There’s no authority keeping an eye on your gambling

TChong says:

07:53am | 30/05/12

To quote J. Howard , it seems a “passing strange”, that one particular stable has had a number of recored incidents where substances have been found in the nags blood- fines are paid, and very little, if anything is ever said.
In fact, the opposite seem true-, this particular stable is held out as a role model, as an example of wholesomeness.
The trainer is a meeja darling, and that reflected glory is bestowed upon the off spring
Marvellous what a good PR company can achieve .

Markus says:

10:24am | 30/05/12

To be fair, the major user of those chocolate machines in my experience is intoxicated 18-25 year olds.

As for the underage ‘credit cards’, they are just debit cards. I don’t see how they present any more risk than the 100 bucks cash they used to obtain it.

pa_kelvin says:

12:33pm | 30/05/12

@Markus   You cannot use $100 cash online, only credit or debit cards therefore more risk.

Emma says:

08:24am | 30/05/12

It would be nice of course if that fool youre talking of had family and friends that notice that there is a problem and step in. But I assume not everyone is so lucky. But it is difficult to keep every single person from doing something stupid.

acotrel says:

08:16am | 30/05/12

‘Perhaps if we taxed it, gambling might not be so attractive. ‘

That’s about as likely as introducing secret ballots for every vote in parliament
. - There are too many big players on the receiving end.

Inky says:

09:11am | 30/05/12

But it’s just not the Australian way. We need to tax it heavily, impose restrictions and fill TV with ads funded by the taxes demonising it, despite said ads being ignored by the problem demographics.

AdamC says:

09:41am | 30/05/12

Inky is right, M. Your solution does not indulge many people’s holier-than-thou, totalitarian wowserism. It thus must be discounted out of hand.

After all, everyone knows addicts will give up the quest for a fix at the slightest obstacle!

DocBud says:

09:33am | 30/05/12

Maybe you should provide evidence to support the connection.

If there is a connection, what would be your “solution”?

Steve says:

09:58am | 30/05/12

But we are not totally ‘evidence-driven’ - politicians are still very much in the decision making loop, and still very willing to ignore evidence unless its suits their media strategy.

And that focuses the quesion on the ‘evidence’.  Whose evidence, and what was their agenda in gathering and analysing it?  Many social researchers are also very active advocates for policy and social change - so how far do you trust their ‘evidence’?

And peer-review doesn’t count for much, if anything, today

Tell It Like It Is says:

11:03am | 30/05/12

Agree @Steve.  I think we are all just about over the phony “evidence-based practice” stance. Fine and good in principle of course but too often it is simply a way of fending off any future liability in whatever field.
But of course governments at all levels use it to their advantage. “Evidence” can and is often skewed, simply by virtue of the questions asked or researched - or not. Or biased as you suggest by who is paying a researcher or scientist.
“Evidence-based” practice seems to have replaced that tired old chestnut “being seen to be doing the right thing”. You never hear anyone using that phrase any longer.
But if you don’t ‘ask’ the question in a research sense, sure as eggs you won’t get any “evidence” which doesn’t suit your agenda.

Tell It Like It Is says:

11:06am | 30/05/12

Of course I don’t have any evidence @DocBud and am certainly not in the position of do my own research. But logically - if you think about it - are not people sitting at poker machines more likely to bet more and longer if they’ve been sitting there consuming alcohol.
And ‘no’ I don’t have a solution. The problem with alcohol in this country is a serious one and not easily solved by any one means and ultimately only by a lot of ground up education and some reasonable change of mindset about our drinking culture.
But my comment was by way of saying that no government is brave enough to ask the question and obtain the evidence.

renold says:

11:51am | 30/05/12

Tell It

I have worked for years as a Government Casino Inspector, so I can only talk from that perspective.

Very rarely problem pokie players resort to drinking too much alcohol, for the simple reason they would be removed from premises.

Strange thing as a Government Inspector, we were not appointed under the Liquor Act eventhough the casino was and is the biggest pub in town. Moment an intoxicated person starts gambling, may that be pokies or table games, they fall under the Casino Act where Government Inspectors could act.

Problem with current issues regarding problem gambling on premises is, that there is no defintion of who and what constitutes a problem gambler, like they did with alcohol consumption.

tombowler says:

10:52am | 30/05/12

That’s embarrassing but good on ya for being open about it. First steps and all that. I lost about a hundred online before I realised I had no way of chasing up the money and, looking at the procedure to collect, realised I’d probably never see it anyway.

This sh#t is more harmful than drugs and needs to be banned. Punt on horses or at the casino but otherwise. Ban it.

Tell It Like It Is says:

12:19pm | 30/05/12

So you don’t see any fallout/problems by way of family, financial ruin, mental problems which affect others and ultimately may have to be picked up by the taxpayer by way of health care, social services, family support etc etc.
I would suggest that problem gamblers, like problem drinkers and other drug addicts etc are not just living in vacuo and not affecting others lives or society in general.
In a way you have sort of gone in a circle with your own argument, have you not @Dieter, when you say “so long as it does not affect anyone else”.

Dieter Moeckel says:

08:47am | 31/05/12

@ tell it like it is. In my view the gambling problem (like addiction, eating disorders, lack of excersie, domestic violence, misuse of motor vehicles) is just an example from a whole gamut of personal problems which a nanny state feels it should intervene. We socially support poor workmen when they lose and can’t find new jobs heir jobs, we help people who abuse cars and injure themselves, we help people with poor health habits, even those who acquire HIV/Aids ... Why not problem gamblers? Instead we try to control them. The state has never been able to legislate or control moral or ethical behaviour.
On a personal/family plane we should encourage those affected by the behaviour of others to seek new relationships rather than persevere with ill functioning partners. Marriages nor relationships are"till death us do part” rather than until it remains functional. hence the partner of an addict, a non functional partner should for their own sake seek a new partner.
When I advocate “so long it does not affect anyone else” I really mean hurt on a personal plane not on a social plane. On a social plane we always need to carry the weak and dysfunctional. That is the burden of carrying the weakest link.