This is great...

[thejollyroger]

You can destroy your family if you use the roads the government provided for you irresponsibly. Should they not provide roads then? No, because most people are perfectly capable of using them responsibly and they shouldn't have to suffer because a few people don't know how to control themselves.

Thats a strawman argument. Roads are a public service, not a revenue generating addictive form of entertainment.

[Concerned]

Armed standoff underway at Moncton motel

Police are surrounding a Moncton hotel where a gunman is believed to be holed up inside the establishment's bar.

Kevin Campbell, who works at a used car dealership next to the motel, said rattled patrons Econo Lodge fled into his building after a man with a gun entered the motel.

The armed man ordered them all out of an area of the motel that contained video lottery machines, said Campbell.

When one man refused to leave his VLT, the gunman put his weapon to the man's head. He then fled, said Campbell.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...cton060310.html

This is ridiculous. These people and VLT's are starting to get on my nerves. I can't believe that people will let themselves go that much, to where they have to put a gun to someones head and then sit down at the machines and play for awhile. I think everyone here is to blame, dumb in-bread people, VLT's, and the Government.

What do you guys think??? I'm fuming right now....

I agree, get rid of them. And online poker ! And restrict casino gambling hours....why are they open till 5:00 am ?? This cannot be good for Canadian families.

[BubberMiley]

I agree, get rid of them. And online poker ! And restrict casino gambling hours....why are they open till 5:00 am ?? This cannot be good for Canadian families.

Unfortunately, the government doesn't have the power to get rid of online poker. It can be set up in any country. Those revenues then will just wind up wherever, rather than in general revenues funding your healthcare system.

[BubberMiley]

Thats a strawman argument. Roads are a public service, not a revenue generating addictive form of entertainment.

Sure, roads are more valuable to society, but people still have to learn that their actions have consequences and they have to behave responsibly or there can be serious repercussions. Be it driving or gambling or drinking: grown-ups have to understand their limits and live within them.

[thejollyroger]

Thats a strawman argument. Roads are a public service, not a revenue generating addictive form of entertainment.

Sure, roads are more valuable to society, but people still have to learn that their actions have consequences and they have to behave responsibly or there can be serious repercussions. Be it driving or gambling or drinking: grown-ups have to understand their limits and live within them.

By that line of argument, you can also take away police, condoms, birth control; and seatbelts. Just tell them to get a grip right ??? And roll back the legal drinking age and allow smoking as well. We can guage our own behavior right ?

It's a very utopian idea to think we should just leave it up to the individual, however it is very unrealistic. People are dying and destroying their lives over VLTs and the Government needs to step in.

As for on-line gambling? Another problem, but not at the level of VLTs. Government cannot make broad sweeping decisions for nothing. You need hard facts before you take away individual decision making. The hard numbers concerning VLT's are in the article I posted above. Particular the Canadian safety coucil staes that VLTs are the leading source of problem gambling. The facts are easily measured and a avenue to correct it is extremely clear.

The Most Dangerous Game

Video lottery terminals (VLTs) have been called the crack-cocaine of gambling. Indeed, electronic gaming machines (EGMs) may be the most addictive form of gambling ever invented. Their colours, lights and sounds can drive normal gamblers to bet faster and faster until they become obsessed. It takes only a year to get hooked on VLTs, while it takes almost four years to become addicted to other forms of gambling such as horses, sports betting and blackjack.

VLTs and video slots have become the single largest source of government gambling revenues — and 60 percent of all VLT revenues are known to come from problem gamblers. The slots are a popular attraction in casinos and race tracks, as well as bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, billiard halls and other youth-oriented venues.

A few bar owners have dropped their highly profitable electronic gaming machines after customers who had become compulsive players committed suicide. Such incidents have led to calls for VLTs to be banned in some communities.

[BubberMiley]

By that line of argument, you can also take away police, condoms, birth control; and seatbelts. Just tell them to get a grip right ??? And roll back the legal drinking age and allow smoking as well. We can guage our own behavior right ?

