Change this stupid law! (RTE story)

arcadegame2004

I am placing this post to express my annoyance at the RTE's 'nannyism' in respect of today's report on arcades supposedly breaking 50 year old laws on betting-limits and win-limits for slot-machines.

The idea that we should only be allowed to bet .6 cent and win 60 cent is just so ridiculous and archaic! Time to scrap this stupid law once and for all. The campaign for the separation and Church and State must continue. We must reject all that is superstituous and backward-looking, especially the ideas that fun is bad, and self-deprivation is good!

Unlike the smoking issue, there is no inevitalbe harm being caused to others nearby as a result of my gambling. We should not go down the ludicrous route of the US whererby Bush is trying to stamp out online gambling, which I fear might be next on the nannyists lists of targets!

Up Freedom!

aidan_walsh

arcadegame2004 wrote:

the ludicrous route of the US whererby Bush is trying to stamp out online gambling

You do of course realise that this is to do with tax revenue more than stamping down on gambeling. If you take a closer look, he's only trying to make it illegal to gamble on online sites that originate outside the US.

Now, you start to make a point about RTE nannying the report, and then move onto the law itself... Which are you calling into question here?

arcadegame2004

The 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act, a relic of the days of Church domination.

BTW Bush is trying to ban ALL online gambling. ALL. And advertising of it. Observ Casinocity.com's court case against the US DOJ who are threatening the media, including the Discovery Channel and others to get them to back off online casino advertising. His motivation is just religious-claptrap to appease the Christian extremists in the US, the same people who scream their support for Israel from the pulpits of US churches.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

BTW Bush is trying to ban ALL online gambling.

And if he is (which I'm not sure of) its purely and solely because there is no other realistic way to ban it in the US.

What is more important is tha tBush is not trying to ban it in Las Vegas, Salt Lake City etc....so clearly its not betting per se he has a problem with.

His motivation is just religious-claptrap to appease the Christian extremists in the US

If thats how you want to see it....fair enough. I'll remind you that Ireland is prediminantly Catholic, and so that "religious clap-trap" may appease many Irish voters as well. Indeed, if you had a referendum to fully legalise gambling in Ireland....I doubt it would pass. Maybe I'm wrong, but I hoenstly doubt it would pass.

Unlike the smoking issue, there is no inevitalbe harm being caused to others nearby as a result of my gambling.

Drop the word "my" from that sentence, and it becomes patently false however....so your argument kinda sounds more like "I should be allowed to drive fast, because I am able to...but if that means that those who can't drive fast end more lives.....well....thats not my concern. I just want to drive fast.".

jc

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Time to scrap this stupid law once and for all.

I know more than one family who's lives were effectively ruined by someone with a gambling addiction.

Would you be willing to tell those people that a law designed to protect them from exactly what has happened to them is stupid???

jc

arcadegame2004

bonkey wrote:

I know more than one family who's lives were effectively ruined by someone with a gambling addiction.

Would you be willing to tell those people that a law designed to protect them from exactly what has happened to them is stupid???

jc

So Bonkey, you are saying that we should continue with (in theory under the law which I hope the Gardai ignore) slot-machine limits forbidden unless the bets are only 6 cent and winnings at a maximum of 60 cent!??!?! 50 years ago that sort of money was worth more for the then impoverished Ireland but now that we are better off we are entitled to enjoy the fruits of our labours and should not have a domineering nanny pounding on the pulpit telling us how "sinful" it is to bet 20 euro at an online casino.

I personally have no family as in children, and I don't want any. So why should my gambling activities be restricted?

Maybe a majority would not back complete deregulation in this sector, but I seriously doubt that people want to keep betting limits of 6 cent and winning limits of 60 cent! C'mon Bonkey this is the new secular Ireland!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

So Bonkey, you are saying that we should continue with (in theory under the law which I hope the Gardai ignore) slot-machine limits forbidden unless the bets are only 6 cent and winnings at a maximum of 60 cent!??!?!

What I said is that I disagree with the notion that its a stupid law which should be scrapped.

I'm asking you - the espouser of that notion - whether or not you'd be willing to tell those who's lives have been ruined by more lax gambling laws that their lives were ruined by a better set of rules then a set which would have (theoretically, at least) protected them. That the protection the law could have offered them is stupid, and should be scrapped where it is in existence.

If you're not willing to do that, then your comments that the law is stupid are - at best - entirely self-centred....which I see as a poor reason to support your logic.

