Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
I'm sure we'd have a lot more people employed in small business etc via increased consumer spending if not for these monsters. They rip a fortune out of the community and send it partly to government and largely to a few already very wealthy individuals.
I'm not against them totally, but the blatant concentration of machines and marketing in lower socio-economic suburbs is a disgrace.
As a general rule, I'm somewhat against meddling in the affairs of individuals "for their own good". But these poker machines do a LOT of damage to many and there's no reason, other than greed, why we need de facto casinos in every poorer suburb. They could always drive or catch a bus to the casino, but the reality is these machines aren't really that great, people won't go out of their way to use them. Hence they're put right under peoples' noses combined with a marketing blitz to convince the masses that throwing away money is "fun".
Put them in legitimate casinos that's fine. Likewise in non-profit clubs etc. But I'd very gladly see the end of round the clock gaming in working class suburbs. Judgemental may be, but these machines do bring a lot of misery to many.
Just think how much better off we'd all be if the $ millions poured into these machines went instead into local small business, charity or anything of lasting value. So sad to see all those old clunkers in the car park while their owners hand a fortune to someone who could already afford any means of transport they choose.
I refuse to play these machines on principle. Never have and never will unless they're put back where they belong - and that's not under the noses of everyone.
You're right, of course, Smurf. However, if we remove any facet of our social environment that a few people abuse that would be intolerable interference. viz alcohol, cigarettes, motor vehicles.
Yes, there is a carefully placed concentration of these things in the lower socioeconomic areas, but it still comes down to personal choice.
For six months last year I facilitated a group of gambling addicts. They had all been (or still were) alcoholics as well. I'd naively thought these people were going to actually be motivated to reduce or eliminate their gambling which had reduced them to renters after being home owners in most cases.
One couple who still were in their own home which had previously been freehold, had gone to having only a 10% stake in it, and they owed three years in rates arrears for which they were paying 18% interest.
Didn't stop them as soon as the disability pension came in from setting aside their first priority, i.e. $100 "allowance" for the pokies.
No amount of suggestion re options for entertainment, other constructive activities etc, was acceptable.
In the end I walked away. Wasted enough time and energy.