, owning stock is a better choice than owning property in the long run.
I am in favour of changing the gambling laws here, though not perhaps to facilitate the development of Vegas-style casinos. This is because I love Vegas too much to want it to become diluted by a home-grown competitor! One of the better developments in Nevada gambling law over the past while is that once you ask a casino to ban you / never allow you to gamble there again, the ban is permanent and after the inevitable change of heart, should you come back and say, really I don't have a problem and can handle the gambling and please let me back in, they will shut the door in your face. I think this is a great measure.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ionapaul

I think we have crossed wires. In your first post you actually say 'trading on the stock market', nothing about trading prices on a betting exchange! When I buy stock I am buying a share in that company - I am now a part owner, and will be paid out a dividend (hopefully) based on the company's performance and earnings. Obviously there is an element of risk (greater with some stocks, growth stocks, than others, value stocks say) but I do not see it as equivilant to gambling in a casino, where over the long term every single game is designed to pay out less than you pay in. The stock market is completely different - otherwise why stop at the stock market, everything is life can be likened to gambling! Cross the road - gambling with your life. Sleep with a stranger - gambling with your health. Etc etc...

Sleipnir

I used to work in a gambling establishing (not sure if I'd call it a Casino though) and from what I saw over the 4 summers I worked there, I would be against it.
You gamble - you lose. The only winner is the casino.

MadsL

I'm just after reading an article on the BBC website about the new proposed gambling laws in Britain. Seeing as Ireland's laws are closely related what do people think of this and should it be introduced in Ireland?

Errr...except Ireland actually has a very liberal regime when it comes to casinos. The difference being is that casinos and slots are separated in Ireland. Poker is a huge game in Ireland and here the house just takes expenses not any risk or cut from the game (casinos rake the pot to cover cost/small profit)

In the UK you must wait 24hrs after joining in order to play, here in Ireland you can walk in off the street, show ID and play.

You gamble - you lose. The only winner is the casino.

Which completely discounts any enjoyment, sociability, thrilll etc on the part of the gambler.

You might as well say You drink- you get drunk. The only winner is the publican.

Prohibitions on casinos will simply drive business to the horses or the dogs, personally I'm happier with the casinos regulated house-edge than the doping and fixing in racing.

Imposter

MadsL wrote:

Errr...except Ireland actually has a very liberal regime when it comes to casinos. The difference being is that casinos and slots are separated in Ireland.

I thought they were private members clubs and not officially casinos?

Venom

People should be allowed to make their own choices at the end of the day as a nanny state is never the correct way to do things in a free society. Banning everything that is bad for you or things that can be bad for you if over done is not the answer. There will always be self destructive people out there just waiting to fúck themselves up and while this is sad for the people close to them, they will always find a way to destroy themselves.

In this topic's case I think there is a big difference between what is legal gambling in this country otherwise know as bookies and casino's. While bookies do make a fortune out of its customers, this is down to a bad choice on the customers part. If there are 7 horses running in a race, one of them will win and its a case of picking that little beauty or not but this is down to chance/expertise on the gambler. while its not as fair as a coin toss, its a damm sight better than the alternative.

Casino's on the other hand are rigged in the favor the establishments owners and punters rarely walk out ahead. Slot machines are just smaller versions of casinos in my eyes and those pieces of junk being banned was a very good thing.

growler

While my liberal attitude would agree with giving adults the freedom to enjoy whatever pastimes they wish , and as a fairly regular casino visitor I enjoy the thrill of pitting my wits / cards / maths against opponents or a roulette wheel .... I find it very strange that a Labour government should be the advocates of a liberalised casino industry.

Long term there can only be social cost to this, gambling is addictive, by making access to high stakes gaming more accessible you ultimately end up with more addicts, more bankruptcies, ruined lives, more families who suffer as a direct result and more costs to the taxpayer to help / counsel / pay for the errors of gaming addicts.

The governement seems to be only looking at the taxation income and jobs created if this goes through , I suspect the human costs outweigh the benefits of liberisation.

chill

growler wrote:

Long term there can only be social cost to this, gambling is addictive, by making access to high stakes gaming more accessible you ultimately end up with more addicts, more bankruptcies, ruined lives, more families who suffer as a direct result and more costs to the taxpayer to help / counsel / pay for the errors of gaming addicts.

This is a nonsense. People become addicted to MANY things, the internet, training, walking. Do we ban everything because someone might get addicted ? I do NOT accept this kind of patronising nanny state.
Gambling gives millions of people a LOT of pleasure, a lot of entertainment, a lot of fun.
Yes a few get addicted...but what does that really mean for a society ? A caring society allows people to be free... but puts some level of help in place for those who are unfortunate to suffer negative consequences. I believe that we can do exactly this, while allowing people to get on with living their life freely.

The governement seems to be only looking at the taxation income and jobs created if this goes through , I suspect the human costs outweigh the benefits of liberisation.

I don't.

The enormous gain is the freedom to live our lives the way WE chose. This is far more important that the comparativly tiny number of people that find they cannot cope.