I believe it is a law which should probably be updated, not scrapped. What would constitute a reasonable update, however, would probably still fall under your definition of "nannyism".

But...to answer your question fully....given the choice of keeping the law, or just dumping it (i.e. were updating it not an option), I'd side with keeping it, yes.

jc

Phil_321

Yeah, those betting limits are joke in this day and age.

Bonkey, so what if a few people lose the run of themselves and waste their families money, the majority shouldn't have to pay for the actions of a few idiots.
Analogy: lets ban cars cos some people drink-drive/speed and kill people.

arcadegame2004

I believe it is a law which should probably be updated, not scrapped. What would constitute a reasonable update, however, would probably still fall under your definition of "nannyism".

Not if the update legalised the widespread practice of slot machines offering up to 40 euro winnings. I would prefer unlimited winnings of course, but that would be better.

I hope these laws don't apply to online gambling. The govt shouldn't even try to ban online gambling (which Bush is doing). It would be unenforcible, would turn harmless people into criminals in what would be a victimless crime, and would force people like me to use proxy-servers and encryption to escape the nanny-state!

Meh

bonkey wrote:

I know more than one family who's lives were effectively ruined by someone with a gambling addiction.

Would you be willing to tell those people that a law designed to protect them from exactly what has happened to them is stupid???

Yes. Just the same as I'd tell someone whose life had been ruined by alcoholism that a law limiting the maximum size of a beer glass to 5ml was stupid.

I say remove the limit, tax it heavily, and give the tax raised to gambling addiction support groups.

mike65

This is worrying I've just read AG2004 and agreed with him on two different threads. The 1956 act is patently nonsense, so its ignored. A law thats ignored is a bad one.

Mike.

SkepticOne

mike65 wrote:

This is worrying I've just read AG2004 and agreed with him on two different threads. The 1956 act is patently nonsense, so its ignored. A law thats ignored is a bad one.

Not the first time it has been ignored. In the early 80's that law was completely unenforced. There was a clampdown some time in the mid-80's which caused the slot-machine arcades either to shut down or convert to video arcades. Now the law seems to be ignored once again.

One possibly positive benefit, however, is that pubs don't have noisy gambling machines in them in Ireland, unlike Britain.

mike65

I remember that, here in Waterford there was much carrying on about an arcade in the Apple Market "we must protect our kids from this filth" etc.

Mike.

Sparks

Phil_321 wrote:

Yeah, those betting limits are joke in this day and age.
Bonkey, so what if a few people lose the run of themselves and waste their families money, the majority shouldn't have to pay for the actions of a few idiots.
Analogy: lets ban cars cos some people drink-drive/speed and kill people.

Better analogy: In this country, it's a lot more difficult to buy a firearm than in the US. Until recently, you couldn't own a pistol at all unless it was a starter's pistol or you were a vet or in the army; today you can get one but it involves butting heads with the DoJ. You can't reload ammunition to save money. Under-16s can't shoot at all according to the Attorney-General. Yet all these things are perfectly legal in countries all over europe and worldwide. Isn't it time we scrapped the firearms laws and brought in new ones?

What's that? Hesitation? Nervousness because it's [hushed voice]guns[/hushed voice] that we're talking about? But there haven't been too many deaths since the state was founded by legally held firearms, and the vast, vast, vast majority of those were suicide cases (which any psychologist will tell you are not preventable by restricting the means available to the person involved). Ergo, I'm being denied the amusement of shooting a .357 magnum handgun because of "the actions of a few idiots". Or could it be, might it just be plausible, is it within the realms of possibility, that we as a society came to the conclusion that some forms of entertainment could be regulated or restricted for the good of everyone else? And might it not be true that that was a reasonable decision?

(and by the way, the majority aren't gamblers).

Hobbes

I say we scrap speed limits as well because I can drive really fast and it wont cause a problem. :rolleyes:

First up gambling is a big problem. I've seen a friend gamble all his money for the week within a day. Couldn't even afford to feed himself, let alone his family (she has since left him). He started off on slot machines too.

As for slot machines. You are kidding yourself if you think you will get rich off them. Generally slots are set to 2:1 ratio (every 2 euro you put in you get 1 euro winnings).

Beyond entertainment value you are wasting your money putting money into slots.

