PDA

View Full Version : Should gambling be banned


Chronus
2nd Nov 2018, 21:35
Today we heard the news of the resignation of a government minister over the delayed introduction of curbs over a particular kind of slot machine in betting shops. There is also talk of the gambling industry may have used their powerful lobby to have influenced the government.
Some media commentators have termed this particular mode as the crack cocaine of gambling.
It would seem the government will shortly be put under pressure, through the legislative process of the Autumn Budget, and will need to explain how can it be right to delay a remedy sooner than later is the best course of action. On behalf of the powerful betting industry the usual argument about shop closures and job losses have been put forward. So for money is much more important than lives, families, many lost, ruined and destroyed by gambling.
Are curbs enough, should any form of gambling not be banned, how come we say gambling, prostitution and drugs are the very worse example of peddling in human misery and yet we consider gambling a form of entertainment, especially when we hang a label on it and call it gaming. Are these three not interrelated, don`t they breed and feed from each other, don`t they eventually lead to violent crime, corruption and destruction.

G-CPTN
2nd Nov 2018, 21:45
A good, well-thought-out and though-provoking p*st that, coincidentally, reflects thoughts that I had yesterday in town, when I saw an old school-friend slink into the bookies.
I wouldn't have thought he would have indulged - though his father was an odd fish.

hiflymk3
2nd Nov 2018, 22:00
My guess is there's too much tax revenue in gambling for gvmnt to put a cap on it.

As my Grandfather said. "You'll never see a bookie on a push bike."

sitigeltfel
2nd Nov 2018, 22:01
On behalf of the powerful betting industry the usual argument about shop closures and job losses have been put forward. So for money is much more important than lives, families, many lost, ruined and destroyed by gambling.

It's like claiming that clamping down on illegal drugs will put the dealers on the dole.

Pontius Navigator
2nd Nov 2018, 22:47
Define gambling.

Paying a sum of money with the expectation of winning more money? The lottery, premium bonds, scratch cards?

Buy shares, hope they rise in value.

Buy a house, hope it rises in value.

Life is a gamble but there are degrees.
​​​​

Clop_Clop
2nd Nov 2018, 23:00
Problem is even if you're lucky to win you should have won more if the odds were fair and the expectation is always negative as a player when you gamle on slot machines. Slotmachines is simply there to transfer money to someone else at a rate of expected value per game over time. Sports betting can sometimes create opportunity but the books are synched intramarket to prevent arbitrage opportunities placing bets at many different bookies assuring riskless income for the player. Perfect world should be limits to what people could spend without the adverse effects if you play too much...

Flypro
2nd Nov 2018, 23:34
I bet it won't be banned !!

DaveReidUK
2nd Nov 2018, 23:36
It's like claiming that clamping down on illegal drugs will put the dealers on the dole.

If that was the only consideration, the government wouldn't give a monkey's.

As alluded to above, it's all about the loss of tax revenue.

hiflymk3
2nd Nov 2018, 23:41
Oh the irony, there's a casino ad popup on my screen.

cavortingcheetah
3rd Nov 2018, 00:15
At least sixteen MPs, of which number around nine are Labour and six are Conservative, act as lobbyists for the gambling industry, Ladbrokes and the like, receiving jollies and junkets of up to £6,000 a year apiece. These members of parliament might be the people ultimately responsible for the government fudge on fixed odd gambling terminals, addiction to which causes such misery among those who can least afford addictions and which this week occasioned the very principled resignation of Tracey Crouch, Minister for Sport.
If the British government cannot raise the moral principle to restrict the odds on these fixed odd betting terminals, found inside nearly every betting shop then that and the poverty they exacerbate is argument enough for their banishment to the scrappers yard.

Bankstown Boy
3rd Nov 2018, 00:20
I’ll bet you $5 they’ll never ban gambling

treadigraph
3rd Nov 2018, 01:22
I’ll bet you $5 they’ll never ban gambling

I'll bet you Flypro beat you to that joke...

Hydromet
3rd Nov 2018, 01:41
The more gambling, and the higher it is taxed, the better.

People who can't do maths deserve to be taxed more.

oldpax
3rd Nov 2018, 03:28
Have a try at Solitaire and see the ads on there !Yes on your PC!

Crepello
3rd Nov 2018, 04:35
Time to 'ban' liberals... from doing everything and anything. Since they're great fans of this approach, I'm sure they'll be honored to be test cases. The rest of us will continue living our lives as usual. Fair?

megan
3rd Nov 2018, 06:11
Can't say that I ever saw the attraction of gambling, recognise though that folks do become addicted, have seen the businesses go bankrupt and the wealthy become destitute. I'm addicted to that that can't be mentioned here - aviation.

ORAC
3rd Nov 2018, 08:35
There go the bingo halls then.....

Chuck Glider
3rd Nov 2018, 08:45
Should gambling be banned? Probably not, probably not even possible, though I would like to see a ban advertising of gambling, especially these TV ads for online gambling sites.

Pontius Navigator
3rd Nov 2018, 10:25
Last played the slots with my own money over 50 years ago. Won a jackpot £5. While it was being paid out I won a second. I reckoned that was the end of my luck so I never played again.

On cruise ships, after a rough night, I check the trays in the tipping machines. Got a few coins that way. Put them in the slots - never won.

I have played lots of roulette though. Always came out well ahead, but then as a croupier I should. Biggest hit was when someone got successive single numbers; we soon made it up.

Gertrude the Wombat
3rd Nov 2018, 11:20
Last played the slots with my own money over 50 years ago. Won a jackpot £5. While it was being paid out I won a second. I reckoned that was the end of my luck so I never played again.
One student summer job, each lunch time we'd play the slot machine in the pub. One of our number always won, so the rest of us kept playing in the hope that we would win too.

Until we worked out that what we were doing each day was paying for this guy's lunch . So we stopped.

cavortingcheetah
3rd Nov 2018, 12:55
You'll never ban gambling but you can restrict the proof of what is sold over the counter in order to counter act the most toxic of its addictions. It is difficult to believe that the present government position, to permit high limit FOBTs, was not reached after intensive lobbying by members of parliament, at senior levels, acting on behalf of the betting industry.
Here's a snippet from the Guardian which every now and then is a responsible newspaper.
Why should the government think to protect a bunch of weak willed gamblers? Two answers spring readily to mind. Firstly to protect the dependants of these unfortunate slaves to the wheels of fortune and secondly, to prevent a business from profiteering completely overtly, feasting on the weaknesses of fellow members of socitey.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/tracey-crouch-resignd-fixed-odd-betting-terminals-fobt-maximum-stake

racedo
3rd Nov 2018, 13:48
Posted here 6 weeks ago about child of a friend (in 40's) who had attempted suicide after getting in over his head on gambling. It is a huge addiction.
He lost part of limb and smashed the other one in attempting it.
Spoke with him last night as was allowed out for 24hrs from hospital where he is under care, psychiatric unit now as wound are healing.
His life changed forever and will help parents put in Power of Attorney to prevent him ever taking out any loans or cc in future.

Politicians can pretend it is not an issue but it is as people continually chase a win.

Irish friend told me of something similar there in 1980's when he in his teens, shops had gaming machines and people would spend hours trying
to win the jackpot then. After a number of young suicides the Govt there decided to bring down jackpot to £5 maximum.
In 6 months the issue went away as did the machines.

Personally favour small jackpot machines as reduces the impact.
If bookies go bust............... what is the downside ?

cattletruck
3rd Nov 2018, 14:04
If bookies go bust............... what is the downside ?

By coincidence another great article by crime-writer journalist John Silvester
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-re-nicked-victoria-s-first-undercover-cop-20181101-p50dab.html

racedo
3rd Nov 2018, 15:01
I hadn't realised,had not read the news that the Minister who resigned was Tracey Crouch.
Hate politicians but admire her because she at least knows something about he job as sports minister.

A trained football coach, a season ticket supporter for her team, ok its Spurs so she understands suffering
but she at least understood about sport anit wasn't some upper class twit doing it.

Mac the Knife
3rd Nov 2018, 15:10
There are good arguments for, but people will always gamble.
Better to have it semi-controlled (and taxed) than a free-for-all.

Anyway, we have far too many things banned already.

Mac

cavortingcheetah
3rd Nov 2018, 16:23
But that is it precisely, The restriction of FOBT stake amounts is nothing more than a semi control that acts for the benefit of a very vulnerable section of society. The fact that this control is being thwarted by gambling industry feted members of parliament is an appalling abuse.
I wouldn't go as far as nominating Crouch to succeed Teresa May but it is a refreshing thing to find a politician anywhere who resigns on a matter of principle, refusing to lap dog to the mantra of collective responsibility.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/615x870/0_tracey_crouch_1_e6d259eadaaba9b83369133cd31195e3093d5264.j pg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/615x870/0_tracey_crouch2_994213b9b6850d8a10466b0e89568cd4ab646252.jp g

Chronus
3rd Nov 2018, 17:53
By coincidence another great article by crime-writer journalist John Silvester
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-re-nicked-victoria-s-first-undercover-cop-20181101-p50dab.html

Great story about Nick the Greek, the Oz crime buster. The Yanks had their Eliot Ness, we in Britain however can only boast of fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes and Miss Marples who were always ever so well mannered, correct, word perfect and polite in solving crimes. Anyway why should we concerns ourselves with things such as gambling, after all wasn`t it the likes of Fu Manchu, in the form of Christopher Lee who got up to despicable acts such as gambling, drugs and prostitution. We will keep a stiff upper lip and show the lot of them nothing has yet been invented that can tempt us from anything more than a little flutter now and then on the geegees.

