Overdue - time for federal government to ban sports betting ads

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Plenty of smokers don't get cancer either, doesn't mean cigarette advertising should not be restricted.

Also no one is talking about banning gambling, just banning gambling advertising.

A juvenile argument. Cigarettes don't have to give you cancer to be bad for you in all the myriad of ways that they are bad for you, and of course casual smokers experience significantly increased rates of cancer and other poor health outcomes. Every cigarette is bad for you in some way and even 2nd hand smoke can harm others.

Not every bet is bad for you. If you are financially secure and place a 10 dollar bet every week (and stick to this) you know exactly what the risk is and it can't result in any harm to you or anyone else. Even a diligent person who smokes only two cigarettes a week (a rarity) cannot know what harm it could cause them, and it may cause them significant harm. The visibility of risk is a crucial difference between gambling and smoking.

Gambling and smoking have some similarities but also some important differences. And I know we are talking about advertising, champ - my point is that while gambling advertising should be regulated it should not be as heavily regulated as tobacco.
 
A juvenile argument. Cigarettes don't have to give you cancer to be bad for you in all the myriad of ways that they are bad for you, and of course casual smokers experience significantly increased rates of cancer and other poor health outcomes. Every cigarette is bad for you in some way and even 2nd hand smoke can harm others.

Not every bet is bad for you. If you are financially secure and place a 10 dollar bet every week (and stick to this) you know exactly what the risk is and it can't result in any harm to you or anyone else. Even a diligent person who smokes only two cigarettes a week (a rarity) cannot know what harm it could cause them, and it may cause them significant harm. The visibility of risk is a crucial difference between gambling and smoking.

Gambling and smoking have some similarities but also some important differences. And I know we are talking about advertising, champ - my point is that while gambling advertising should be regulated it should not be as heavily regulated as tobacco.

Removing gambling advertising won't stop you doing what you are doing. You can still get the odds for matches, the only difference is you will have to actively look them up online.
 
They banned Tobacco adds and did it swiftly. Time for our leaders to pull their finger out here and do the same with sports betting ads.

I know we've all touched on this topic, but we need to continually revisit it, its getting worse and more and more dangerous. We are living in a time where everyone is having their mental health tested, spending more time home and in front of the tele. As evident by the ratings for the footy this weekend.

We've been overwhelmed by sports betting ads during the coverage - whether it's Nathan Brown and Dale Thomas hosting segments during the broadcast, commercials or in between games. Billboards and screen graphics stating the odds every few moments, this has become deplorable. The fact this isn't regulated by our pathetic politicians has made me lose faith that we are even a democracy anymore. It's a puppet face being led by the Murdoch's.

Once that was done with, we've got Shaq, Mark Walberg, making ridiculous commercials, snippets and sound bites butting sports betting at the forefront of our minds. Blurring the lines between sports and betting, normalising betting for children who are being brainwashed.

Now, even footy podcasts I listen too, Footyology an AFL Fantasy 'The Traders', have been sponsored by these absolute germs of society. 😂😂

Like its a ******* joke. Let's just teach sports betting in schools 🤦‍♂️

How long is a piece of string? Because these pathetic, vile, evil corporates are asking the question, and changing their own answer.
The Bulldogs' free kick count is a bigger concern to the nation IMO.
 
How do you figure that?
Masturbation makes boys hands fall off, didn't you hear
Cope harder coomers.


The researchers found that three regions in particular were more active in the brains of the people with compulsive sexual behaviour compared with the healthy volunteers. Significantly, these regions -- the ventral striatum, dorsal anterior cingulate and amygdala -- were regions that are also particularly activated in drug addicts when shown drug stimuli. The ventral striatum is involved in processing reward and motivation, whilst the dorsal anterior cingulate is implicated in anticipating rewards and drug craving. The amygdala is involved in processing the significance of events and emotions.

The researchers also asked the participants to rate the level of sexual desire that they felt whilst watching the videos, and how much they liked the videos. Drug addicts are thought to be driven to seek their drug because they want -- rather than enjoy -- it. This abnormal process is known as incentive motivation, a compelling theory in addiction disorders.


Many studies have shown pornography has a similar impact neurologically on the brain as hard drugs. When you consider the vast majority of teenagers are roped into pornography from a young age and view it multiple times a week, it really is staggering we are ambivalent to young kids (and wider society) taking hard drugs.
 
Cope harder coomers.


The researchers found that three regions in particular were more active in the brains of the people with compulsive sexual behaviour compared with the healthy volunteers. Significantly, these regions -- the ventral striatum, dorsal anterior cingulate and amygdala -- were regions that are also particularly activated in drug addicts when shown drug stimuli. The ventral striatum is involved in processing reward and motivation, whilst the dorsal anterior cingulate is implicated in anticipating rewards and drug craving. The amygdala is involved in processing the significance of events and emotions.

The researchers also asked the participants to rate the level of sexual desire that they felt whilst watching the videos, and how much they liked the videos. Drug addicts are thought to be driven to seek their drug because they want -- rather than enjoy -- it. This abnormal process is known as incentive motivation, a compelling theory in addiction disorders.


Many studies have shown pornography has a similar impact neurologically on the brain as hard drugs. When you consider the vast majority of teenagers are roped into pornography from a young age and view it multiple times a week, it really is staggering we are ambivalent to young kids (and wider society) taking hard drugs.