Not the first time it has been ignored. In the early 80's that law was completely unenforced. There was a clampdown some time in the mid-80's which caused the slot-machine arcades either to shut down or convert to video arcades. Now the law seems to be ignored once again.

AFAIR the law was enforced again in the 80's after a person took his life over gambling and there was public outcry about it.

mewso

Sparks wrote:

(and by the way, the majority aren't gamblers).

Every single 18+ year old in this country is probably a gambler. In fact they gamble on a billion to one shot twice a week. I don't like those odds so I play poker.

Anyway as someone who visits the casino from time to time to play some poker with the other seedy underworld types as well as logging on to play poker online from time to time with other strange unstable people I have wondered about the gambling laws. Seems to me that you can quite easily get a gambling problem in Ireland. I'm not sure how this law protects people. For example you can bet money on a horse/dog/football team/snow at christmas and of course a series of numbers coming out of a box (but we won't discuss that. It's the healthy safe kind that one).

We're all reasonable people. This is something I think is worth debating without someone dragging out the "I know somebody who's life has been destroyed...." etc. We all probably do. It's not the way to present an arguement.

Phil_321

Sparks wrote:

Better analogy: In this country, it's a lot more difficult to buy a firearm than in the US. Until recently, you couldn't own a pistol at all unless it was a starter's pistol or you were a vet or in the army; today you can get one but it involves butting heads with the DoJ. You can't reload ammunition to save money. Under-16s can't shoot at all according to the Attorney-General. Yet all these things are perfectly legal in countries all over europe and worldwide. Isn't it time we scrapped the firearms laws and brought in new ones?

What's that? Hesitation? Nervousness because it's [hushed voice]guns[/hushed voice] that we're talking about? But there haven't been too many deaths since the state was founded by legally held firearms, and the vast, vast, vast majority of those were suicide cases (which any psychologist will tell you are not preventable by restricting the means available to the person involved). Ergo, I'm being denied the amusement of shooting a .357 magnum handgun because of "the actions of a few idiots". Or could it be, might it just be plausible, is it within the realms of possibility, that we as a society came to the conclusion that some forms of entertainment could be regulated or restricted for the good of everyone else? And might it not be true that that was a reasonable decision?

Yes, strict gun control is a reasonable decision.
But the present controls on gambling are not reasonable. Gambling is a form of entertainment, yes it can be abused by a small minority, but that's primarily what it is..... enterainment.

(and by the way, the majority aren't gamblers).

I never said they were.....I was saying the majority of gamblers don't ruin their lives through gambling.

Sparks

Phil_321 wrote:

Yes, strict gun control is a reasonable decision.
But the present controls on gambling are not reasonable. Gambling is a form of entertainment, yes it can be abused by a small minority, but that's primarily what it is..... enterainment.

But shooting is a form of entertainment (and sport) and when you actually look at what's happened in the last century or so, the number of people injured or killed by the sport is spectacularly low. Chess has probably hurt more people to be honest. It's criminals and suicides who've caused those deaths and injuries that have occoured. So you're talking about an abuse by a small minority. I'm failing to see how you can draw a clear distinction between the two from the point of view you're bringing up. (That's not to say they're the same thing - one's a habit that can lead to addiction and antisocial behaviour, the other's an olympic sport).

Phil_321

Well, shooting may be an Olympic sport, but I don't think most of the criminals who use guns in Ireland are planning on bringing back a gold at the next Olympics.

That's not to say they're the same thing - one's a habit that can lead to addiction and antisocial behaviour, the other's an olympic sport.

More like:
That's not to say they're the same thing - one's a habit that can lead to addiction and antisocial behaviour, the other's a lethal weapon that was designed to kill and maim people and animals, and it's also an olympic sport.

Sparks

Phil_321 wrote:

Well, shooting may be an Olympic sport, but I don't think most of the criminals who use guns in Ireland are planning on bringing back a gold at the next Olympics.

And I doubt that those who run illegal gambling operations pay income tax, but that's nothing to do with legitimate legal gambling, is it? Compare like with like!

More like:
That's not to say they're the same thing - one's a habit that can lead to addiction and antisocial behaviour, the other's a lethal weapon that was designed to kill and maim people and animals, and it's also an olympic sport.

Now you're heading into an old debate and doing so by assuming that an activity is actually a piece of equipment...

dictatorcat

mike65 wrote:

This is worrying I've just read AG2004 and agreed with him on two different threads. The 1956 act is patently nonsense, so its ignored. A law thats ignored is a bad one.