Iassou Cattletruck.

cavortingcheetah
3rd Nov 2018, 18:28
Not only fictional characters grace the history, past and present of British detective success.
Pinkerton was from Glasgow. Mary Doyle works in Manchester while William E. Fairbairn, an entertaining if deadly fellow, started off his very interesting police career in Shanghai as a British marine.

scr1
3rd Nov 2018, 20:11
Should all gambling be banned??

YES

it's a mugs game

racedo
3rd Nov 2018, 20:27
Should all gambling be banned??

YES

it's a mugs game

Ban no
Control yes

Pontius Navigator
3rd Nov 2018, 23:32
Ban no
Control yes
Even that is questionable.

Off course betting was illegal and only available through bookies runners. When it became legal it enabled my old man to open a telephone account that he could ill afford.

WingNut60
4th Nov 2018, 00:50
The previous banning of gambling was a significant driver of the underground alternative - what became known is "the numbers racket", and organised crime in the U.S.
Much like criminalising alcohol, the downside can easily outweigh any expected benefits.

Tankertrashnav
4th Nov 2018, 01:32
As an aside has anyone noticed that Chinese takeaways never take card payments, so you need to pay cash? I've always assumed that the owners do this so they can cream off a certain amount of the takings for gambling money, as most Chinese are inveterate gamblers. Surely HMRC must be aware, so how do they manage to be the only shops in town that only takes cash?

radeng
4th Nov 2018, 01:12
Banning gambling is about as practical as banning sex. Both have been going on since the beginning of human development, and both have led to vast fortunes being made by criminals. An American friend told me once that 'Lotteries are a tax on people who cannot do mathematics': I figure he's pretty well right. Although I do have £300 in Premium Bonds that once some 8 years ago won me £50..... and £26 a quarter in the local Air Ambulance Lottery which I look on as much more as a donation to them - should I win the £1000 prize, it's very likely to go back as a donation.. The same as the lottery for the County Guide centre, which is £120 a year.....

Banning it? About as much chance as Theresa May voting for Labour at the next General Election....If Parliament did, you get the same effect as the Volstead Act banning sales of alcohol in the US in the 1920s - a major increase in crime. Some senior police are against legalising drugs because, they say, if drugs were available legally, the price would drop. To keep the cash flow, this would mean more armed robberies, especially of banks, and probably deaths.

Meldrew
4th Nov 2018, 09:35
I remember a few years ago a picture of a labour female politician draped seductively over a roulette table, to promote some new government of the time, plan to increase the number of gambling opportunities for the public, no doubt to increase tax revenues. Made me want to puke!

Pontius Navigator
4th Nov 2018, 11:26
TTN, never having used a Chinese take away, or a kebab shop, I don't know about cards, but what a great way to launder money?

I knew a Chinese restaurant owner who was generous to a fault with charity but an inveterate gambler as you say. He lost his restaurant several times and won it back again. Closed now, not sure if he retired or finally lost.

G-CPTN
4th Nov 2018, 11:53
Even our upmarket Chinese restaurant has a sign on the door regretting that their card machine is out of use.

Buster15
4th Nov 2018, 14:41
Ban no
Control yes

Quite right.
How would it be even remotely possible to ban betting when it is done world wide.

I applaud the former Sports Minister for her courage in resigning. Well done.

She did so because the promised timescale for controlling or at least attempting to control the most pervasive methods of betting were not implemented; and one has to ask WHY ?

Chronus
4th Nov 2018, 15:19
A growing menace is internet/online gambling. At the present time I do not know of any controls or curbs over this venue for gambling. The Chancellor in his latest budget speech proposed the intorduction of a Digital Services Tax. I would have thought this applied at a punitive rate, would have been a good opportunity to keep this particular nasty at check.
BUSTER 15 asks why betting controls are not implemented. My answer is simply because all governments, no matter what their political colours, are short sighted, they are only concerned with collecting taxes to fill in and patch up our ever increasing spending at the head of which is government`s own spending to keep punching above its weight. It doesn`t matter where it comes from, it does not matter if a few lives are destroyed in the process.
By the way Buster, betting is not done world wide and Pontius, it is not the Chinese take away shop owners who are the only inveterate gamblers. So are the Greek Cypriot fish and chip shop owners. The Turks have banned gambling in their country,, but it is alllowed in Northern Cyprus allowing the Greeks to regularly hoof it across the border and dump the hard cash they have collected from their tourists into the laps of the Turks. Sounds like a great idea to adopt for Northern Irealand and the soft border Brexit thing. Wouldn`t it be a great thing, the Irish version of Las Vegas right at our door step.

