# Pokies the Moral Backbone of the Eastern States of Australia



## IFocus (10 October 2011)

Its been fascinating watching the political conversation about the pokie pre-commitment  laws being put up by Andrew Wilkie.

The whole game is corrupt given 40% of the profits come from problem gamblers.

Yet listen to the clubs and the world will end.

WA doesn't have pokies outside of the Casino and we seem to get on just fine.

Are the Eastern States of Australia so morally bankrupt and corrupt that they just believe anything that money tells them?


----------



## drsmith (10 October 2011)

*Re: Pokies the Moral Back Bone of the Eastern States of Australia*



IFocus said:


> Are the Eastern States of Australia so morally bankrupt and corrupt that they just believe anything that money tells them?



Is Julia Gillard so morally bankrupt and corrupt that she believes anything Andrew Wilkie tells her ?,

and Bob Brown ?,

and Tony Windsor ?,

and Rob Oakshott ?,

and the Malaysian Government ?,

obviously not Kevin Rudd.


----------



## McLovin (11 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Yet listen to the clubs and the world will end.




Their world will end. Still, it's great watching them mount an argument about why you should steal from Peter to pay Paul (or give him cheap beers, as the case may be).


----------



## So_Cynical (11 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its been fascinating watching the political conversation about the pokie pre-commitment  laws being put up by Andrew Wilkie.
> 
> The whole game is corrupt given 40% of the profits come from problem gamblers.
> 
> ...




In NSW the clubs are just great...when i haven't lived in NSW ive really missed the clubs, cheap food, free wifi, free buses, free/cheap entertainment free or cheap as, this and that....ya just don't get that anywhere else, and the pokies pay for that.

While i agree something needs to be done to help the problem gamblers..i also don't want to lose our wonderful clubs...on a typical Sunday at my local club there will be 60 or so pokie/video poker/blackjack/roulette players, 20 or so people and groups on laptops surfing and or Skypeing with family and friends, 30 or so eating and or drinking gourmet coffee.

20 or so people playing pool/billiards in the 6 table free billiard room, a dozen horse and sport punters watching the big screens..and maybe 15 or 20 people chatting and having a drink relaxing on the lounges, some groups playing cards and other board games....scenes you will never ever see in a pub in WA.


----------



## LostMyShirt (11 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> In NSW the clubs are just great...when i haven't lived in NSW ive really missed the clubs, cheap food, free wifi, free buses, free/cheap entertainment free or cheap as, this and that....ya just don't get that anywhere else, and the pokies pay for that.
> 
> While i agree something needs to be done to help the problem gamblers..i also don't want to lose our wonderful clubs...on a typical Sunday at my local club there will be 60 or so pokie/video poker/blackjack/roulette players, 20 or so people and groups on laptops surfing and or Skypeing with family and friends, 20 or so eating and or drinking gourmet coffee.
> 
> 20 or so people playing pool/billiards in the 6 table free billiard room, a dozen horse and sport punters watching the big screens..and maybe 15 or 20 people chatting and having a drink relaxing on the lounges, some groups playing cards and other board games....scenes you will never ever see in a pub in WA.




Mate I couldn't agree with you more. It's all those things you mentioned which make the clubs great and while I agree problem gamblers do need some help - this nanny state style of regulation on neary all aspects of social habit and hobby is rediculous.


----------



## moXJO (11 October 2011)

The clubs also support a lot of local sporting activities, support for pensioners, and fundraising events. I don't like the idea that because of a few problem gamblers the whole population must now be affected. Awesome idea that communism


----------



## joea (11 October 2011)

Hi
Makes me wonder why yeah all have not realised that it will not stop with the Pokies.
 It will not stop the gamblers.  They can get access to a computer then play on line.
Races, and the Tab, etc, etc.

Gillard just needs  another demand from  another "boy wonder" or Independant, and watch how high she jumps. 
She has "sold her soul" for power, and soon she must pay the price.
joea


----------



## Surly (11 October 2011)

I enjoyed the cheap beer and food in the pokie riddled pubs of the east but I found it like walking into some sort of flashing lights and bells zombieland.

I couldn't care less if someone wants to subsidise my night out but the clubs really need to put up a better argument if they wish people to believe they aren't making great profits from problem gamblers.

Alcohol is free in Vegas as long as you are gambling. As long as you leave having spent what you intended (or everything) how does it matter how they got it.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2011)

All these bothering anti pokies folk remind me of priests trying to legislate against sex outside of marriage. People have been gambling since well before Roman times. 

One of my ancestors was a whiz in London at pall mall, and accumulated a small fortune  with the dice, before he became over-excited with the mallet and was transported. 

Next they will want to ban share trading.

gg


----------



## Logique (11 October 2011)

For the grey generation, clubs are their whole world. They live for it. Around here the clubs have free courtesy buses, they'll pick you up and drop you right to the door.

Not my idea of a vibrant lifestyle, but for a lot of people that's their weekly outing and socializing, heading off the the Friday night meat raffle at the club. 

'Club world' is incredibly pervasive, but look at the benefits as summarized by So Cynical above.

Clubs are very influential in forming opinions, supplied to members on the club noticeboard. That's why Andrew Wilkie and the Govt are riding for a fall with these proposed restrictions.


----------



## Logique (11 October 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ...Next they will want to ban share trading.
> gg



Or more likely with this govt, licence it. One would need to be a fit and proper person. And believe in global warming. And not be a reader of 'hate media'.


----------



## Julia (11 October 2011)

moXJO said:


> The clubs also support a lot of local sporting activities, support for pensioners, and fundraising events. I don't like the idea that because of a few problem gamblers the whole population must now be affected. Awesome idea that communism






joea said:


> Hi
> Makes me wonder why yeah all have not realised that it will not stop with the Pokies.
> It will not stop the gamblers.  They can get access to a computer then play on line.
> Races, and the Tab, etc, etc.



Agree.  Being obliged to state how much money they are prepared to lose in a sitting (and it can be as high as they like) will not make an iota of difference to a gambling addict.  Plenty of other options if they don't want to do this.
Just a pathetic example of a single-issue politician exercising his power over a minority government.



Logique said:


> Or more likely with this govt, licence it. One would need to be a fit and proper person. And believe in global warming. And not be a reader of 'hate media'.



  So true.


----------



## Bryan1 (11 October 2011)

As I grew up in NSW I also grewup with pokies and soon saw what they were doing to alot of people. When I moved to SA the place was just hit with the run on the state bank BUT NO POKIES. A few years later the hotel mob bribed the govt to allow pokies in the state BUT unlike the eastern states where the money goes back into the community in SA the the money goes directly into the pub owners pockets. Now people will say pokies don't hurt the economy but in the first 9 months of the inception in SA 1 billion was taken out of the pockets of punters. That figure has said to be double or more these days and where is it all going yea some goes in tax but the bulk goes into the pub owners pockets.........


----------



## moXJO (12 October 2011)

Bryan1 said:


> That figure has said to be double or more these days and where is it all going yea some goes in tax but the bulk goes into the pub owners pockets.........




Most goes as tax. My mate owned a few pubs a couple of years back and for every 3 machines 2 were for tax and the other was in his pocket.


----------



## Bill M (12 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> In NSW the clubs are just great...when i haven't lived in NSW ive really missed the clubs, cheap food, free wifi, free buses, free/cheap entertainment free or cheap as, this and that....ya just don't get that anywhere else, and the pokies pay for that.
> 
> While i agree something needs to be done to help the problem gamblers..i also don't want to lose our wonderful clubs...on a typical Sunday at my local club there will be 60 or so pokie/video poker/blackjack/roulette players, 20 or so people and groups on laptops surfing and or Skypeing with family and friends, 30 or so eating and or drinking gourmet coffee.
> 
> 20 or so people playing pool/billiards in the 6 table free billiard room, a dozen horse and sport punters watching the big screens..and maybe 15 or 20 people chatting and having a drink relaxing on the lounges, some groups playing cards and other board games....scenes you will never ever see in a pub in WA.