Mike.

I'm worried that i'm agreeing with him too :eek: I watched that report by Charlie Bird too, it was "undercover" and everything.....talk about slow news week!

SkepticOne

Speed limits (Hobbes)
Sport shooting (Sparks).
Gambling.

Although each of these have 'anti-nanny' arguments, there are separate issues to be considered in each of them and laws will (as they should) take into account the public's feelings about each of these.

The problem with shooting as a sport is that guns are an emotive topic for many people. This is something that those hoping for change in firearms laws need to accept as a challenge.

I think for the most part people accept the need for speed limits. They know that without them there will be some (only a minority, perhaps) that will put their own and other's lives at risk. Gambling, on the other hand, a large number of people indulge in (lottery, horses, dogs) and therefore liberalising slot machines is simply bringing things into line.

But in each case a separate argument needs to be made for each specific change wanted. It doesn't make sense to discuss all these separate activities together.

Phil_321

Originally Posted by Sparks
Now you're heading into an old debate and doing so by assuming that an activity is actually a piece of equipment...

This thread was about gambling, you brought up the "gun issue". Anyway, You know what I meant.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne
Although each of these have 'anti-nanny' arguments, there are separate issues to be considered in each of them and laws will (as they should) take into account the public's feelings about each of these.
.
.
But in each case a separate argument needs to be made for each specific change wanted. It doesn't make sense to discuss all these separate activities together.

Well said.

Sparks

Phil_321 wrote:

This thread was about gambling, you brought up the "gun issue".

Yes, as an analogy. You're the one ran it past the point where the analogy held

growler

if playing a slot machine is a form of entertainment, surely the pleasure derived is as much from the actions of playing , the stakes should be irrelevant, everyone knows you can't win in the longrun, so whats the problem with limiting the amount of damage you can do to your wallet? The percentages work out the same anyway, regardless of the stakes.

Personally I don't see why the higher stake games shouldn't be allowed , but they belong in casinos not in unrestricted seaside arcades.

simu

growler wrote:

if playing a slot machine is a form of entertainment, surely the pleasure derived is as much from the actions of playing , the stakes should be irrelevant, everyone knows you can't win in the longrun, so whats the problem with limiting the amount of damage you can do to your wallet? The percentages work out the same anyway, regardless of the stakes.

I agree with this.

Having higher stakes on slot machines would more than likely cause more harm than good. I can imagine desperately poor people throwing their last few coins away on the off-chance they might get lucky. It wouldn't be the rational thing to do but people don't always act rationally when they're desperate.

And how annoying it would be if we ended up having slot machines in pubs the way they do in England!

Phil_321

Sparks wrote:

Yes, as an analogy. You're the one ran it past the point where the analogy held

Look Sparks, I can see you have some serious "gun issues". I don't want to humour you further. I suggest getting yourself checked out asap, the last thing we need is another Dunblane or Columbine.

arcadegame2004

The analogy with guns that some here are making is just sillyness, with all due respect to those making that analogy. No-one is going to throw a gaming machine at someone to kill them! With guns you can be killed at a distance, with a degree of certainty.

Unless we want some kind of totalitarian state, the Government shouldn't try to control victimless activities such as gambling. Very few people will commit suicide over gambling. But ALL guns are potentially fatal if they fall into the hands of the crimelords and their henchmen. And anyway, if some people are so interested in target-shooting they can always make their way to the local gaming arcade and play Virtua Cop 3 or other lightgun arcade games, or buy some FPS shooting game for their console or PC. At least those guns aren't going to actually kill real people!

Also. poison is needed to kill rats. But it can also kill humans. Should poison be banned? Of course not! President Kennedy couldn't have been assasinated from that building or the Grassy Knowles in Dallas by throwing poison from there! I suppose he could have been killed with a poisoned-arrow, but they are far less accurate than a gun!

So the extent or existence of heavy restrictions on an activity should be in proportion to the potential risk, and experience in other countries and our own can act as a barometer in this regard in terms of quantifying the likely extent of the dangers. This suggests to me that based on the Columbine/Dunblane/Hungerford massacres, where legally-held arms were used to slaughter innocent people, that we cannot afford the risk of legalising guns in this country. In the case of gambling, I strongly oppose the idea of the Gardai waltzing into a gaming-arcade to take away slot-machines that pay out more than the laughable 60 cents they are suppoosedly allowed to pay out under the De Valera Nanny State Act 1956.

