Should Gambling Advertising Be Banned?

skooterblue2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the National Lottery is a "Charity", in the loosest definition of the word

super_furry

Certainly ban it before 10pm. Kids watching any kind of sport are bombarded with game long advertisements.

Grayson

Birneybau wrote: »

I despise Paddy Power and their banter sh!te.

I think that it was paddy powers that comisioned a study that found that up to 1/3 of people who gamble online are addicted. That's a fcuking disgusting industry.

And I gamble. I buy an occasional lottery ticket and would place small bets on big sporting events. In a week I'd spend less than a tenner.

I had a great aunt who would place bets every weekend. She'd study horses like mad. She'd place 5 pence on one horse, 10 on another. She always had a small purse that she'd work from.

Gambling can be fun. But there need to be limits on it, especially online. It's too easy for someone with an addictive personality to get addicted and flush everything away.

Atoms for Peace

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But the National Lottery is a "Charity", in the loosest definition of the word

It did operate for many years as a sort of slush fund for government TDs on local projects, of course known it mostly for the benefit of a Canadian pension fund.

nice_guy80

Yes

Gambling destroys families and people's lives

Pedro K

Link to my previous posts on gambling

Gambling is insidious. It's a nasty industry, and I think the ads are dangerous. Every single ad break is littered with bookie's ads. "Bet in play, now!"

I worry that kids will automatically associate betting with gambling and be drawn in.

I posted this on another thread about gambling and the industry. I've worked for more than one bookies. I don't anymore.

It's ruthless. I worked in bookies in both Ireland and England, over the phone and in shops.

It can bring out the worst in people. I've dealt with loads of people trying to hide bets from their other halves too. Sometimes they can be terrible to deal with. Whispering over the phone then becoming agitated and abusive because you haven't heard them.

The same people waiting for me to open the shop door in the morning were the same people I would be pushing out the door at ten in the evening while they're reaching for the gaming machine trying to get 'just one more spin,' on roulette.

I've seen grown men (and in some cases women) attack gaming machines, cry, become abusive towards me and my colleagues because they're losing and then try justify it as just a bot of harmless fun.

The bookies say they want you to gamble responsibly. They do in their arse. They want every ****ing penny you have.

Customers with phone accounts are categorised. The more money you lose, the better your category and the quicker your call is dealt with.

If you start to win money the bookie will restrict your betting. You'll ask for €500 win at 10/1 and they'll say you can have €5 t the SP. Keep winning, they'll just close your account.

I saw one man come into my shop, win £500 on a machine, and within 15 minutes he had put that back in plus another £700 from his visa debit card. His daily limit. Every time he came up to put more on he looked like he was going to cry. I really wanted to tell him to stop as he seemed a nice guy, but as the employee you can't do that.

Another dude once won a €45k return on his phone account. I'm sure he told everyone about it. What he didn't tell everyone, I would bet, is that he gave it back to us (and then some) in a week and a half.

Not that it's any justification, but at least with alcohol, generally there's only so much you can have before your body just won't let you take any more.

Barnaboy

Pedro K wrote: »

Link to my previous posts on gambling

Gambling is insidious. It's a nasty industry, and I think the ads are dangerous. Every single ad break is littered with bookie's ads. "Bet in play, now!"

I worry that kids will automatically associate betting with gambling and be drawn in.

Excellent post, sums up the industry perfectly. But nothing will change, too many people in power gain massively from the industry.

skooterblue2

Grayson wrote: »

I think that it was paddy powers that comisioned a study that found that up to 1/3 of people who gamble online are addicted. That's a fcuking disgusting industry.

And I gamble. I buy an occasional lottery ticket and would place small bets on big sporting events. In a week I'd spend less than a tenner.

I had a great aunt who would place bets every weekend. She'd study horses like mad. She'd place 5 pence on one horse, 10 on another. She always had a small purse that she'd work from.

Gambling can be fun. But there need to be limits on it, especially online. It's too easy for someone with an addictive personality to get addicted and flush everything away.

My good lady works in retail, she says the amount of teenagers buying low cost scratch cards is staggering. That is where the addiction is setting in. The medium of Television is a vehicle for conditioning.

skooterblue2

My uncle was a sap and lost 3 farms and the last one was taken in the early 90 when the economy was at an all time low.

The neighbours gave him half price for his land and the bank took the rest.

Gambling is just one way to fill a hole that is addiction. Sad people with sad lives

gctest50

skooterblue2 wrote: »

My good lady works in retail, she says the amount of teenagers buying low cost scratch cards is staggering. That is where the addiction is setting in. The medium of Television is a vehicle for conditioning.

Probably got no "likes" that day - cos facebook n more have tapped into that little dopamine & friends hit that you get from gambling

skooterblue2

gctest50 wrote: »

Probably got no "likes" that day - cos facebook n more have tapped into that little dopamine & friends hit that you get from gambling

Horrible but true. It is the perfect drug, cheap, easy to access and very controlling. We spend 9 years of our lives on social media.

Billythekid19

Watching the champions league tonight there are a flood of gambling ads at the break. I reckon this will be seen as smoking was in the 80s in years to come. It's an affliction and should not be advertised when children are watching.

SeanW

KungPao wrote: »

No.

If something is legal it should be legal to advertise it imo.

And that includes fags.

I think there's an argument for banning advertisements of vices.

If a vice is said to do harm, advocates of a "nanny state" would advocate banning them, or having severe restrictions. But civil libertarians would object and say, no, people should be allowed to make their own choices and be responsible for them. I tend to agree with the latter.

But the dirty little secret of advertising is that it works. Companies advertise not necessarily to sell you a product, but to continuously maintain their "mindshare" and in some cases to sell you a lifestyle dependent on them. Ladbrokes did exactly this a while back, they had a TV ad campaign where they pushed "The Ladbrokes lifestyle." Marketing often aims to target the persons sub-conscious mind more than their conscious mind. That's why it's so effective. It goes into your psyche, below the level of thought. It is insidious.

I say let's have all the vices. Fast food. Booze. Fags. Gambling. Weed and other drugs. All of it. But make it so that if anyone partakes of the vice, it's their decision - and their decision alone. If you want to partake in a vice, it's there if you want it. But the peddlers can't glamourise it, can't sell your lifestyles dependent on it, can't bombard people with mass messaging. And definitely no targeting children.

Count Dracula

Absolutely, with immediate effect. It is more condescending than comparing domestic hygiene products. It fails miserably at trying to establish the fantasy that it is all a bit of a laugh. The television medium gets monotonous after a while. It lacks dignity, like every punter is epitomised as a happy go lucky so and so, who tags along to a race meeting every weekend with a giant gormless smile and a wad of fifty's. It makes me sick. I remember backing horses and listening to a radio on the counter of the betting shop. Odds were posted on a blackboard and it was just as exciting. Mind you more people went racing then. They should at least have more Alickadoos on the television spouting opinion also, not just the same old drivel from contemporary retired jockeys. Boring enough, except for Luke Harvey and Jane Mangan. I also think Sally Ann Grassick is beautiful. Peter Crouch, how did we let this happen? What is the point of Peter Crouch... can anyone please tell me?