Couldn't agree with you more. I have knocked around the Manly Warringah area most of my life so I know a thing or 2 about pubs and clubs. Clubs like the Harbord Diggers and Dee Why RSL are mega clubs. They have everything from lawn bowls, Ten Pin Bowling, Darts, full gym, full on cabaret shows etc etc. People love them not just for the pokies. Sometimes I take a 2 hour hard walk and feel a bit thirsty so I drop into one of my clubs and walk up to the bar and help myself to a free cold glass of water and watch the big screen TV for a while. Then when I have rehydrated I continue on my walk. Try helping yourself in a pub and see what happens. Clubs are also far safer than the average pub and have better staff.

These clubs also give a lot of support and help to our ex servicemen. They also donate lots of money to surf clubs and donate state of the art medical machinery to our local public hospitals (something the pathetic state governments should be doing). The profits made from pokies pays for all that, I am proud to be member of my RSL clubs.

From one of my clubs website:
---
The club has continued to grow and today Dee Why RSL is proud to provide services to more than 40,000 members. *The importance of the clubs heritage is remembered daily through the recital of The Ode which plays every evening at 6.00pm.*

The Ode
_They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old,
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn,
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Lest we forget._

http://www.dyrsl.com.au/AboutUs/history.cfm
---

Mandatory pre commitment is a waste of time, won't achieve anything and will ultimately send small clubs out of business.


----------



## LostMyShirt (12 October 2011)

I have a question about the scheme; is there a maximum number you can nominate, or perhaps there is a waiting time or some sort of approval system in place or planned?

It just seems to me that upon being asked what our limits would be a common brush off answer would be something in the region of a rediculous number.


----------



## Bill M (12 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> I have a question about the scheme; is there a maximum number you can nominate, or perhaps there is a waiting time or some sort of approval system in place or planned?
> 
> It just seems to me that upon being asked what our limits would be a common brush off answer would be something in the region of a rediculous number.




There is no maximum as far as I know. The problem is social pokie players don't want to register on a government database so they will opt out.

The thing is the Government want the clubs to pay for the technical changes out of their funds and it will cost Millions of $$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## Nonchalant (12 October 2011)

Bryan1 said:


> As I grew up in NSW I also grewup with pokies and soon saw what they were doing to alot of people. When I moved to SA the place was just hit with the run on the state bank BUT NO POKIES. A few years later the hotel mob bribed the govt to allow pokies in the state BUT unlike the eastern states where the money goes back into the community in SA the the money goes directly into the pub owners pockets. Now people will say pokies don't hurt the economy but in the first 9 months of the inception in SA 1 billion was taken out of the pockets of punters. That figure has said to be double or more these days and where is it all going yea some goes in tax but the bulk goes into the pub owners pockets.........




Whilst I'm not au fait with the apportionment of revenue in SA, I am familiar with how it works in Vic. Here goes. 
NMR (net machine revenue) is what goes into an EGM less what gets paid out. 
Apportionment is as follows: Clubs - RSL and the like receive 33.3%. 
                                                           Vic govt receives. 33.3%
           Tabcorp or Tattersalls who own the machines receive. 33.3%

If you're a pub as opposed to a Club like the RSL, you receive 25% instead of the 33.3%. Reason being, the Vic govt has decreed that Clubs reinvest the income back into the club and therefore are providing a benefit to the community. Therefore, the 8.3% taken off pubs goes to the "Community Support Fund". Consequently, the govts share is increased to 41.6%. Not bad for not actually lifting a finger or laying capital on the line in order to make a profit!!!
There's approx 27000 EGM's in Vic. Pubs have 50% and Clubs have the remaing 50%. 
Last FY revenue from EGM's in Vic was 2.6billon plus. Vic govt revenue from pokies is approx 1billion. 

Rest assured Bryan1, the SA govt would not have introduced gaming machines into the state unless it received the lions share of profits.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 October 2011)

People wanting to play pokies should be required to provide documents outlining their past successes, R:R, expectancy, Sharpe ratio and maximum draw down.

Do you ever write something online and think: why did I write that.... it's not even funny?


----------



## tech/a (12 October 2011)

I personally play them now and again.

*My rule is $50 risked*.

If Im in profit I set a 50$ play limit so if its say $80 and it falls to $30 Im out.
If its $100 then Im at B/E.
$150-$100 etc etc.
If I lose the $50 I go.
If I win $300 (Including the $50) on any machine I cash out that machine and play another $ 50 on another.
I recieved some information that the most common max payout is $300.
Once I lose the $50 play limit win lose or draw---*Im gone*.

Overall I've lost $$s but have at times had some great wins that have been handy (I dont need to go to the hole in the wall for weeks!).

Ive NEVER lost a wink of sleep on a loss.
Ive never needed to play a pokie.
I CAN walk away have been as quick as 3 mins.

Ive watched others turn $1200 into a $1000 loss and carry on like their throats been cut!

If you can trade then I believe you can gamble responsibly in most anything.
I cant play poker!!
Only follow the Melbourne Cup Take out boxed trifectas around $500 (2 yrs ago won $7800 so that doesnt owe me anything --YET).
And am in a syndicate for lotto!


----------



## Tysonboss1 (12 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> In NSW the clubs are just great...when i haven't lived in NSW ive really missed the clubs, cheap food, free wifi, free buses, free/cheap entertainment free or cheap as, this and that....ya just don't get that anywhere else, and the pokies pay for that.
> 
> .




It's true, Every time we visit the inlaws on  the central coast we end up at one of the many great little clubs for a meal and some cheap beers. 

On topic though, One of the biggest clubs "Mingara" has loads and loads of pokies that are always busy, They help fund lots of local sports teams and also bail a few smaller clubs that tend to run losses. I can see how changes to the pokies law's will upset the apple cart for a while.

Hopefully the best clubs will survive, They are a good social outlet for the older crowd who are a bit tight on the budget,


----------



## LostMyShirt (12 October 2011)

I'm just glad that I'm a TAB punter so no regulation for me 

I like your management system Tech/a. It is very simple and locks in profits.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (12 October 2011)

Bill M said:


> There is no maximum as far as I know. The problem is social pokie players don't want to register on a government database so they will opt out.




True, I don't personally use the poker machines, But the majority of my friends that do usually do it on a spur of the moment, they just put in a lazy $5 or $10 on the way to the bar, I can't see them going and registering.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 October 2011)

tech/a said:


> Only follow the Melbourne Cup Take out boxed trifectas around $500 (2 yrs ago won $7800 so that doesnt owe me anything --YET).
> And am in a syndicate for lotto!



Gee whiz tech/a, I hope your trading profits become significant. The big lotto win could be a long way off and you might be still here in 10 years time..


----------



## Tysonboss1 (12 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> I'm just glad that I'm a TAB punter
> .




So they are the ones that got your shirt, Bastards


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 October 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> So they are the ones that got your shirt, Bastards



 Buy TTS!


----------



## derty (12 October 2011)

Pokies and Lotto are taxation devises for the stupid and vulnerable.

Sure some of the profits the pokies generate gets redistributed back into the community, but what percentage? Overall it will be a significant net loss to the community. Money that would otherwise end up in the retail and other sectors rather than siphoned into the pockets of a few. Granted some would find ways to gamble regardless, however it is the easy accessibility of the pokies that makes them such a successful gambling hook.

In towns/cities that have populations that can sustain a level of cultural diversification the obvious effect of pokies is limited. However in smaller centres the cheap pokie subsidised food and alcohol that clubs provide undercut and pushout restaurants and pubs. Mt Isa is a great example of this. WA does not have pokies in clubs and pubs and it seems to be doing fine without them.

I don't really understand why people are so up in arms at the pre-commitment legislation. If 40% or more of revenue raised by pokies is from problem gamblers then surely a method that can keep a portion of this in some of these problem gamblers pockets is worth a shot?  

Have a read of some of the comments posted here: http://www.problemgambling.vic.gov.au/main/taking-control/playing-pokies


----------



## Julia (12 October 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> People wanting to play pokies should be required to provide documents outlining their past successes, R:R, expectancy, Sharpe ratio and maximum draw down.
> 
> Do you ever write something online and think: why did I write that.... it's not even funny?



Well, I thought it was funny, GB.


----------



## tech/a (13 October 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Gee whiz tech/a, I hope your trading profits become significant. The big lotto win could be a long way off and you might be still here in 10 years time..




