Gambling, how much should the government protect us from ourselves

[IainM]

Interesting thread!
From one armed bandits onwards the people who design gambling machines have exploited psychology to get people to feed them money, from attractive and familiar designs, enhancing the dopamine hit of winning with flashing lights and triumphant music, taunting you to keep going with near-misses just when you're statistically most likely to give up, drip-feeding rewards like bonus spins. Similar tricks are used to get people hooked to video games. It's the ultimate Skinner box, and it's just as purposefully designed to take your money as any successful snake oil, dodgy investment, or pyramid scheme. Play for long enough and you are statistically guarenteed to be out of pocket. Gambling on sports or the stock market are different beasts entirely. There is an element of skill involved, at least in principle, and more importantly the outcome is determined by something outside the control of the bookmaker, as opposed to something specifically engineered to exploit the brain's reward circuits.

 

[simon12]

You can do this with normal gambling, stock market betting / investing, etc.

Look, I'm not blind to the misery these vices can cause, but I just don't think it is the place of the state to play nanny.

I think we both well understand each others view on this and on almost anything else I am against any form of nanny state. But on this I believe these machines can cleverly trick people into changing there free will for just long enough people are doing something they know they shouldn't and despite knowing they have the wrong thing they still want to do it again. Its like being allowed to put addictive substances in kids sweets without telling anyone, well not exactly but its along the same lines. If it wasn't an already heavilly regulated industry I might change my mind buy since the government already has so many restrictions on the industry this is the 1 part of it they should focus them on.

 

[stz]

Every 'vice' industry makes the majority of their profits from the minority who have a problem. Nobody is in business because of the person who puts a quid on the grand national once a year, or celebrates the birth of their baby with a single cigar, or drinks a toast once or twice a year at a wedding. The amount of acceptance society has for these industries depends upon how enjoyably and safely the majority view and interact with the activity, how vocal, visible and impactful the minority struggling with it is and how their problem impacts upon themselves and society. We aren't going to ban alcohol, but we'll tax it more when the streets and hospitals are filled with haemorrhaging incoherent drunks. We aren't going to ban gambling, but we'll intervene when the average punter is suffering from a family breakdown. To not do so just doesn't make any sense to me, we should be rational and pragmatic and seek to protect the vulnerable.

A small number of people due to brain chemistry, upbringing, learnt maladaptive coping mechanisms, temporary or chronic setbacks in life, because their lives are horrible and they have nothing to lose and everything to gain ... whatever will struggle with stuff. They don't want to be completely rubbish at everything, they just have issues. It isn't much good to me to be like ... ha ha you idiot, you should have thought about your horrible hateful brain before you went and screwed it all up. These issues cause problems with their families, their communities and it continues on throughout generations causing misery and harm to the people directly impacted, those around them and society in general. It not only makes sense to go after the root causes of these problems, but is going to be more cost effective in the long run. Condemnation from a position of 'well I'm already jack' does nothing to address the issue except tell the world you are pretty happy with doing alright thanks which should be reward within itself. I'm sure they aren't having more fun than me suffering from a horrific addiction problem.

From my perspective nobody is playing high stakes betting machines for fun or profit. They play them because they have a problem. They target people who have poor impulse control and will either already have, or are developing a gambling problem. Flashing lights, sounds, prompts to keep going and so on, the technology has advanced faster than certainly their brains and it is messing them up. If people are playing them for fun, because they are bored between races, whatever they have come to bet on in the first place then why not limit the bet? They don't need to allow large sums to be wagered to just pass the time. If the cost of some jobs is that others live in misery and cause harm to their loved ones and communities then those jobs are immoral, you might as well stock crack cocaine at the tobacconists. I'll accept something that 80% of people enjoy responsibly and 18% of people do too much and 2% of people are casualties, sadly that is normal to me, but I doubt 80% of people are responsibly enjoying these machines.

