Betting the House & more
Gaming Commission holds forum on addiction
By Margery EaganTuesday, June 26, 2012
Photo by Nancy Lane
CAUTIONARY TALES: The Gaming Commission — from left, Enrique Zuniga, James F. McHugh, Chairman Steve Crosby, Bruce Stebbins and Gayle Cameron — yesterday held a forum on the pitfalls of gambling.
Watching the state gaming commission’s forum on problem gambling yesterday was a little like watching Medellin Cartel drug thugs give seminars on cocaine addiction.
There we were, at North Shore Community College, talking about preventing the very calamity that bringing casinos here, no doubt about it, will exacerbate.
“Pathological gambling.”
“Gambling disorders.”
“An illness with a high percentage of co-morbidity, or multiple addictions involved.”
“These people are ... suffering.”
Those are just some of the cheery phrases used by compulsive gambling experts advising commissioners yesterday on preventing more of it.
At one point, however, an expert from the National Center for Responsible Gambling admitted we don’t know much about addictive gambling — it’s roughly what we knew about drug and alcohol addiction 40 years ago — which is a bad sign.
Somebody else said well-trained casino workers could be used to identify problem gamblers: take the bet while assessing the degree of addiction. But then she said you can’t tell who’s an addict just by watching, which is a confusing sign.
Another expert from Iowa said that to be effective, treatment must be affordable and convenient and administered by very skilled and qualified workers. Then he said he’s lost a quarter of his budget.
Although gambling treatment here is supposed to be funded by casinos, not taxpayers, some of us can recall other notorious Massachusetts bait-and-switch schemes. Remember when an anti-smoking lawsuit was supposed to fund anti-smoking initiatives? Then the pothole account ran dry.
We did learn about so-called “self-excluders.” Those are problem gamblers who have sought help and are banned from casinos. A Missouri study found most of them lived next to one.
But a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist told commissioners that when researchers went to interview these “self-excluders” on their progress, only 169 of 419 had a working phone number. Yet another bad sign.
On the bright side, we learned that most gamblers aren’t addicts and that seniors with nothing to do can go to casinos and have fun.
Then I met Kevin, 53, a recovering addict who played the slots for tens of thousands of dollars, free rooms and great deals at Mohegan Sun. How did he manage to quit?
“I went broke,” he said.
Asked after the forum whether he found the whole exercise a bit weird, Commission Chairman Steve Crosby said the debate over gambling pitfalls “has been had. The commonwealth decided on expanded gambling.”
Yes we have, heaven help us.
http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1061141448&format=&page=1&listingType=col#articleFull
There we were, at North Shore Community College, talking about preventing the very calamity that bringing casinos here, no doubt about it, will exacerbate.
“Pathological gambling.”
“Gambling disorders.”
“An illness with a high percentage of co-morbidity, or multiple addictions involved.”
“These people are ... suffering.”
Those are just some of the cheery phrases used by compulsive gambling experts advising commissioners yesterday on preventing more of it.
At one point, however, an expert from the National Center for Responsible Gambling admitted we don’t know much about addictive gambling — it’s roughly what we knew about drug and alcohol addiction 40 years ago — which is a bad sign.
Somebody else said well-trained casino workers could be used to identify problem gamblers: take the bet while assessing the degree of addiction. But then she said you can’t tell who’s an addict just by watching, which is a confusing sign.
Another expert from Iowa said that to be effective, treatment must be affordable and convenient and administered by very skilled and qualified workers. Then he said he’s lost a quarter of his budget.
Although gambling treatment here is supposed to be funded by casinos, not taxpayers, some of us can recall other notorious Massachusetts bait-and-switch schemes. Remember when an anti-smoking lawsuit was supposed to fund anti-smoking initiatives? Then the pothole account ran dry.
We did learn about so-called “self-excluders.” Those are problem gamblers who have sought help and are banned from casinos. A Missouri study found most of them lived next to one.
But a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist told commissioners that when researchers went to interview these “self-excluders” on their progress, only 169 of 419 had a working phone number. Yet another bad sign.
On the bright side, we learned that most gamblers aren’t addicts and that seniors with nothing to do can go to casinos and have fun.
Then I met Kevin, 53, a recovering addict who played the slots for tens of thousands of dollars, free rooms and great deals at Mohegan Sun. How did he manage to quit?
“I went broke,” he said.
Asked after the forum whether he found the whole exercise a bit weird, Commission Chairman Steve Crosby said the debate over gambling pitfalls “has been had. The commonwealth decided on expanded gambling.”
Yes we have, heaven help us.
http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1061141448&format=&page=1&listingType=col#articleFull
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment