Last year, Beacon Hill opponents offered amendments to make a bad bill 'less bad' that in the rush to embrace the false allure of Gambling Revenues were mostly rebuffed.
Included in sensible controls were:
1. loss limits
2. self-exclusion
3. monthly statements
among others.
Because they would have restricted the Gambling Industry's predation, which is where their profits lie, they were mostly ignored by the media that focused on the smoking ban.
It's time for an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis that factors in the cost of Gambling Addiction, as well as the societal costs.
Temptation: Should we help problem gamblers help themselves?
In the 1950s, gambling in the Western world was largely illegal, and underground.
But lotteries, casinos and, most recently, online gambling are now being promoted by a host of governments, including B.C.'s, which are hungry for revenues outside traditional taxation.
Canadians spend $14 billion each year on legal gambling. Many governments justify it by highlighting how a portion of the profits go to non-profit organizations devoted to the arts, amateur sports and social services. [As a means to gain public support.]
Placing a $10 bet on the Vancouver Canucks to beat the Maple Leafs might justifiably be called an amusement, not the road to perdition.
But what about when gambling becomes more than a way to jazz up a humdrum life, and turns into a compulsion?
How should we deal with troubled people who chronically gamble to escape their inner pain, captivated by the desperate dream of getting something for nothing?
Prof. Robert Williams, a gambling specialist in the health sciences department at the University of Lethbridge, estimates about six per cent of casino-style gamblers are addicted, with the rate rising to about 20 per cent among those who gamble online.
Therapy offices are full of self-loathing gamblers frantic to escape their runaway passion; succumbing to depression, bankruptcy, fractured relationships and suicidal thoughts.
In the name of freedom, should their salvation be left up solely to the individual gamblers? Or should society help gamblers fight their temptation?
Many North American governments are ethically fuzzy about gambling.
Most provincial governments, including B.C.'s, ask problem gamblers to "self-exclude" from casinos and, if they choose, to take advantage of counselling.
Typically, that requires compulsive gamblers to register as such with casinos, where their photos are kept on hand. Security guards then scan crowds in hopes of spotting their faces.
The self-exclusion system has had some success. A member of Gamblers' Anonymous recently told me he once took the B.C. government up on its offer of free counselling sessions.
But the GA member added that self-exclusion is often ineffective. There are gaping holes in the monitoring process, to the downfall of many of the tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed-up as out-of-control gamers.
In Ontario and elsewhere, problem gamblers have successfully sued government-sponsored casino operators, claiming millions in damages. They charged that casinos didn't do nearly enough to stop them succumbing to temptation.
The government-backed casinos have settled all the cases out of court. Legal experts say the casinos do so to avoid judges stipulating more stringent measures be imposed.
Critics say casinos do not have enough incentives to restrict heavy gamblers, because they are a major source of revenue.
In Canada, the governments of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are going the furthest in helping problem gamblers help themselves.
Saskatchewan requires gamblers to present identification cards before hitting the slots and tables, so their visits can be monitored for warning signs.
The Netherlands has a more extensive card-identification system, which Singer generally endorses. It requires gamblers who show up more than 15 times a month at a casino to be contacted by a supervisor. So far 35,000 Dutch gamblers have had such conservations.
"For the past two years almost all gambling in Norway has required the use of an electronic card. Cash is forbidden," Singer writes.
"The card allows the government to impose daily and monthly limits on the amount players can lose on electronic gaming machines."
While some argue this is paternalistic, Singer defends it on the grounds it can prevent people from making themselves and their children destitute, thus adding an additional burden on the government.
Singer believes the Norwegian player-card system, which exists in various forms in Sweden and New Zealand, does not add up to an overly invasive Big Brother.
The ethicist notes that Norway's approach also gives gamblers the chance to preset limits on how much they are willing to lose.
"That is not paternalism, just an encouragement to pause and reflect," Singer says.
The Vancouver GA member whom I talked to believes that, even though GA urges total abstinence, there is a place for societal "harm-reduction" programs in regards to gambling.
The self-admitted problem gambler has seen too many lives devastated by temptation. And while he's nervous about governments monitoring his private life, he said there are benefits to player-ID cards.
They would not only curtail money laundering, they would help convince individual gamblers that casinos do not exist solely to take their money. Player-ID cards would "provide more opportunities for people to think about their actions."
Like most GA members, he knows the curse of temptation. Each week he acknowledges to fellow addicts he needs all the help he can get to resist the allure of the gaming table.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment