The "Ask Lions_Insider!" discussion thread

[Skoob]

I think your missing the point that there are behaviours that have a greater impact on individuals and children than pokies and the sanctimonious position people take over the issue is laughable. Alcohol would have a greater impact on families so by your logic we should only allow beers to be sold in 2-3 packs and not cartons. Spirits should only be sold in 100ml bottles and wine bottles should be half the size. We should ensure that all licensed premises including bottle shops have a linked central system that regulates a persons alcohol purchasing level.

People make good and bad choices and it's a slippery slope if we start to legislate every so called bad choice. I would hope the people on here saying the club should get rid of pokies are also writing to their local MP both at a state and federal level to have licenses cancelled.

Why is your argument so black & white? People who are not in favour of pokie machines, don't necessarily all want them banned, nor do they necessarily think consenting adults shouldn't be able to make their own choices. In the context of this forum, I'd suggest most who voice an objection, just don't like them being promoted or used as a tool by our club. Would you be happy for our club to be sponsored by a tobacco company and include a packet of smokes in membership packs or cigarette advertising be allowed back on signage at the Gabba?
The fact that there are worse things that "have a greater impact on individuals and children" doesn't mean the first thing is harmless and should be ignored as such. Besides that, I would like to see how you have measured those "far greater impacts". A smaller percentage of drinkers have a drinking problem, than gamblers who have a gambling problem. And of those with a gambling problem, most are on pokies. The money spent is also much higher for gambling addict than an alcoholic. It's estimated that 40% of pokie revenue comes from problem gamblers, and more problem gamblers are addicted to pokie machines than any other form of gambling. It's a serious issue that is largely unnoticed because a gambling problem doesn't cause you to crash a car like drinking does or cause numerous medical conditions like smoking does. That does not mean it isn't a problem.
As for drawing the ridiculous equivalence from my "logic" being that beer be sold in 2 packs and spirits in 100ml bottles is mind boggling. Both alcohol and gambling are recognised as societal problems and both are taxed and addressed to varying degrees by government policy. So restrictions already exist, not something I propose, to upset your "free world".

 

[bungalow_bill]

The funny thing is that I've noticed a lot of people who cry "nanny state" are also ironically among the first people to whine about how their taxes are spent.

Profound ignorance to the economic and social externalities of these problems. They don't just affect the individual. All those people who smoke 2 packs /drink 6 litres of rum and coke/eat three quarter pounders a day and ride around without bike helmets utilise the same public healthcare we do. Who will advocate for the innocent child of gambling or alcohol addicts? What do we do when these addicts come to steal your jewellery and electronics to pay for their rent because they blew their Centrelink on the pokies as well. Sure, we can lock them up. But it all costs a lot of money. Think about it next time you say "but muh taxes!!!".

I've also observed that a lot of these "nanny state!" Libertarians usually have a chink or two of hypocrisy in their armour somewhere. There's always something they can't stomach being deregulated despite how much it clashes with the "government should let people decide for themselves" fundamentalist philosophy they use to back up their arguments elsewhere.

 

[luthor]

There's a fine line between nanny state and reasonable protections, but to pretend that society can function with total personal freedom is ridiculous.

Ridiculous indeed.

Total personal freedom = Anarchy

As always, it’s a delicate business for our elected representatives to find a policy position that protects the weak and vulnerable without encroaching so far on individual rights that we end up grumbling about either “police “ or “welfare” states

 

[Viceregal]

For a bit there I thought I was reading the politics thread!

Sounds like everyone would be happy to have poker machine revenue from responsible gamblers but feel that they are too open to abuse from those with out of control addictive personalities whose addiction is expressed in terms of cash sucking pokies.

So would I be correct in assuming that having some kind of electronic banding that stops people who have been recognised and diagnosed with an addictive gambling disorder from being able to use any licensed poker machine (all of which would have a sensor to just not operate when they are there) would be a happy medium for all ... or maybe if that is too harsh have the diagnosed ones' electronic banding include a weekly 'pokie allowance' (kind of like going to the methadone clinic for the heroin version) so that they can still have their 'hit' but cannot use their rent/grocery money on the machines?

The question comes in as to where to draw the line eg there are some in the US who cannot believe we are so un-free as to allow ourselves to have mandated bike helmet laws. Are there options where you can say 'sure you can smoke if you like but if you do you are only covered for 10%/20%/30% (whatever percentage) of any smoking related health care issues (good luck getting insurance for the other 90% btw ... or convincing someone that your particular condition was not exacerbated by your smoking) - if we do that would we /could we legitimately make the case for those over a certain BMI or whose daily consumption of sugar is over a certain value ... or just make society cover catastrophic care only and let everyone live or die based on their own lifestyle choices/access to insurance/access to community groups/charity etc?

Quite the multi-layered issue and not even close to being a simple one in concept let alone getting from where we are now to the place where whatever ideal solution is put into practice.

 

[BuntonRules]

My sister has blown hers, and a heap of the rest of the family's, money playing pokeys on her phone. The cat is out of the bag, folks. No matter how sanctimonious we get gamblers gonna gamble. At least in a responsible venue the likes of ours we can get a bit of harm mitigation/ problem gamblers help.

 

[briztoon]

Mandatory Bike Helmet laws. There’s a neutral topic to discuss amongst cyclists.

Australia (and NZ?) is the only country in the world to have MHL’s.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Mandatory Bike Helmet laws. There’s a neutral topic to discuss amongst cyclists.

Australia (and NZ?) is the only country in the world to have MHL’s.

They have them in the states to some extent

I know because Seinfeld made a joke about them...