Thanks for your concern.
Thank god I have a bit of luck with Chook Raffles.


----------



## IFocus (27 October 2011)

Great article by Tim Costello

No discussion about cheep meals and beers

Abbott turns his back on problem gamblers



> *John Howard admitted in 1999 that he was ashamed of pokies. *This week Tony Abbott ignored his mentor's view and more than a decade of research into the reforms needed to address problem gambling.








> The current debate around pokies reform is not about the choice to have a punt. It's about protecting families from the pain that comes with the addiction to poker machines.






> After a decade of research and a comprehensive report by the Productivity Commission, *we know the answers to address why 40 per cent of all profits come from problem gambling.* We don't need another political debate. We just need to put those most vulnerable in our society first, and deliver poker machine reform because it affects all of us. *After illicit drugs, pokies are the second greatest contributor to crime.*







> > Some 86 per cent of problem gambling in Australia is from pokies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What about those myths



> In Western Australia, the absence of pokies has not resulted in an increase in online gambling. In fact, WA has mainland Australia's highest recreation and sports participation rates.




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3602514.html


----------



## JTLP (27 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Great article by Tim Costello
> 
> No discussion about cheep meals and beers
> 
> ...




As soon as I read "Tim Costello" I tuned out. That trumpet blowing, egotistical, high and mighty goose doesn't deserve a minute of my time.


----------



## Macquack (27 October 2011)

JTLP said:


> As soon as I read "*Tim Costello*" I tuned out. That trumpet blowing, egotistical, high and mighty goose doesn't deserve a minute of my time.




I think you are confusing Tim Costello with his brother Peter Costello, in which case your comments are correct.


----------



## JTLP (27 October 2011)

Macquack said:


> I think you are confusing Tim Costello with his brother Peter Costello, in which case your comments are correct.




Nope - know exactly who I am talking about - World Vision etc etc.

I rate Peter Costello (so do 99% of the population). If he was in power now Australia would be a lot "luckier"


----------



## IFocus (27 October 2011)

JTLP said:


> As soon as I read "Tim Costello" I tuned out. That trumpet blowing, egotistical, high and mighty goose doesn't deserve a minute of my time.




Not sure where you are coming from given Tim Costello has spent a live time being an advocate for the poor, starving and disadvantaged often against the establishment.


----------



## IFocus (27 October 2011)

JTLP said:


> I rate Peter Costello (so do 99% of the population). If he was in power now Australia would be a lot "luckier"




Pete didn't have the backing of the faceless men in the Liberal Party like Abbott hence he couldn't roll Howard i.e. the party insiders didn't rate him highly.

Keating summed Howard and Costello correctly as a couple of mugs who got lucky with a high growth economy resulting from world events.

If you compare Australia's prosperity at the time with other OECD countries you will see the same economic growth no matter which side of the political spectrum was running the show.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Great article by Tim Costello
> Abbott turns his back on problem gamblers



How silly to describe Abbott's stand like this.
Can you provide proof that mandatory limits will eliminate problem gambling?
No one else has.  Further, the proponents of this policy refuse to undertake a trial of the suggested policy.

Why?  If they are so confident it will work, they have nothing to fear from demonstrating it before gazillions are spent in changing the machines.

What Tony Abbott actually said is that such a policy will not fix problem gambling.
I agree.  I spent some considerable time facilitating a group of pokie addicts and as a result have a considerable insight into what motivates them and what doesn't.
Absolutely no indication that any mandatory commitment would do anything for them except make them laugh.

If you can criticise Tony Abbott's suggestion that individual gamblers would much more benefit from individual counselling in order to help them understand where the motivation to gamble came from and thence how to cope with it from a point of view of knowledge and experience, by all means do this.
But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to, so maybe just hold off on the mindless criticism.

The proposed policy exists purely because one Andrew Wilkie demanded it as a condition of allowing Gillard to govern.  Absolutely not because of any conviction on Gillard's part on the issue, as is entirely obvious every time she talks about it.




JTLP said:


> Nope - know exactly who I am talking about - World Vision etc etc.
> 
> I rate Peter Costello (so do 99% of the population). If he was in power now Australia would be a lot "luckier"



Couldn't agree more.



IFocus said:


> Not sure where you are coming from given Tim Costello has spent a live time being an advocate for the poor, starving and disadvantaged often against the establishment.



 Well, whoop de do.  I'm all for people who care about the disadvantaged, but Tim Costello lacks the capacity to apply an objective view about most of what he goes on about.  Couldn't be more different from his brother.


----------



## lindsayf (28 October 2011)

quoting Julia

_"If you can criticise Tony Abbott's suggestion that individual gamblers would much more benefit from individual counselling in order to help them understand where the motivation to gamble came from and thence how to cope with it from a point of view of knowledge and experience, by all means do this.
But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to, so maybe just hold off on the mindless criticism."_

I think this can be challenged on a couple of fronts.  Problem Gamblers are well known for their low presentation rates at counselling services.  A lot of existing services are far from capacity - but this is not a good measure of the extent of the problem to say the least.  Counselling  is effective but only for those who present and who are seriously wanting change.

Knowing this ( which Abbott would) - To then argue for more counselling services etc etc is the most conservative position to take and is basically saying 'let us accept the status quo'.  This is of course what the club lobby wants and anyone else who has vested interests in the revenue generated by problem gamblers.

I dont think anyone expects MPC to 'eliminate' problem gambling - thats an absurd idea - but if it reduces the harm done to a percentage of PG's and their families then it might be part of a range of steps that could be taken if the status quo is to be challenged - and if the clubs etc are one day wanting to be able to say 'we did something meaningful to address problem gambling and to reduce our dependence on the revenue generated by PG's'

I am not pulling this out of my ****...I have worked in the industry.

Lindsay


----------



## IFocus (28 October 2011)

Staying with the big picture Pokies the Moral Backbone of having a cheap meal and beer Barrie Cassidy asks the obvious



> Whoever wins the argument, at least some fundamental questions are now being asked around the issue – the most relevant – *how is it that some licensed clubs and even entire sports are apparently viable only off the back of problem gamblers?* *How did it come to that in this country*, and can anything be done to reduce that dependency?





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-28/cassidy-feeling-the-heat-on-pokies-reform/3604504


----------



## Julia (28 October 2011)

lindsayf said:


> I think this can be challenged on a couple of fronts.  Problem Gamblers are well known for their low presentation rates at counselling services.  A lot of existing services are far from capacity - but this is not a good measure of the extent of the problem to say the least.  Counselling  is effective but only for those who present and who are seriously wanting change.



Certainly.  This applies to anyone wanting to change any behaviour.
And the same would apply to setting mandatory commitment limits on the same principle.




> Knowing this ( which Abbott would) - To then argue for more counselling services etc etc is the most conservative position to take and is basically saying 'let us accept the status quo'.  This is of course what the club lobby wants and anyone else who has vested interests in the revenue generated by problem gamblers.



Agreed.  Liberals believe in people taking responsibility for themselves, rather than the nanny state.




> I dont think anyone expects MPC to 'eliminate' problem gambling - thats an absurd idea - but if it reduces the harm done to a percentage of PG's



That's the point:  we don't know if it will work or not, so why not accept the proposal for a trial before forcing a national alteration of machines or whatever is involved.

I get what you're saying, Lindsay.  I don't particularly care about the issue and am just disgusted that it's happening on a purely political basis, i.e. the Labor Party would have had no interest in anything like this had Wilkie not made it a condition of their getting government.


----------



## lindsayf (28 October 2011)

I also dont like how the topic has got onto the political agenda..but here it is.  So the club lobby and various parties can grimly defend the status quo or take the opportunity to do something different that could address some of the damage being done and the ethically flawed dependence on PG revenue.

I think the local trial idea has a lot of merit too.  There isnt a strong case against it other than from those who have decided that MPC has been proven elsewhere to have a beneficial effect.  If a trial is to occur though it really needs to be watertight from a methodological pov so that any results cant be overly spun by vested interest groups.  Otherwise it would just be a waste of time and money and result in no change - and I suspect the club lobby would be taking every opportunity to influence the result in this way.


----------



## Calliope (28 October 2011)

Talking about "moral backbone," there must be problem fornicators too. Perhaps Wilkie and Xenophon should lobby to limit the amount of money that can be spent on each visit to the brothel or the steambath. Perhaps 5 bucks per entry?


----------



## IFocus (28 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Talking about "moral backbone," there must be problem fornicators too. Perhaps Wilkie and Xenophon should lobby to limit the amount of money that can be spent on each visit to the brothel or the steambath. Perhaps 5 bucks per entry?




Since each club and pub have mini casinos with pokies go the whole hog Just attach a brothel to each club / pug, then we can have permanent 1/2 price meals and beer. 

As for if pre-commitment would work or not given the resistance by vested interests and their own studies it seems it would have a major impact.

The number that I find amazing is 40% of profit comes from problem gamblers, the damage that must be doing is mind boggling.


----------



## moXJO (28 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Since each club and pub have mini casinos with pokies go the whole hog Just attach a brothel to each club / pug, then we can have permanent 1/2 price meals and beer.
> 
> .




Labor members wouldn't leave


----------



## JTLP (28 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Not sure where you are coming from given Tim Costello has spent a live time being an advocate for the poor, starving and disadvantaged often against the establishment.




Julia summed it up nicely for me. I don't like people ramming these messages down my throat like they're sitting on some sort of golden throne. Les Twentyman is another one that springs to mind - but still despise Tim Costello more. 

I've always pondered why we don't fix what's wrong in our backyard first? You can have a 'World Vision' but you may find your own inhabitants fall into that 'Vision' - now or in years to come.



Julia said:


> How silly to describe Abbott's stand like this.
> Can you provide proof that mandatory limits will eliminate problem gambling?
> No one else has.  Further, the proponents of this policy refuse to undertake a trial of the suggested policy.
> 
> ...




Pretty much everything you say I agree on. I may be a little right in my views and you seem a lot more balanced - but kudos for you for always hitting the right chord with me! Please continue Julia - love your objectivity and balance


----------



## JTLP (28 October 2011)

I think what needs to be sorted in this thread is 2 things.
1 - Nobody is denying that problem gamblers need help - nobody likes seeing people and their families livelihoods destroyed. The figures are quite high (if fact) from problem gamblers contributions to profits.

2 - The approach to deal with the issue is the contentious part. Gillard sold the Labor soul a long time ago for a moments glory - and now is paying the price by being held to a kings ransom by an 'independent'. I severely doubt that she believes Wilkie's policy has any merit - but she'd rather choke on her beliefs than stand true and potentially bring about the government's early demise.

Individual counselling may be appealing to the status quo but at least it is a tailored approach. How is filling out a form going to stop the problem gambler from going from venue to venue? Venue to internet? Internet to TAB? And who is to say that clubs won't let them "slip through" and play on because it's their local favourite "Jim" who tips a few extra into the coffers? I'm sure they'd be happy to feed him for free if he kept throwing money down.

I think people have a subconscious thought to help people going through counselling - as it appears the person is trying to beat their problem and outsiders want to provide support - sort of a win win to see the person pull through and knowing if you played a part you've managed to make a life better. A form just creates red tape and moves people from one gambling mechanic to another.


----------



## Logique (29 October 2011)

Yes fine words. 

Prohibition didn't stop people drinking, but did encourage organized crime. Registered clubs at least keep the money in circulation (read taxable) and away from the black economy.

In the Australia of 2011, whatever the issue, it seems to demand a big government, expensive nanny state response, a lawyers picnic of new regulations, and quite often extra taxes. 

Education and support is the answer, not monstering people, or clubs.


----------



## IFocus (29 October 2011)

Cut pasted relevant parts of Tim Costello's article if any one can dispute his claims feel free to do so coming from WA I just find it mind boggling how people argue the political debate rather than the issue.

Abbott has chosen to fill this space with his predict BS statement.



> After a decade of research and a comprehensive report by the Productivity Commission, we know the answers to address why *40 per* cent of all profits come from problem gambling.






> After illicit drugs, pokies are the second greatest contributor to crime.






> Some *86 per cent* of problem gambling in Australia is from pokies.






> *Australia has the highest loss machines in the world* - it is possible to lose over $1,200 an hour on modern machines.






> The 2008 Productivity Commission into gambling estimated that problem gamblers lose an average of $21,000 a year gambling - and that the social cost of problem gambling is at least $4.7 billion per year.






> Supporters of pokies reform are not interested in stopping people enjoying recreational gambling. *The reforms currently proposed will barely impact on the majority of players.*






> While you may have missed it in the clubs' misinformation campaign, the *Wilkie scheme does not require pre-commitment for lower loss machines,* which have maximum bets of $1 per spin and have an average hourly loss of $120 and consequently do less damage.






> Mandatory pre-commitment will only apply to those high-loss machines that are causing the most damage.





> In Western Australia, the absence of pokies has not resulted in an increase in online gambling





> In fact, *WA has mainland Australia's highest recreation and sports participation rates*. NSW in contrast has the lowest.





> only *2.7 per cent of pokie profits* go to supporting community and sporting groups.





> WA does not depend on exploiting weak and vulnerable people to achieve community activity.






> Mr Abbott's solution to this problem of "more counselling" is not supported by the evidence. The Productivity Commission found that *only 15 per cent of problem gamblers seek help. *





> The recent polling of public support for pokies reform is encouraging. The *more than 60 per cent public support*, despite a $20 million misinformation campaign by Clubs Australia, shows that Australians know vested interest when they see it.


----------



## Logique (4 November 2011)

Mandatory pre-commitment doesn't go far enough. 

How many times at the supermarket do we have two items in mind, but return with ten? Or, money burning a hole in our pockets, shop for a new car, or to buy a house, or sign up for a mobile phone account or electricity provider. Or shop at an online retailer, buy petrol at a service station.

No quite right of Mr Wilkie, we must be protected from our spendthrift ways by the government. 

Once shown to work up at the club, mandatory pre-commitment could be expanded to cover all of our spending habits. Don't know how we managed before, without the government to protect us like this.


----------



## IFocus (5 March 2012)

I am sure most here would'nt dare read the Drum as clearly its all a left wing conspiracy but this article by Tom Cummings is revealing for those that think pokies is just a social night out.

Worth a read from an insiders view rather than those from the outside that really know nothing.


BTW went to the Perth casino Friday night fascinating watching the zombie like pokie players..............



> No, my point is that the idea that gambling problems are a choice is nonsensical. You don't choose the addiction; it chooses you.







> It's no secret that I have a history with poker machines, that my drive for reform is founded on my own experience of addiction... but I haven't played in years. Surely my story is proof that people make their own choices, control their own destiny?
> 
> Let me tell you something about that.
> 
> ...





http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3867720.html


----------



## basilio (5 March 2012)

Tom Cummings writings offer an excellent insight the way poker machines systematically  strip people of all their money/

One thoughtful piece follows the progress of "Gladys"  a pensioner as she slowly burns her way through her pension cheque over a single day.

And she plays her 2c machine  slowly and carefully...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2733166.html


----------



## McLovin (5 March 2012)

basilio said:


> Tom Cummings writings offer an excellent insight the way poker machines systematically  strip people of all their money/




But at least once they've blown their cash they can get cheap food and drinks. It's about "giving back to the community".


----------



## dutchie (5 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> But at least once they've blown their cash they can get cheap food and drinks. It's about "giving back to the community".




Unfortunately its the people who don't play the pokies who get the cheap food, drinks and sports. The gamblers subsidise the non-gamblers (more fool them, I suppose).

The ones who have "blown their cash" don't have money to buy food no matter how cheap it is. The cost eventually goes back to the tax-payer.


----------



## basilio (5 March 2012)

dutchie said:


> Unfortunately its the people who don't play the pokies who get the cheap food, drinks and sports. The gamblers subsidise the non-gamblers (more fool them, I suppose).
> 
> The ones who have "blown their cash" don't have money to buy food no matter how cheap it is. The cost eventually goes back to the tax-payer.




I think Mclovin had has tongue firmly in his cheek with his observation about cheap food.

It all reminds of the sayings  Mexican bandits had about the peasants they routinely raided.
_"God would not have made them sheep if they were not meant to be shorn _" *

Actually the bandits did have some sense of the long term sustainability of their raids.

1) They never totally devastated the villages. They always left enough behind to ensure survival, revival  and future pickings
2) They rotated their raids  to fit in with the first premise.

This of course doesn't happen with the modern bandits who manage to strip addicts of everything they, their families, their businesses possess. So the modern bandits need to have fresh addicts every year to feed their profits and offerings of cheap food to the community.

Ahh thats progress..


----------



## Julia (5 March 2012)

> It's no secret that I have a history with poker machines, that my drive for reform is founded on my own experience of addiction... but I haven't played in years. Surely my story is proof that people make their own choices, control their own destiny?
> 
> Let me tell you something about that.
> 
> ...




If it's the dreaded machines that are totally to blame for this person's addiction, why are all the other thousands of people who play them recreationally not also addicted?
Pretty silly, imo, to be blaming a machine for a personality trait or psychological difficulty.

(The above should not imply that I like anything about these machines.  I find them breathtakingly boring, but I don't think they should be blamed for causing addiction.)


----------



## moXJO (5 March 2012)

IFocus said:


> I am sure most here would'nt dare read the Drum as clearly its all a left wing conspiracy but this article by Tom Cummings is revealing for those that think pokies is just a social night out.
> 
> Worth a read from an insiders view rather than those from the outside that really know nothing.
> 
> ...




Sounds like a lot of "wah wah it’s the pokies fault I'm addicted" to me, there are multiple sources to get help from. But oh no let’s bring in the 'I'm stupid' act. Honestly, if you’re a grown ass man learn to deal with your $hit.


----------



## Bill M (5 March 2012)

moXJO said:


> Sounds like a lot of "wah wah it’s the pokies fault I'm addicted" to me, *there are multiple sources to get help from*. But oh no let’s bring in the 'I'm stupid' act. Honestly, if you’re a grown ass man learn to deal with your $hit.




I totally agree with you.

Some people become alcoholics, should we ban/regulate alcohol for everyone?
Some people drive cars recklessly and kill people, should we ban/regulate cars?
Some people abuse prescribed drugs, should prescribed drugs be banned/regulated?
Some Australians behave like total morons overseas, should we ban/regulate who can go overseas?

For Gods sake, people should take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others or machines. Boo hoo the machine made me do it, grow up.


----------



## pixel (5 March 2012)

Julia said:


> If it's the dreaded machines that are totally to blame for this person's addiction, why are all the other thousands of people who play them recreationally not also addicted?
> Pretty silly, imo, to be blaming a machine for a personality trait or psychological difficulty.
> 
> (The above should not imply that I like anything about these machines.  I find them breathtakingly boring, but I don't think they should be blamed for causing addiction.)



 I beg to differ, Julia:
The modern pokies are not simply "machines"; they're programmed to exploit people's desire for a better life. They're programmed to sell dreams - and take the sucker for every dollar he or she spends. And when today's money is gone, they (implicitly) say "come back tomorrow for another big chance!"

Being able to compare different countries' "cultures", I can categorically state that Australian's attitude to gambling is the most unhealthy and overpowering. Whether it's horses, scratchies, pokies - take your pick: The fact that it's always the little bloke gets fleeced and the shark taking the loot is well recognised, yet the little bloke still believes he's as "smart" as anybody and can beat the odds. Sadly, he doesn't even know what  the odds are, and if you try and explain to him basic statistics, he'll switch off and tell you about a mate who knew somebody whose friend's mother-in-law won fifty Grand on a $2 scratchie - so you're wrong and take your statistics and shove it...

Given that Western Australia is relatively free of pokies, I must say I prefer it the way. We may have a higher participation rate in Lotto, but at least we know our Lotteries Commission ploughs $Millions back into grass roots sport and what passes for "cultural events."
(But even there I'm beginning to get annoyed by the subliminal advertising seeking higher revenue by glorifying the Lotto Life, One Powerball, and - most poisonous - Internet gambling.)


----------



## IFocus (6 March 2012)

pixel said:


> Given that Western Australia is relatively free of pokies, I must say I prefer it the way. We may have a higher participation rate in Lotto, but at least we know our Lotteries Commission ploughs $Millions back into grass roots sport and what passes for "cultural events."
> (But even there I'm beginning to get annoyed by the subliminal advertising seeking higher revenue by glorifying the Lotto Life, One Powerball, and - most poisonous - Internet gambling.)




Yet to meet anyone from WA who isn't gob smacked at the intrusion / normalization of pokies into the general walks of life across the eastern states.

Thank fully both sides of politics here in WA oppose pokies.


----------



## IFocus (6 March 2012)

Blow Up The Pokies - The Whitlams

Great song more ways that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogj5ztTE0zw


----------



## MrBurns (6 March 2012)

Easy, don't issue any more machine licenses.

Have a reduction program of 10% per year for 5 years, that gets rid of half of them.

Take the board of Crown straight to jail, shut the place down and turn it into a backpackers hostel


----------



## saiter (6 March 2012)

Bill M said:


> I totally agree with you.
> 
> Some people become alcoholics, should we ban/regulate alcohol for everyone?




Ever heard of an RSA?


> Some people drive cars recklessly and kill people, should we ban/regulate cars?



Speed cameras, red light cameras, school zones etc.


> Some people abuse prescribed drugs, should prescribed drugs be banned/regulated?



I'm pretty sure the drugs you take are regulated by your GP/doctor, who is required by law to do so.


> Some Australians behave like total morons overseas, should we ban/regulate who can go overseas?



The country that they're visiting regulates this.


> For Gods sake, people should take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others or machines. Boo hoo the machine made me do it, grow up.




Eh. I don't care much for this attitude. It's the same "tough guy" attitude that people use when they're trying to belittle those suffering from depression. The fact is, addiction, whether it be to drugs or pokies, is a serious issue that is recognised by health professionals. Addicts don't have the willpower to stop playing all of a sudden - if they did, they wouldn't be addicted.


----------



## Julia (6 March 2012)

pixel said:


> I beg to differ, Julia:
> The modern pokies are not simply "machines"; they're programmed to exploit people's desire for a better life. They're programmed to sell dreams - and take the sucker for every dollar he or she spends. And when today's money is gone, they (implicitly) say "come back tomorrow for another big chance!"
> 
> Being able to compare different countries' "cultures", I can categorically state that Australian's attitude to gambling is the most unhealthy and overpowering. Whether it's horses, scratchies, pokies - take your pick: The fact that it's always the little bloke gets fleeced and the shark taking the loot is well recognised, yet the little bloke still believes he's as "smart" as anybody and can beat the odds. Sadly, he doesn't even know what  the odds are, and if you try and explain to him basic statistics, he'll switch off and tell you about a mate who knew somebody whose friend's mother-in-law won fifty Grand on a $2 scratchie - so you're wrong and take your statistics and shove it...



I don't disagree with you at all with regard to Australians' attitude to gambling (though I do hate generalising about a whole population).

However, you haven't at all addressed the point I was making which is:

"if it's the machine that is the problem, why does not everyone using them recreationally become addicted?"

Saiter:  you make a good point about the reality of addiction.  But removing the machines or access to them is not going to fundamentally address the reasons for the addiction.   Even sustained psychotherapy over a long period of time will often fail in addictive disorders.


----------



## basilio (6 March 2012)

> "if it's the machine that is the problem, why does not everyone using them recreationally become addicted?"
> 
> Saiter: you make a good point about the reality of addiction. But removing the machines or access to them is not going to fundamentally address the reasons for the addiction.  *Julia *




I think you are being a bit simplistic Julia.

Poker machines and the surroundings are designed to be addictive.  And they are obviously effective for many people. But most others recognise the dangers and can pull themselves out.

In the broader picture alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, other drugs of addiction can also enslave people.  

At some stage the question is raised as to the damage these addictions  will cause individuals and the rest of society. At some stage governments (our representatives) decide the damage done is too great and attempts to regulate or ban these very profitable businesses. Naturally the business owners do their best to stop this regulation with whatever story they can muster. (Freedom of the individual, nanny state, its just a game.., what about ..some other addiction)

The discussion about pokies is that it really is extremely effective at creating addictions and the associated misery. Because governments are also getting their cut from the pie they are conflicted with how they deal with the issues. 