Two things

1. How many people as a percentage suffer from pr0n addiction?
2. How many people get cancer or lose their family homes due to pr0n addiction?

pr0n addiction isn't really a problem in society. In fact trying to suppress natural sexual desire has a worse effect as it turns that normal desire and twists it (hence why so many priests become pedophiles).
 
Two things

1. How many people as a percentage suffer from pr0n addiction?
2. How many people get cancer or lose their family homes due to pr0n addiction?

pr0n addiction isn't really a problem in society. In fact trying to suppress natural sexual desire has a worse effect as it turns that normal desire and twists it (hence why so many priests become pedophiles).
1. A majority of men are pr0n users, and a majority of them are addicted.
2. That number is unascertainable. It is, without a doubt, a contributing factor in a considerable number of cases. The most common way people lose their homes is through divorce, and pornography use is a contributing factor in a majority, or substantial, number of divorces: 56 percent of divorce cases involved one party having an obsessive interest in pornographic website (Manning J., Senate Testimony 2004, referencing: Dedmon, J., "Is the Internet bad for your marriage? Online affairs, pornographic sites playing greater role in divorces," 2002, press release from The Dilenschneider Group, Inc)

Pornography is undeniably one of the biggest problems in society and is epitomic of our collective decay. If you watch internet pr0n regularly, especially from a young age, you will experience; a re-wiring of your brains neurological reward circuitry, anxiety, ED, etc.

To insinuate that not watching highly intensive, predatory and damaging imagery will lead to paedophilia is typical coom-brain thinking. We went hundreds of thousands of years without internet pornography.
 
I was at an 18th birthday last month sat near a whole heap of year 16-20 years and it was frightening listening to them slamming bets down on their phones and they were losing it as fast as they were putting it down. I'm no stranger to gambling but it was pretty confronting to watch them. Definitely should be banned from TV at the minimum.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's never gonna happen. Both Liberal and Labour rely on the consumption tax it generates.

I have to say though, I do hate how it's changed the "language" of the game. For example, I remember during the Kennett curse when discussing up and coming Hawks vs Cats games with people. They would all tell me that Hawthorn were clear favourites due to having better odds, not based on how they've matched up, or how Cats had won the last 5/6/11 straight, or that surely you should get them this time, they simply would just quote me the odds and base their prediction on that. Same sort of thing with the brownlow. What the worry is though, kids now do the same thing.
 
Banning betting ads during sport altogether would be ideal, but at a bear minimum they should be prohibited during the broadcast itself. Commentators and former players spruiking odds give credence to it, adding "and remember, please gamble responsibly" with a dumb smirk on their face is tokenistic bullshit.
 
1. A majority of men are pr0n users, and a majority of them are addicted.
2. That number is unascertainable. It is, without a doubt, a contributing factor in a considerable number of cases. The most common way people lose their homes is through divorce, and pornography use is a contributing factor in a majority, or substantial, number of divorces: 56 percent of divorce cases involved one party having an obsessive interest in pornographic website (Manning J., Senate Testimony 2004, referencing: Dedmon, J., "Is the Internet bad for your marriage? Online affairs, pornographic sites playing greater role in divorces," 2002, press release from The Dilenschneider Group, Inc)

Pornography is undeniably one of the biggest problems in society and is epitomic of our collective decay. If you watch internet pr0n regularly, especially from a young age, you will experience; a re-wiring of your brains neurological reward circuitry, anxiety, ED, etc.

To insinuate that not watching highly intensive, predatory and damaging imagery will lead to paedophilia is typical coom-brain thinking. We went hundreds of thousands of years without internet pornography.

Why is it the people who dislike pr0n the most spend more time than anyone else thinking about it?

Also you saying that the majority of men are adducted to pr0n and the majority of divorce is caused by pr0n addiction sound like facts that you have pulled out of your arse.
 
I definitely find them excessive especially on KAYO in terms of frequency shown but I don't see the need for them to be banned altogether.

Why do we need to go nanny state in order for people to be responsible for their own decisions.

I disagree, I don't mind chucking a few bucks on here and there but the ads and segments should be banned. It's now ubiquitous with sports and some kids growing up with it are gonna have real problems before they're old enough to realise how much crap they're in. Can't watch fox footy or listen to SEN without being pummelled with it it's quite ridiculous where it's gotten to.
 
Why is it the people who dislike pr0n the most spend more time than anyone else thinking about it?
Ad hominem.
Also you saying that the majority of men are adducted to pr0n and the majority of divorce is caused by pr0n addiction sound like facts that you have pulled out of your arse.
Deliberately misrepresenting my argument. I clearly said a majority of men are users of pr0n and a majority of them are addicted (because they could not stop if they wanted). I also clearly said it is a factor in most, or a substantial, amount of divorces.

that’s all I will say so not as to derail the thread friend.
 
It should be treated like tobacco.

No advertising.
Tax the sh*t out of it.
But don't ban it.
And the same with alcohol.
I'm not so sure about taxing the s**t out of gambling though, it doesn't have the same (physical) health impact of tobacco. Its harder to justify as recouping some of the costs.
As with tobacco, for a while it may be necessary to allow some advertising at international events - the minimum to be able to keep the events, and still not allowed on broadcasts except as incidental.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top