Most of the addicts I've met are just bored. They are stuck in a behaviour they know is hurting themselves and their loved ones, but they don't want, or can't change their circumstance and surrounding so continuing onwards with what they know is the path of least resistance. I want to dump on them and wave my willy around about how I'm ok, but it doesn't help anything. Ideally we all have wonderful rich lives filled with reasons to not be addicted to something which ruins our chances of achieving what we want to achieve, but life is often pretty rubbish. We should just aim to make the vices that we have not horrific.

I mean, I'd be fine with buying a litre of grain alcohol at 80% abv for £10. I used to get everclear in the states for less than $10. It'd be handy around the home for a myriad of practical uses, fortifying a cheap fruit punch, fuel for a camping stove that can also be used to sterilise objects and so forth, but it'd turn our communities into a post apocalyptic wasteland. I'd like to be able to purchase better painkillers over the counter because they are bloody handy to have once in a while, but I accept that it'd cause an unacceptable amount of people big problems. I guess I have to feel the same way about high stakes fruit machines, you don't need to ban gambling, but nobody betting hundreds of pounds on those is doing it for fun.

 

[GerritT]

Why not exchange your winnings for **** and booze...that way you won't be wasting it.
Always thinking me!

I exchange my potential losses for booze! At least I'm not a sore loser!

 

[Lawrence22]

My solution which may be a bad idea is instead of more regulation which I see as desperately trying to look like your fixing an issue when your just shifting it is less. If you moved gambling from gambling shops where you are in an isolated environment away from the rest of the world you moved them into pubs where people you know can keep an eye on you and if nothing else you would feel more stupid loosing your whole pay check the community may regulate gambling itself or like I say it could just make it all worse no idea really what do you all think?

Not sure what the differences in the laws are over there, but we have had gambling machines in pubs here in the past and possibly still. Most bars had these machines tucked away somewhere out of sight, a dark corner or such. The golf club that my parents used had a little dark corridor where the machines were placed, so your unlikely to be in view of your friends. Also if you were addicted you'd probably go to a pub where nobody knew you to gamble your money away. Back when I was a young man my brother had a friend who regularly came to the local bar after work on a Friday and put his wages into a poker machine. On the rare occasions he won he would be back on Saturday. It's an awful affliction and unfortunately some people do need protecting from themselves.

 

[Daniboy0812]

They’re protect you from being a loser with no job, wrecked marriage, you resort to crime to pay for your gambling addiction (not talking from personal experience)

The long and short of it, don’t gamble with money you can’t afford to lose and stay in your job so you keep pay tax and they don’t have to pay you benefits and not resort to crime to pay for your addiction - just so the government doesn’t have to employ someone to arrest you, prosecute you and imprison you! All in all a money saving exercise

 

[dad_of_jon]

wow -this thread is heavy. I'd just say make it harder to lose your wages in such a short space of time. As least that will reduce the amount of uber-parasitic gambling establishment around.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Spot on DoJ.

 

[Clint]

If they put a big sign on the fruit machine saying YOU WILL NOT WIN is it still classed as gambling?
Would people still do it? Like those horror pictures on *** packets...

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Yes they would, they are not thinking rationally they are addicted like smokers who believe they will not die of a smoking related disease if they smoke 20 a day for 40 years.

 

[Martybhoy]

Everyone has to take some responsibility for their actions. Some people are more prone than others to certain detrimental behaviours (gambling, violence, drugs) partly due to genetic make up, and partly due to their upbringing and experiences. And when viewing these behaviours, each of us has differing tollerances of where the line should be drawn between taking responsibility for ones actions, and where the person needs help and support as they cannot control these actions.

In terms of these gambling machines, I'm sure the betting companies have spent a great deal of money researching how to make these machines profitable and addictive. At the expense of people prone to gambling addiction, and with no regard to the ruination of these people's lives, and their families, these gambling companies make millions and millions of pounds in profit.

That doesn't sit right with me, and I think the government are right to intervene.