___________________________________________________________________

Some of the best brains in the IT industry develop machines that can  seduce users into parting with  far more money than they ever intended. There is an excellent story in The New York Times that explores these skills

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/m...touch-screened-drew-carey.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Calliope (6 March 2012)

basilio said:


> In the broader picture alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, other drugs of addiction can also enslave people.




What about those who are addicted to preaching garbage.



> At some stage the question is raised as to the damage these addictions will cause individuals and the rest of society.




It bores them to death.


----------



## basilio (7 March 2012)

I thought the Chaser did a nice job on the poker machines story. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5SibfWVh5M&feature=player_embedded

But this one on the banning of Russian roulette was far funnier !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bv5ay7_278&feature=related


----------



## pixel (7 March 2012)

Julia said:


> I don't disagree with you at all with regard to Australians' attitude to gambling (though I do hate generalising about a whole population).
> 
> However, you haven't at all addressed the point I was making which is:
> 
> "if it's the machine that is the problem, why does not everyone using them recreationally become addicted?".



 No generalisation intended, Julia

And I don't think that attribute applies to what I said. I'm not suggesting the entire Australian population was addicted to gambling; my observation is more that of a general cavalier attitude "hey, it's fun and a great tradition; don't knock it just because some can't handle it." (something I sense even in your argument.)

I think basilio summed it up: The IT and Psych industry is spending an extraordinary amount of money and effort to exploit the vulnerable. And that doesn't sit well with my "moral backbone". Nor can I find any ethical justification to call that kind of activity "entertainment". 

As regards "generalisation", one final observation, if I may:
Through my involvement with underprivileged, mostly elderly people, I find indeed the incidence of "buying  the dream" a problem of staggering proportions. Pensioners, who don't have two nickels to rub together, go hungry because they "had to" buy that lotto systems ticket for $115. Sadly, the less privileged - socially, financially, educationally - they are, the greater the tendency to skewed priorities.


----------



## Bill M (7 March 2012)

saiter said:


> Ever heard of an RSA?



Doesn't work, we have far too much alcohol related violence in Australia, we see it on the news every night. I can drive into a bottle shop any day of the week and buy unlimited amounts of alcohol any time, so much for RSA.


> Speed cameras, red light cameras, school zones etc.




Doesn't work, as soon as people drive through them they plant their foot again. They are also dismantling them in some countries as they have been proven not to have any effect. Night after night we see stories of car crashes on TV, lives lost, yep that ones working too.



> I'm pretty sure the drugs you take are regulated by your GP/doctor, who is required by law to do so.



As I said people still abuse them, they take double/triple doses or use them to make their own cocktails. The Doctor prescribes them to be used as directed, the patient might have different ideas altogether.



> The country that they're visiting regulates this.



That's nonsense and you know it. If you don't have a criminal record in Australia then you can travel anywhere you like. I am absolutely disgusted with the way some of my countrymen behave overseas, so much so I don't even want it to be known where I come from.




> Eh. I don't care much for this attitude. It's the same "tough guy" attitude that people use when they're trying to belittle those suffering from depression. The fact is, addiction, whether it be to drugs or pokies, is a serious issue that is recognised by health professionals. Addicts don't have the willpower to stop playing all of a sudden - if they did, they wouldn't be addicted.



No "tough guy" here, I love everybody and belittle no one. What I get really upset about is more government intervention on my life. I gamble, I play the pokies once in a while, I bet on the horses. Why should I have any restrictions placed on me because of the few that can't control themselves? I am not an addict and it is my money after all and I have every right to enjoy it the way I want without any government interference.


----------



## MrBurns (7 March 2012)

Pokies are ok for recreation, but the industry doesn't make their money from the recreational player they make it from the addict.

If it was just recreational players there would be far less of them but no, they're everywhere.

They are aimed at people who will get hooked , thats their business model, charming isn't it.

If you doubt me take a stroll through Crown one day, take a packed lunch as it's a long walk from one end of the gaming room to the other, you will not see so many sad faces anywhere else in town.

Suck up the profits Crown shareholders and sleep well on the ruinied lives of your victims.

Cant stop it now, no one gets between the big end of town and a dollar.


----------



## basilio (7 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Pokies are ok for recreation, but the industry doesn't make their money from the recreational player they make it from the addict.
> 
> If it was just recreational players there would be far less of them but no, they're everywhere.
> 
> ...




Totally agree.

I think their earlier business model was selling (and addicting) opium to the Chinese and then starting a war because the Chinese government tried to stop it.


----------



## moXJO (7 March 2012)

saiter said:


> Eh. I don't care much for this attitude. It's the same "tough guy" attitude that people use when they're trying to belittle those suffering from depression. The fact is, addiction, whether it be to drugs or pokies, is a serious issue that is recognised by health professionals. Addicts don't have the willpower to stop playing all of a sudden - if they did, they wouldn't be addicted.



I've known plenty of addicts/ depression sufferers
The point was is that there is plenty of help available to addicts. Educating the public about warning signs/ help available would be preferable. Otherwise you have to knock the horse’s races, online gambling, poker matches, cfds all on the head as well.
How about registering and banning addicts. I'm sure that's too hard


----------



## Julia (7 March 2012)

Bill M said:


> As I said people still abuse them, they take double/triple doses or use them to make their own cocktails. The Doctor prescribes them to be used as directed, the patient might have different ideas altogether.



Yes.   In this case, it's not the drug that is of itself the problem, but rather the behaviour and psychological traits of the user.



> . What I get really upset about is more government intervention on my life.



This is the whole point of my objection also.   People need to be encouraged to take responsibility for making their own decisions.  The more governments interfere in the personal choices of individuals the more likely it is we will have a nation of zombies, no longer able to think for themselves because they have become accustomed to having their decisions made for them.

As long as you tell or suggest to people that they are incapable of making valid decisions, you are encouraging that mindset.  Treating Aboriginal people as victims is a good example.  If they were more often told that they had great dignity as a race, and the potential to achieve every bit as much as non-indigenous people, they would at least have a chance of adopting such a positive mindset instead of passively accepting that they are hopeless.

So, if governments effectively say to the population either:

1.  You are so hopeless at making the right choices about how you spend your money, we will step in and restrict your capacity to make those choices.  This is for your own good.

or

2.  A very small proportion of people who gamble have a psychological or psychiatric disorder which predisposes them to taking unreasonable and repeated risks with gambling on poker machines and to becoming addicted to using these devices.  Our solution to the problem of this minority is to regulate everyone who also uses these devices and who has no problem whatsoever with so doing.

It's like fluoridating our water supply.  Because the people who actually want to take fluoride or need to take it are too lazy or too irresponsible to buy fluoride tablets, the entire population is forced to consume a substance which many do not want in their bodies.   This is morally wrong.

Upshot:  their should be adequate taxpayer funded psychological assistance for all people with addictive disorders.
Then the government should get the hell out of people's private lives.


----------



## pixel (7 March 2012)

I'm as much for "small government" as anybody; but IMHO there is a wide gulf between regulating every citizen's life and the open slather of* laissez-faire,* which permits exploitation of the weak and endangers large sections of the Public.

There is also a wide gulf between enforcing traffic rules and limiting access to pokies. Or, if that's too far-fetched for your liking, compare cars versus jetskis and speedboats. Sure, they all can (and do) destroy lives. But it's the usefulness that makes a difference. Even the most responsible and careful driver can have a prang or even a fatal accident - but we accept that as the price Society has to pay for motorised traffic. Red light and speed cameras are only useless because they don't catch the hoons; they raise revenue from average drivers, who drive with the flow. The irresponsible few don't give a damn whether they lose their license: they just keep driving without. *That's the area where government needs to be more assertive.* 

If speedboats, jetskis and similar pleasure craft ruin lives, we're taking a far more serious view on the needless damage: One person's recreational enjoyment is no excuse for a swimmer's or cayaker's death or injury. Hence nobody can argue for unrestricted use of waterways.

Pokies, on the other hand, do not serve any useful purpose other than moving coins from the poor to the wealthy. Their "recreational" use is on a par with marijuana, coke, or other "recreational" drugs. Yes, include alcohol and tobacco as well. 
One solution: Regulate the sale of slot machines the way liquor stores are regulated. No drinking, smoking, snorting, gambling in public places; but what people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of Gov'mint's business.

As far as education and psychological assistance of those who need protection is concerned, that MIGHT work as an alternative solution. But I can't see why *everybody's* taxes should be spent on such programs. Make those, who profit and those, who get "recreational enjoyment" out of those devices, responsible for the costs of side effects. Car owners, boat owners, publicans... are all forced to take out liability insurance for damage their "enjoyment" may cause others. Let the family of a gambling addict be entitled to restitution and rehab of their loved one. Then I'd be all for it.


----------



## MrBurns (7 March 2012)

pixel said:


> I'm as much for "small government" as anybody; but IMHO there is a wide gulf between regulating every citizen's life and the open slather of* laissez-faire,* which permits exploitation of the weak and endangers large sections of the Public.
> .




Yes we are are a large mix of people, there has to be some retraints for the good of all, just need to be careful how they are applied.

We have plenty of laws now, you cant move your car 100 metres without being subject to multiple laws.

Stands to reason if there is something damaging society there needs to be retraints, like with drugs, excessive alcohol consumption, and increasingly with smoking and many other things.

No one's going to stop people gambling but the expoitation of a human weakness needs to be limited.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> No one's going to stop people gambling but the expoitation of a human weakness needs to be limited.




Beautifully put.


----------



## Julia (7 March 2012)

pixel said:


> I'm as much for "small government" as anybody; but IMHO there is a wide gulf between regulating every citizen's life and the open slather of* laissez-faire,* which permits exploitation of the weak and endangers large sections of the Public.



If you're going to carry that philosophy to its logical conclusion you would have to ban all advertising.  It exploits the weak and endangers large sections of the public.



> If speedboats, jetskis and similar pleasure craft ruin lives, we're taking a far more serious view on the needless damage: One person's recreational enjoyment is no excuse for a swimmer's or cayaker's death or injury. Hence nobody can argue for unrestricted use of waterways.



Agree entirely that we must have appropriate and enforceable laws for traffic whether on land or water.



> Pokies, on the other hand, do not serve any useful purpose other than moving coins from the poor to the wealthy. Their "recreational" use is on a par with marijuana, coke, or other "recreational" drugs. Yes, include alcohol and tobacco as well.
> One solution: Regulate the sale of slot machines the way liquor stores are regulated. No drinking, smoking, snorting, gambling in public places; but what people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of Gov'mint's business.



No drinking in public places?  You want to close down bars and restaurants?
Oh god, what next!

Hah!  The way the laws are going soon it will be a punishable offence for smokers to smoke in their homes.  In some states it's now against the law to smoke in your own car apparently.  
I hold no brief for tobacco companies but if a product is being legally sold for public consumption it's none of the government's business if someone wants to smoke in their own car.



> As far as education and psychological assistance of those who need protection is concerned, that MIGHT work as an alternative solution.



I didn't mention education.  There's more than enough 'education' out there already.  Addiction is a whole different matter.

You are still avoiding the issue of the assertion that it's the poker machines per se that cause the addictive disorder.
You are effectively saying, are you not, that if you and I are exposed to these machines for a sustained period of time, we will become addicted to playing them?
I'm damn sure I wouldn't and I believe you could equally say the same.
This is my point.

I am, however, tired if trying to make it so will leave you and others who regard the instrument involved in addiction as the essential problem to your beliefs.
I wonder how many of you have actually had close associations with addicts of any kind.  I suspect very few.


----------



## pixel (7 March 2012)

Julia said:


> I wonder how many of you have actually had close associations with addicts of any kind.  I suspect very few.



 I have, Julia;
with far too many, and far too close.

btw I don't blame the machine per se - that's just a computer and a colour screen.
But I do blame the intentional programming of these computers for the sole purpose of creating addiction *in as many people as possible.* Ask any designer of those programs what "recreational" value or pleasure they built in, and the only honest answer you'll get is either "none" or a reference to the facilitator's "pleasure" in an effortlessly increasing bank account.

They don't target *you* specifically; if they find you're too stong to succumb, they'll even want you to shove off and leave the seat to a more impre$$ionable $sucker.


----------



## MrBurns (8 March 2012)

Julia said:


> If you're going to carry that philosophy to its logical conclusion you would have to ban all advertising.  It exploits the weak and endangers large sections of the public.




Something tells me you enjoy the pokies Julia

No problem but I do despise those who engineer, within the law, a machine designed to feed an addiction.

I dont thing advertising comes under the same banner, there are supposed to be standards for ads but I dont see much implemetation of that.

You can have a better society if you weed out the parasites that seek to take money from the vulnerable.


----------



## Julia (8 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Something tells me you enjoy the pokies Julia



Good heavens, Burnsie, haven't I already made it clear that I regard them as mind numbingly boring?  I only know what they even look like because for a while I was facilitating a support group for addicts which was held at the local RSL and to get to our meeting room I had to go through the den of noise and flashing lights, the unpleasantness of which was only exceeded by the smell of stale beer.

I have zero interest in gambling in any form but have no objection to others engaging in it if they find it fun.  None of my business.


----------



## MrBurns (8 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Good heavens, Burnsie, haven't I already made it clear .




Sorry Julia I should have read more I tend to skim over posts I had the impression you were sticking up for them (pokies).


----------



## Julia (8 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry Julia I should have read more I tend to skim over posts I had the impression you were sticking up for them (pokies).



No, just sticking up for the right of the individual to choose how they spend their own money.


----------



## MrBurns (8 March 2012)

Julia said:


> No, just sticking up for the right of the individual to choose how they spend their own money.




I agree, but we wouldn't want people who prey on the vulnerable to hide behind that argument would we


----------



## basilio (8 March 2012)

The trouble is that the most profitable commercial activities generally involve preying on the vulnerable. When you build a business model on creating and then feeding addictions you are unlikely to have a conscience about the effects on the "weak and feeble minded fools" you are milking.

Of course one is not allowed to say that in polite society so there are many euphemisms for how we accept the situation. Peoples Freedom of Choice is always a good one.


----------



## gav (8 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> No problem but I do despise those who engineer, within the law, a machine designed to feed an addiction.




What about a legal drug (caffeine) or food designed to feed an addiction?  There are studies that show addiction to salt/fat/sugar foods, so should we place some limit on how much people are allowed to eat, due to these "vulnerable people"?  Some people are addicted to social networking sites, which can have negative effects on other parts of their life.  Should we limit this too?  What about restricting the sale of alcohol due to alcohol-induced violence?  

Every step taken to "protect the vulnerable" removes the freedom/liberty of others.


----------



## MrBurns (8 March 2012)

gav said:


> What about a legal drug (caffeine) or food designed to feed an addiction?  There are studies that show addiction to salt/fat/sugar foods, so should we place some limit on how much people are allowed to eat, due to these "vulnerable people"?




Show me the stats on suicides and marriage failures attributed to drinking coffee and we'll talk.


----------



## Julia (8 March 2012)

basilio said:


> The trouble is that the most profitable commercial activities generally involve preying on the vulnerable. When you build a business model on creating and then feeding addictions you are unlikely to have a conscience about the effects on the "weak and feeble minded fools" you are milking.



So let's encourage individuals to think for themselves and make valid decisions.
Your stance seems to say to people "you are so stupid and incompetent that you will always be unable to make sensible choices".
As I've said before, such a mantra eventually results in those people accepting their incapacity.



> Of course one is not allowed to say that in polite society so there are many euphemisms for how we accept the situation. Peoples Freedom of Choice is always a good one.



Oh for god's sake, don't be so mealy mouthed.   Freedom of choice is fundamental to a well functioning society.  What is it about so many of you on the Left that you want to encourage people to be dependent instead of self validating?



gav said:


> What about a legal drug (caffeine) or food designed to feed an addiction?  There are studies that show addiction to salt/fat/sugar foods, so should we place some limit on how much people are allowed to eat, due to these "vulnerable people"?  Some people are addicted to social networking sites, which can have negative effects on other parts of their life.  Should we limit this too?  What about restricting the sale of alcohol due to alcohol-induced violence?
> 
> Every step taken to "protect the vulnerable" removes the freedom/liberty of others.