It's a very utopian idea to think we should just leave it up to the individual, however it is very unrealistic. People are dying and destroying their lives over VLTs and the Government needs to step in.

I don't see the correlation to getting rid of police, birth control and seatbelts: none of these inhibit personal choice to engage in an activity that doesn't hurt anyone (except for cops busting people for smoking pot). As for the legal drinking age, I specifically said grown-ups. I am all for adults being free to decide for themselves what is good for them and, even though I'm a social democrat by nature, I'm opposed to government "stepping in" and telling me what's good for me.

[geoffrey]

Just because adults should be responsible for their actions, doesn't mean we should be profitting off their irresponsibility.

You won't be able to show a situation where the government makes money off people's poor judgement and the destruction of families other than VLT's.

[BubberMiley]

You won't be able to show a situation where the government makes money off people's poor judgement and the destruction of families other than VLT's.

Liquor commissions in every province, and more power to them.

[Riverwind]

Liquor commissions in every province, and more power to them.

Liquor stores are not the same as VLTs. To be the same as VLTs, the liquor commisions would have to run aggressive advertising campaigns encouraging people to consume as much alcohol as possible - especially in places where they were already drinking.

[BubberMiley]

Liquor commissions in every province, and more power to them.

Liquor stores are not the same as VLTs. To be the same as VLTs, the liquor commisions would have to run aggressive advertising campaigns encouraging people to consume as much alcohol as possible - especially in places where they were already drinking.

In Manitoba, gambling advertising has focused on it being just a game and to play responsibly. It even includes contact info for gambling addiction services. It certainly doesn't encourage them to spend as much money as possible.

[geoffrey]

Alberta has privatised liquor stores. I guess we are the exception though. Haven't boughten liquor in any other provinces so I wouldn't know.

It's sad that the adverstising says its "just a game." Because its not. It's an addictive substance that requires great control to be used responsibily.

I'd be happy with an advertising campaign showing someone snorting coke side-by-side with a VLT player... with a tagline like "there are no different, both are addictive."

That's the reality of the situation.

--

Here is this for a kicker (from the NS government VLT website):

"Pushing the play button makes the machine (appear) to come close to lining-up the symbols for a win. This excites the VLT player and strongly encourages him or her to continue pumping coins into the machine. Slot machines work exactly the same way, thus creating the illusion that the player is getting closer and closer to a big win."

So the government has its machines designed specifically to encourage further spending.

Does no one else see the issues with this?

The website goes on to say:

"This population of “hard-core” VLT Problem Players, in all jurisdictions, presents a very large challenge for governments, policy makers and the gaming industry. In some jurisdictions these groups are actively attempting to counteract and normalize this serious, growing problem with VLT addiction by providing treatment options and trying to attract more recreational VLT players.

Unfortunately, recent studies reveal that it will be impossible, at any time in the foreseeable future, to replace problem VLT players with casualplayers to maintain VLT revenues at present levels."

So we recruit more players to balance off the cost of treating addicts. But since we can't make the same amount of money off non-addicts... well... they don't conclude that means. I can though.

And then we get this:

"Annually, and on average (as of 1996/97), 6400 VLT Problem Players in Nova Scotia wagered and lost just under $10,000 in after-tax income. These 6400 players, who comprise less than 1% of all adults over 19 in this province, accounted for 53% of all net revenue for VLT gambling or $62,000,000."

So 6,400 problem VLT players spend $31 million a year on gambling. That is absolutely awful, why aren't we fixing this problem and offering treatment? Well because treating this small group of people (and you know who they are in your local bars) would take $31 million a year out of government coffers.

Conflict of interest for sure.

[BubberMiley]

It's sad that the adverstising says its "just a game." Because its not. It's an addictive substance that requires great control to be used responsibily.