ShotOne
4th Nov 2018, 15:27
Standout fact was the shockingly small amount of money (£1700- £5800) the betting companies had to pay out in free tickets to have favourable questions asked on their behalf’s :Labour, Tory and SNP MPs United in shame on this.

Dutystude
4th Nov 2018, 15:30
Make gambling illegal and you will criminalise thousands of gamblers.

Then what?

tdracer
4th Nov 2018, 20:46
Banning gambling is about as practical as banning sex.
Quite right. Banning things seldom works (alcohol consumption in the US didn't drop during prohibition, but crime skyrocketed). Making it illegal simply pushes it back underground and makes criminals rich. Better legal with some controls and regulations.
That being said, I do question the wisdom of government run gambling (e.g. state lotteries). As radeng wrote, state lotteries are basically a tax on people who are poor at math, a tax that falls disproportionately on those who can least afford it.
I'm against the concept of the 'nanny state' - where the government is constantly deciding what people should and shouldn't do (especially when it comes to food and drink). But I also don't believe the government should be actively promoting self destructive behavior.

bafanguy
4th Nov 2018, 21:06
...I do question the wisdom of government run gambling (e.g. state lotteries). As radeng wrote, state lotteries are basically a tax on people who are poor at math, a tax that falls disproportionately on those who can least afford it.

I suppose but these are the same people who have the free will to make a rational decision not to participate based on their individual circumstances. You know, exercise some maturity and self control ?

It doesn't take advanced degrees in math to know that odds of 300 million to one aren't all that much in one's favor.

If one looks for at least a minimal value from a lottery, some of the money goes into education (I think it's around 25% in our state). At least it's money handed over voluntarily vs confiscated by the force and police power of government. Got to look for silver linings where you can find 'em. :ok:

tdracer
4th Nov 2018, 21:20
If one looks for at least a minimal value from a lottery, some of the money goes into education (I think it's around 25% in our state). At least it's money handed over voluntarily vs confiscated by the force and police power of government. Got to look for silver linings where you can find 'em. :ok:

They use that same rational in Washington state - but the reality is they spend on education what they spend on education - the lottery money just means they can spend some of the general fund on something else, it doesn't increase the amount of money that goes to education.

I know many of the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum are there because they consistently make poor decisions (such as dumping a large portion of their meager income into the lottery). The government can't stop people from making poor decisions. I just don't the government should be encouraging it.

bafanguy
4th Nov 2018, 21:31
I'm not familiar with what other states do with lottery money but it's pretty specific here. In any event, people are responsible for the decisions they make. I recall the John Wayne quote...something like life is tough...it's tougher if you're stupid ?:

https://www.galottery.com/en-us/benefitting-georgia/where-the-money-goes.html

bafanguy
4th Nov 2018, 22:08
I know many of the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum are there because they consistently make poor decisions (such as dumping a large portion of their meager income into the lottery)

I don't have any data on that but it's a common statement made against the idea of a lottery.

Maybe it's like the allegation that many airline pilots can't afford to retire because they have so many ex-wives to support ? ;)

Show me the data.

tdracer
4th Nov 2018, 22:13
I don't know much about Georgia, but the question that you need to ask is:
Would the state spend that much less on education if the lottery went away?
In Washington state, the answer to that is an unequivocal NO. The state is obligated (by law in Washington) to fund 100% of "basic education" (the courts have dictated how much that works out to be, and in fact held the state in contempt last year for failing to provide that much money for education - resulting in a sizeable increase in state property taxes to adequately fund education). Best case, the lottery money has meant that the state doesn't need to increase other taxes to generate the needed funds.
In other words, at least in Washington state, the lottery money simply contributes to the general fund and doesn't increase education spending one red cent - they need to spend that amount of money regardless. It's all a big lie to justify the state sanctioned gambling.

tdracer
4th Nov 2018, 22:20
I don't have any data on that but it's a common statement made against the idea of a lottery.

Maybe it's like the allegation that many airline pilots can't afford to retire because they have so many ex-wives to support ? ;)

Show me the data.