MrBurns said:


> Show me the stats on suicides and marriage failures attributed to drinking coffee and we'll talk.



Mr Burns, that's not a reasonable response.  Gav did not say coffee and sugar cause marriage failures etc.  He makes a perfectly reasonable point about individual choices.

e.g. if you want to limit people's access to gambling because it's bad for them, then you should also be in favour of limiting their access to sugar, fat and other unhealthy substances.

The inevitable sequalae to such limitation of personal choice would be refusal of medicare services for those people who are overweight, drunk, or experiencing any of the multiple medical conditions which arise from unhealthy consumption.

How would you go with that?


----------



## MrBurns (8 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Mr Burns, that's not a reasonable response.  Gav did not say coffee and sugar cause marriage failures etc.  He makes a perfectly reasonable point about individual choices.
> 
> e.g. if you want to limit people's access to gambling because it's bad for them, then you should also be in favour of limiting their access to sugar, fat and other unhealthy substances.




I think you dont understand that some things are bad other things are very very bad, Addiction to gambling is a little worse than eating too many lollies dont you think ?


----------



## basilio (9 March 2012)

Julia, I agree there is a case for arguing that individuals should think for themselves and make their own decisions. I can also see that  if people are molly coddled too much they will become dependent on the State. I think these are serious issues worth debating in other contexts.

I suggest the ongoing conversation is how much freedom do we give up and on what conditions. At its simplest my freedom to swing my arms around  needs to stop at the point of someone else nose... Otherwise I am impinging on his/her freedom.

We started this discussion on the question of how dangerous poker machines might be to people individually and then the health of the greater society. The problem seems to be that what seemed to start as a way to spend/lose a few dollars seems to have escalated into a particularly effective way to strip many, many people of all their money as well as their friends, family and workplace.  ( The wider social effects.)

An analogy to this would be the introduction of cheap gin to London in the early 1700's. Until then people drank beer and got merry and probably drunk.  But it was sort of controlled.

Gin however was far more potent and very cheap. Within a few  short years  tens of thousands of people were hopeless alcoholics. It was so bad the British government took action to close down the gin "palaces" because of the damage it was doing. Was this a good thing or should the government have allowed people to have the freedom to stay paralytic for as long as they could ?

*Cigarette smoking.* Another drug. Certainly very moreish.  Very addictive and highly pleasurable. And then we discover that it causes cancer as well as scores of other health problems. And the effect of these illnesses does beyond the users to their families and people whole inhale the smoke. 

Of course the tobacco industry spent tens of millions in lies and lobbying to protect their right to  "advertise, promote and sell a legal product".  But these days in Australia at least overt promotion and advertisements for smoking arn't allowed.  Does this represent an overall improvement in the health and quality of life of our community  or should we allow the free enterprise system and personal freedom of (addicted) smokers free rein ?

How about .05 drink driving legislation that is aimed at stopping  drunk drivers from killing themselves and others ?  It seems like a great idea now but I can remember the fierce debate when it first came in with the cries of "freedom of choice " and "the nanny state". 

Anyway the genie is out of the bottle with poker machines. We can't simply ban them. But I think passing legislation that reduces the capacity of poker machine owners to gut and clean people makes sense. It is supposed to be a game not a life destroying habit.


----------



## Tink (9 March 2012)

You could see this coming after so many years of talking.
Personally, I find them boring.

Parents leaving their children in the car while they feed their addiction etc etc, its been one thing after another that they have had to deal with, and its just escalated.


----------



## rumpole (13 March 2012)

They should go back to the original proposal and have a $1 bet limit. Doesn't hurt social pokie players but might discourage people who spend hours at a machine.

Plain package pokies might help too . Olive grey paint, no flashing lights and a drawing of bags of money being flushed down a loo next to the handle.


----------



## basilio (13 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> They should go back to the original proposal and have a $1 bet limit. Doesn't hurt social pokie players but might discourage people who spend hours at a machine.
> 
> Plain package pokies might help too . Olive grey paint, no flashing lights and a drawing of bags of money being flushed down a loo next to the handle.




Sort of  destroys the fun doesn't it   

I thought the idea of all the music, flashing lights,  aromas etc was to CONvince the punter he/she was having fun while being held upside down by their ankles ?


----------



## IFocus (14 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> They should go back to the original proposal and have a $1 bet limit. Doesn't hurt social pokie players but might discourage people who spend hours at a machine.
> 
> Plain package pokies might help too . Olive grey paint, no flashing lights and a drawing of bags of money being flushed down a loo next to the handle.




The proposed pokie laws had no impact on $1 machines a point happily missed by the proponents of choice or social pokie playing. 

What it was trying to do is remove the high loss machines that are designed to strip a families weekly income in one to two hrs and thats what they do.

No where else in the world exist the same level of loss machines.................hey just say no


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2012)

I play the pokies once or twice a year and quite like it. I generally lose about $100 or win similar.

I do not see what all the kerfuffle is about.

If the problem gamblers did not play the pokies they would gamble on the internet and the money would go overseas.

At least this way it stays with the community.

Better help for gamblers would be a better way to go.

gg


----------



## dutchie (31 December 2012)

St George Illawarra Dragons in $6m bid to sign Melbourne Storm coach Craig Bellamy 

Where do they get the money for that??  (have a guess suckers)


----------



## pixel (31 December 2012)

dutchie said:


> St George Illawarra Dragons in $6m bid to sign Melbourne Storm coach Craig Bellamy
> 
> Where do they get the money for that??  (have a guess suckers)




lemme guess:
Georgie has been a good boy, slaying lots of dragons and Santa filled his stocking accordingly.
Never mind that the kids of Illawarra "supporters" were left with empty stockings. Their parents should'a followed GG's example and only lost $100 once a year. All a matter of discipline, innit?


----------



## basilio (7 April 2021)

Trusted employee defrauds family business *of $3.7 million* and pours it all into a couple of local clubs. How did a modest wage earner become the number one pin up (loser) at two clubs over a number of years - and not ring any alarm bells as to where her money was coming from ?

I'm sure this story has been replicated a number of times. The question asked is whether the clubs  have liability for the stolen funds ?








						Vicki stole millions from work and put it in the pokies at a Sydney leagues club. Her boss wants it back
					

Vicki Clerke, 64, is in prison for stealing millions of dollars from her employer to fund her pokies habit. Her boss is now asking one of Sydney's biggest clubs for his money back.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## basilio (31 August 2021)

Another example of the way pokies destroy not just the lives of the loser but the people and business's they have ripped off.
Sad story . Judge certainly gives the industry both barrels.

Judge blasts 'abomination' of online pokies after travel agent steals $670,000 to fuel habit​By court reporter Danny Tran
Posted 16m ago16 minutes ago





 The employee admitted two fraud charges that ultimately forced her bosses to sell two homes.(
ABC News: Diana Hayward
)
Share

A Victorian travel agent with a pokies problem stole close to $670,000 from holidaymakers who were forced to cancel their vacations because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Key points:​
Annette Roberts diverted funds into her own bank accounts in 522 transactions
Her employers have been forced to delay their retirement because of her crimes
Lawyers acknowledge a jail term is appropriate









						Judge blasts 'abomination' of online pokies after travel agent steals $670,000 to fuel habit
					

A Victorian travel agent with a pokies problem stole close to $670,000 from holidaymakers who were forced to cancel their vacations because of the coronavirus pandemic.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2021)

basilio said:


> Another example of the way pokies destroy not just the lives of the loser but the people and business's



Yes Bas, the pokies are a horrible invention, I'm so pleased they have never taken hold in W.A.
I remember when we used to drive across the Nullarbor, for the Christmas school holidays with the kids, it was a yearly event. We always stopped at a caravan park on Ceduna's main drag, pitched the tents, then took the kids down to the hotel at the end of the jetty. 
In the mid 1990's we stopped headed down to the pub, with the kids for the Nullarbor crossing celebration meal and the dining room was full of pokies.
We turned around and walked out, never been back to the pub, just as easy to stop at a cafe on the road.
Pokies should be banned, except for casino's, where they service a specific audience IMO.


----------