There are VERY few people that will put themselves in a situation where they will commit suicide after a game. Someone here mentioned a 1980's case of ONE person commiting suicide over it in the 1980's. That is hardly evidence of a widespread danger of suicide resulting from gambling. The State should liberate us from the remaining relics of Church dictat and do it now!

Sparks

Look Sparks, I can see you have some serious "gun issues". I don't want to humour you further. I suggest getting yourself checked out asap, the last thing we need is another Dunblane or Columbine.

Oh for the love of...
Really, do I need to respond to this?

The analogy with guns that some here are making is just sillyness

No, it wasn't. I chose the issue of firearms for a specific reason, namely that everyone's scared of them. No-one who's not seen personally the damage that gambling can do has a sufficent fear of gambling to understand the reasons for controls to be in place on it; and while in the real world, there are far more of these than there appears to be in here, it's in here that the discussion is taking place; ergo, I needed an example that got those people in here nervous.

And we are not going down the firearms debate in here again, we've done this to death already and the thread's there in the archives for people to read.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Unless we want some kind of totalitarian state, the Government shouldn't try to control victimless activities such as gambling.

Victimless? Only if you're ignoring the families destroyed through gambling addiction that more than myself, Hobbes and others have mentioned.

Very few people will commit suicide over gambling.

Jeez...its victimless and causes the odd suicide...you've really thought your descriptions through.

Also. poison is needed to kill rats. But it can also kill humans. Should poison be banned? Of course not!

No, but it should be tightly controlled. I don't think anyone has suggested that the controls on gambling should be replaced by a ban, so I don't really see what your point is.....unless you're suggesting that :

- gabling should be tightly controlled
- poisons should not be tightly controlled.


The former would seem to contradict your starting position (that the controls are stupid and should be scrapped), and hte latter...well...as well as being off topic....can I just say that if thats where the nannyless state would go, maybe I'm better off in a nannying one.

There are VERY few people that will put themselves in a situation where they will commit suicide after a game.

Yes, but they exist. So much for "vitimless".

The numbers of people who financially ruin their own life - and often the lives of those around them - is far, far higher. These people are the primary reason that the controls are in place....not the (admittedly very rare) suicide cases.

The State should liberate us from the remaining relics of Church dictat and do it now!

Yeah. If the church backed it...it has to be wrong. Guess we should legalise murder as well then, huh? The church supports that one too.

Damned evil church.

jc

Phil_321

Sparks wrote:

Oh for the love of...
Really, do I need to respond to this?

Nah, I was only winding you up.....:D

Gurgle

arcadegame2004 wrote:

BTW Bush is trying to ban ALL online gambling. ALL. And advertising of it.

Oh please, they account for about 70% of pop-ups.
At least he might leave behind one useful legacy.

Then maybe we wouldn't get the other 30% of pop-ups, the ones advertising pop-up stoppers.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

AngelofFire

Unless we want some kind of totalitarian state, the Government shouldn't try to control victimless activities such as gambling

I agree we are already living in a totalitarian state, civilised drinking by responsible adults in entertianment venues after 1.30am is also under attack by Mcdowell, Bertie and co not just gambling. The slot machines rule doesn`t bother me that much because i dont gamble i actually despise it. However Private gambling pubs have slot machines with higher limits which i have no problem with. Most slot machines where the rule is applicable are located in places where a lot of under 18s are present e.g. Atari Expo. So to an extent the rule doesn`t affect the interests of Sensible gamblers as they can join private clubs if they want to gamble more.

bonkey

AngelofFire wrote:

I agree we are already living in a totalitarian state, civilised drinking by responsible adults in entertianment venues after 1.30am is also under attack by Mcdowell, Bertie and co not just gambling.

And previous governments have made concerted efforts to stop only-slightly-over-the-limit-but-not-really-impaired, careful, responsible adults from driving home.

They've also threatened adding fat tax to the food that healthy people sometimes like to eat, rubbish tax on slips of paper that many people don't actually treat as rubbish, and so on.

Why only a few years ago, they taxed plastic bags on many non-littering, bag-reusing, ecologically-aware-and-friendly people as well.

You know...if you describe rules only from teh point of view of the people who didn't give rise to a necessity (or a perceived necessity) for a legal change, they'll all sound equally wrong.

jc