Are you seriously going to argue that there are no problem gamblers out there? People who gamble (and loose) more than they can afford to and suffer serious economic problems as a result?
Really?
Now, most of those people are going to gamble regardless of what the government does, but I don't believe the government should be contributing to their problem.

DaveReidUK
4th Nov 2018, 22:23
The state is obligated (by law in Washington) to fund 100% of "basic education" (the courts have dictated how much that works out to be, and in fact held the state in contempt last year for failing to provide that much money for education - resulting in a sizeable increase in state property taxes to adequately fund education). Best case, the lottery money has meant that the state doesn't need to increase other taxes to generate the needed funds.

Given that any lottery is basically a tax on the stupid, it's a pity the revenue isn't being spent on education. :O

bafanguy
4th Nov 2018, 23:26
Are you seriously going to argue that there are no problem gamblers out there? People who gamble (and loose) more than they can afford to and suffer serious economic problems as a result?

I argued nothing of the sort. Show me where I did. Straw man statement.

The government is NOT responsible for the poor life choices of the dumb masses. But, of course, the dumb masses certainly want the nanny state to mop up their mess...and the nanny state hopes to do exactly that.

I don't know anything about Washington State...nor do I care to know.

Individual responsibility and accountability are not part of the liberal playbook.

tdracer
5th Nov 2018, 01:11
I argued nothing of the sort. Show me where I did. Straw man statement.

No, but you implied it when you responded to my statement that some people spend a significant portion of their income on the lottery with:
I don't have any data on that but it's a common statement made against the idea of a lottery.
Listen, I'm far from a liberal and I definitely think people need to be accountable for their actions. I just question the wisdom of our government helping enable some people's self destructive behavior.
I have the same problem with the local idiots on the Seattle City Council who want to provide addicts with free drugs and 'safe' places to shoot up.

bafanguy
5th Nov 2018, 08:54
There will always be people who abuse any facet of life one can name. Whether a particular bad habit by a segment of the population rises to the level of a societal problem requiring intervention by the kakistocracy is a separate issue. So, one would have to see the data on whether they are "...dumping a large portion of their meager income into the lottery..." (by their own free will) to know. That's a long way from denying such behaviors exist.

Here's a behavior requiring then intervention of responsible government. If WE are going to pay these for existing then WE get to demand they spend OUR money for the purpose intended:

"Legislators to welfare recipients: If you want to buy alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, tattoos or adult movies, that's your business. But if you pay for them with a debit card funded by taxpayers, that's our business -- and we're cutting you off. "


https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/debit-limits-welfare-tobacco-alcohol-tanf-ebt-snap-1282.php

ATNotts
5th Nov 2018, 09:15
In UK gambling has been embedded in our society for decades, whether it be through bingo halls, horse racing, amusement arcades, and now the rise of online gambling. The first three in that list generally required players to have physical money burning holes in player's pockets; the insidious rise of online gambling has allowed people to set up accounts with the gambling businesses who then further try and entice the already hooked further in with the spurious offers of "free bets". Of course you can always "bet responsibly" (by not betting at all!!) but the hooked can't do that - they are addicted to the dream of winning their way out of financial hardship - it never occurs to them that the company their gambling with makes a profit, and that that profit comes from their addiction.

Banning gambling is laughable; it wouldn't work. However banning sports sponsorship by gambling companies, and limiting the number of gambling adverts allowed on TV in any one hour period as well as banning all TV gambling ads before 21:00 is doable, and desirable. The downside for sports is that they would need to find new methods of raising revenue, but that would be no bad thing. Snooker and Darts (both controlled by the Hearn empire) can't see further than the next betting company for their tournament sponsors, but as with tobacco sponsorship, other businesses are out there if they actually look for them.

Groundgripper
5th Nov 2018, 16:29
banning all TV gambling ads before 21:00 is doable, and desirable

21:00? That early?

Sitting in one of our local pubs at 22:00 or later and seeing the number of small chidren still running around at that time while they or their parents are eating and being subjected to 4 or more TV sceens all showing Sky Sports TV and the associated adverts every few minutes, I'd think 23:00 would be a more appropriate time to start showing betting promotions.

GG.

racedo
5th Nov 2018, 18:38
21:00? That early?

Sitting in one of our local pubs at 22:00 or later and seeing the number of small chidren still running around at that time while they or their parents are eating and being subjected to 4 or more TV sceens all showing Sky Sports TV and the associated adverts every few minutes, I'd think 23:00 would be a more appropriate time to start showing betting promotions.

GG.

Few pubs I know serve food beyond 10pm, most have cut off at 9pm.