Forum Archive Index - March 2004

[robin benson <rob@hammerheadmedia.co.uk>]

This topic seems to be rambling on ... I'll keep my $0.02 brief.

Reality isn't as polarised as many would have us believe.

Very few people would agree that outright banning of anything in this 
world is likely to succeed completely. However, the reality of gambling 
addiction, as with other addictions, is that it ruins lives and 
destroys families. It is very unlikely that the people concerned 
purposefully set out with such destruction in mind so one could 
reasonably conclude that there must be an element, to varying degrees, 
of loss of control involved, which by its very nature *implies a lack 
of choice*. It is not hard to see this is the case. Of course, the 
gambling of the odd flutter or lotto ticket is a world away from 
hardcore gambling addiction, and therein lies the problem: some people 
are able to control what they do and others not (and everything in 
between; for another perspective, think of food and obesity) and how 
should society address this significant difference?

Ban all forms of gambling using an army of regulators? Allow completely 
regulation-free gambling, "wild west" style?

How society as a whole should approach the issue of gambling, in my 
opinion, lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Of course, 
individuals will take their own positions and invest/not invest, 
support/not support (etc.) gambling accordingly.

Personally, I choose to neither support nor to ban gambling. I do not 
like the negative results of gambling hence the lack of support. I 
don't support a ban because it is impractical and a limit on people's 
freedoms, nor would I presume to tell people where they should place 
their investment dollar (in this context). However, it is plainly in 
the interests of society that addicts, whether the addiction is to 
gambling, drugs, violence or whatever, be assisted to regain control 
over their actions. As the gambling industry gains hugely from the 
(over)spending of addicts, it's fair enough that they should contribute 
(resources) to fighting addiction. The fewer addicts there are, the 
lower their contribution will be.

There's a similar mechanism in place regarding ACC levies in NZ -- I 
would like to see the gambling industry involved in financing of 
picking up the pieces where things go wrong. And if the industry has a 
problem with that, and the rate of addiction is really so tiny (not my 
belief), it surely will not take much to eliminate it altogether.

Turning to your comments, "bludgers" exist at all levels of society. 
Some of the largest bludgers are clever enough to have convinced you 
that they receive "grants" and the like. Other people employ (rightly 
or wrongly) elaborate mechanisms to reduce or avoid tax. They are 
surely bludgers as well? I resent the "tarring and feathering" of all 
those on welfare as bludgers (no doubt there are some).

Lastly, I do not support the notion of a nanny state, holding our hand 
and steering us through life. That makes no sense to me. But the idea 
of leaving it to society to pick up the pieces wherever somebody fails 
(and people *do* fail, and there is significant cost when they do) 
after the event makes no sense to me at all.

Robin

On 17 Mar 2004, at 04:35, Karyn W wrote:

> Hi
> My point is that there is nothing wrong with supporting the gambling 
> industry.  It provides a form of entertainment that the vast majority 
> of the population enjoys in moderation, and responsibly.  For most 
> people it is a good night out, whether you are visiting a casino, RSL, 
> club or pub.  The money spent would otherwise be spent on other types 
> of entertainment - so if people choose to spend their money in a pokie 
> machine instead of a jukebox, pool table, snacks, or across the bar, 
> its their choice.  If they didnt feel that they were being entertained 
> in return, then they would stop gambling.  Simply because a small 
> group of pathetic losers cant control themselves when they enter a 
> casino is no reason to tar and feather the entire industry, or the 
> companies who provide the services for the enjoyment of everyone else 
> who are capable of exercising personal responsibility.
>
> I have no respect for drug addicts, obese people, alcoholics or 
> gambling addicts - as it is those people's choice to be that way.  But 
> to hold those people up as an excuse to not invest in pharmaceutical, 
> food, beverage, and gambling companies seems to me to be ridiculous.  
> Expecially since those companies redistribute that income back in 
> taxes, donations, and dividends.
>
> Maybe it is a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich - but 
> then I pay enough in taxes supporting those welfare bludgers in the 
> first place, that getting some of it back is hardly unfair :-)
>
> Karyn


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/