Gambling is neither a substance (which implies matter) nor is it technically addictive. Addiction implies physiological dependence, not a mere compulsion. That's why marijuana is habit-forming but not addictive. That's not to say compulsion is not a mighty demon to overcome, but your comparison to cocaine (which is physiologically addictive) characterizes the strong desire to gamble as something it is not.

But yes, the games are designed to maintain the interest of the player. Still, the players are adults who choose to play and, perhaps, choose to play while drunk. That's behaviour that they're going to have to get control of themselves, because I don't think many other people expect the government to do it for them.

Though I know in Manitoba, a sizable portion of profits made from gaming go towards funding treatment for gambling "addiction." That's money that online gaming sites wouldn't be investing.

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[geoffrey]

So why is profit and treatment related to a compulsive disorder in the same hands?

Is there not a problem with that?

[Riverwind]

Gambling is neither a substance (which implies matter) nor is it technically addictive. Addiction implies physiological dependence, not a mere compulsion.

Gambling causes the release of endorphins in the brain. For some people the addiction to these chemical endorphins is so strong they seek to gamble with the same vengence that a heroin addict seeks a fix. In other words, gambling is as physically addictive as other addictions.

[BubberMiley]

So why is profit and treatment related to a compulsive disorder in the same hands?

Is there not a problem with that?

So we should give the VLT monopoly back to the mafia, which ran the show before legalized gambling (they even invented VLTs), for fear that an electable, accountable government might not provide the treatment they are already providing?

Gambling causes the release of endorphins in the brain. For some people the addiction to these chemical endorphins is so strong they seek to gamble with the same vengence that a heroin addict seeks a fix. In other words, gambling is as physically addictive as other addictions.

That's completely ridiculous. When you use heroin, your body adapts to the artificial provision of painkillers so that, when they are denied, your ability to manage pain is completely messed up. Having air bounce off your skin then becomes horribly painful. To say that's the same as not getting a gambling fix is completely misrepresenting the nature of the compulsion.

Lots of things release endorphins in the brain. Sex, chocolate, whatever. That's nothing whatsoever like a painkiller addiction.

[Riverwind]

Gambling causes the release of endorphins in the brain. For some people the addiction to these chemical endorphins is so strong they seek to gamble with the same vengence that a heroin addict seeks a fix. In other words, gambling is as physically addictive as other addictions.

To say that's the same as not getting a gambling fix is completely misrepresenting the nature of the compulsion.

You started off by saying there is no physiological dependence with gambling. That statement is false because compulsive gamblers do so because of the chemical effect gambling produces in their brains. I would agree that the physiological dependence created by drugs such as heroin is worse, however, you cannot say taht there is no physical addiction associated with gambling.

BTW: people get addicted to sex and eating for the same reasons.

[BubberMiley]

I think there's a difference between physiological dependence like painkiller addiction, and doing something because it creates an endorphin reaction, that is, it makes you feel good and you enjoy it. Riding my bike creates a chemical reaction and I enjoy it, but I'm not addicted to it in the same way a junky is addicted to junk. You can break any human interest down to the chemical reactions it releases in your brain, and it's a common argument by those who would like to downplay free will and personal responsibility. Perhaps we should ban chocolate ice cream because it's bad for me and I can't help but eat it when I know it's in my freezer.

[Riverwind]

Riding my bike creates a chemical reaction and I enjoy it, but I'm not addicted to it in the same way a junky is addicted to junk.

That is because your 'drug of choice' is different. Life destroying addictions of any form have a biochemical link. There is good evidence that people who have addictions process the chemicals related to their addiction differently from normal people. In other words, you cannot use the logic 'I experience the same chemical reaction and am not addicted' to claim that the chemical reactions are not physically addictive in other people.

[Renegade]

BTW: people get addicted to sex and eating for the same reasons.

Interestingly just because some people are addicted to sex or food, the government doesn't try to restrict access to it. Why should gambling be any different?

[Riverwind]

Interestingly just because some people are addicted to sex or food, the government doesn't try to restrict access to it. Why should gambling be any different?

When it comes to gambling the gov't is acting like an agressive drug pusher and is going out of its way to encourage people to gamble as much as possible. Furthermore, statistics show that a large chunk of the revenue from gambling comes from problem gamblers which makes gov't little better than a vampire living off the misery of families with a gambling addiction. None of these arguments apply to alcohol, tobacco, sex or food.

I don't argue that gov't should ban all gambling. Small scale charity casinos and lotteries are worthwhile for no reason other than ensuring that a blackmarket does not develop. However, VLTs in bars and other highly addictive forms of gambling should be banned.

[Renegade]

Interestingly just because some people are addicted to sex or food, the government doesn't try to restrict access to it. Why should gambling be any different?

When it comes to gambling the gov't is acting like an agressive drug pusher and is going out of its way to encourage people to gamble as much as possible. Furthermore, statistics show that a large chunk of the revenue from gambling comes from problem gamblers which makes gov't little better than a vampire living off the misery of families with a gambling addiction. None of these arguments apply to alcohol, tobacco, sex or food.

I don't argue that gov't should ban all gambling. Small scale charity casinos and lotteries are worthwhile for no reason other than ensuring that a blackmarket does not develop. However, VLTs in bars and other highly addictive forms of gambling should be banned.

I'll agree with you that the government should't be encouraging people to gamble. It is hypocritical that the government which severely restricts and curtails tabacco advertising and promotion, pursue's a strategy of gambling promotion when its financial interest is at stake.

In my view, the government should not be in either the gambling (lotteries, casinos, VLTs) or alcohol business. Neither should it be profiting from these businesses. However, while I don't feel it is an area the government should be engaged in as a supplier, neither do I think it should be banned.

[Riverwind]

In my view, the government should not be in either the gambling (lotteries, casinos, VLTs) or alcohol business. Neither should it be profiting from these businesses.

It is in the interest of society to limit the choice available for gambling since intense competition simply encourages more people to consume. This means the gov't has a choice between issuing a limited number of licenses to private operators or running the whole show themselves. I would rather see the gov't run gambling operations because that ensures the public gets all of the profits instead of private businesses that would be selected based on their ability to bribe or manipulate politicians effectively.

[Renegade]

It is in the interest of society to limit the choice available for gambling since intense competition simply encourages more people to consume. This means the gov't has a choice between issuing a limited number of licenses to private operators or running the whole show themselves. I would rather see the gov't run gambling operations because that ensures the public gets all of the profits instead of private businesses that would be selected based on their ability to bribe or manipulate politicians effectively.

What I don't understand about your postion is that you favour the government being in the gambling business but not in the business of selling liquor. Why the distinction? Don't the issues you have stated apply just as much?

[geoffrey]

It is in the interest of society to limit the choice available for gambling since intense competition simply encourages more people to consume. This means the gov't has a choice between issuing a limited number of licenses to private operators or running the whole show themselves. I would rather see the gov't run gambling operations because that ensures the public gets all of the profits instead of private businesses that would be selected based on their ability to bribe or manipulate politicians effectively.

What I don't understand about your postion is that you favour the government being in the gambling business but not in the business of selling liquor. Why the distinction? Don't the issues you have stated apply just as much?

Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in either.

I'm ok with gambling and lotteries... I'm simply not ok with machines designed to purposely become highly addictive as a tax on low income earners.

[Riverwind]

What I don't understand about your postion is that you favour the government being in the gambling business but not in the business of selling liquor. Why the distinction? Don't the issues you have stated apply just as much?

Liquor is a physical product that can be taxed directly. This means gov't still has the ability to get the lion's share of revenue sales and, more importantly, can limit demand by increasing the price.

With gambling the gov't could take part of the profits from private operators but it has no way to limit demand for gambling by increasing the 'price'.