Even that didn't work, because enough people weren't wearing them, so we had to come up with thehelmet law, which is even stupider because the idea behind the helmet law is to preserve a brain, who's judgement is so poor, that it doesn't even try to prevent the cracking of the head it's in!" -JerrySeinfeld

 

[SizeMatters]

My sister has blown hers, and a heap of the rest of the family's, money playing pokeys on her phone. The cat is out of the bag, folks. No matter how sanctimonious we get gamblers gonna gamble. At least in a responsible venue the likes of ours we can get a bit of harm mitigation/ problem gamblers help.

my mother stole 20k from me which I had in a savings account and blew it all on pokies when I was 19. I had saved it as a tuition fund to get me out of the s**t hole workplace I was in... suffice to say I was pissed off and it took me another 3 years before I was back on track. Pokies can destroy families and the quicker they are taken off the face of the earth the better.

 

[bungalow_bill]

 

[MICKYCONLAN]

We lost our home due to gambling addiction. I wasn't going to say anything as it still affects me after all this time. They were excruciatingly painful times.Each day was a fight for survival. We had 3 young kids and you might think this is a small thing but try looking into your Son's eyes when his moneybox has been ripped open or try explaining to your daughter why her Mother has emptied out her bank account. Then of course there was the bigger things like the ending of a Professional career, Police knocking on the door and the prospect of a possible jail term.
I used to go to a group known as Gammanon which was for friends and families of compulsive gamblers. Some nights I was so upset i couldn't speak when my turn came around. This was not uncommon. One night the question was asked "Who among you has lost their homes?" Almost half the group put up their hands. I thought well that"s not going to happen to me...later on it did.

BTW A Compulsive Gambler cannot gamble responsibly, just as an Alcoholic cannot drink responsibly.. they are addicted.

 

[bungalow_bill]

It seems gambling addiction is something that most people don't understand as opposed to alcohol or whatever. Not sure what is being done in regards to public awareness but it's clearly not enough

 

[Skoob]

It seems gambling addiction is something that most people don't understand as opposed to alcohol or whatever. Not sure what is being done in regards to public awareness but it's clearly not enough

Because gambling losses are huge, and big business as well as government take a very big cut of that revenue, hence the debate and reluctance for clubs, particularly ours to be involved. We might as well be growing/selling tobacco. It may be good business in terms of dollars, but totally socially irresponsible.

 

[Caiphus]

The science doesn't support the disease model of addiction and the success rates of abstinence recovery is only slightly better than unassisted cold Turkey and about on par with placebo. The disease model is only handy because it keeps societal judgement and ostracism of the afflicted to a minimum but doesn't remove it entirely. What science does support is learned moderation for excessive consumption instead of propegating that there is only boom/bust for addicts so minor slips are compounded with not only personal guilt and shame but huge external judgement so addicts have nothing to gain by behaving moderately. Of course we still have a sense of religiosity permeating society that makes addiction an individual absolute moral failing instead of a matter of community responsibility. These are complex problems that will only be solved by creative and nuanced public policy rather than knee-jerk prohibition which has always proved to push these problems into the shadows.

 

[Gadzorks]

My sister has blown hers, and a heap of the rest of the family's, money playing pokeys on her phone. The cat is out of the bag, folks. No matter how sanctimonious we get gamblers gonna gamble. At least in a responsible venue the likes of ours we can get a bit of harm mitigation/ problem gamblers help.

Same as my sister. Destroys families.

I'm an avid believer in personal responsibility but get pissed off when people make decisions that trap others in misery.

 

[SizeMatters]

While not saying everyone who uses pokies are addicted I have noticed from personal experience that the majority of regular users of pokies machines are females. Any reason why? Blokes love betting on sports which is fairly self explanatory but I'm confused as to why females are more into pokies instead and it seems it's not publicised as much to the public. I mean a bloke gambles away everyones lives and his family and seemingly all of society come down hard on them whereas females seem to get nothing in comparison.

 

[BuntonRules]

While not saying everyone who uses pokies are addicted I have noticed from personal experience that the majority of regular users of pokies machines are females. Any reason why? Blokes love betting on sports which is fairly self explanatory but I'm confused as to why females are more into pokies instead and it seems it's not publicised as much to the public. I mean a bloke gambles away everyones lives and his family and seemingly all of society come down hard on them whereas females seem to get nothing in comparison.

So they can sit in the pub without some clown trying to get in their pants.

 

[POBT]

While not saying everyone who uses pokies are addicted I have noticed from personal experience that the majority of regular users of pokies machines are females. Any reason why? Blokes love betting on sports which is fairly self explanatory but I'm confused as to why females are more into pokies instead and it seems it's not publicised as much to the public. I mean a bloke gambles away everyones lives and his family and seemingly all of society come down hard on them whereas females seem to get nothing in comparison.

Could be as simple as gambling being attractive to both sexes but the sports/racing mechanisms being less attractive to some women so they gravitate towards the non-sports focused gambling outlets.

I’ve heard the most common poker machine player in the States is a woman in her fifties/sixties while the biggest growth in problem gamblers is among women with young children.

 

[Gadzorks]

So they can sit in the pub without some clown trying to get in their pants.

Also the graphics look better than blokes getting smashed (if you don't like that kind of thing)

 

[SizeMatters]

Could be as simple as gambling being attractive to both sexes but the sports/racing mechanisms being less attractive to some women so they gravitate towards the non-sports focused gambling outlets.

I’ve heard the most common poker machine player in the States is a woman in her fifties/sixties while the biggest growth in problem gamblers is among women with young children.

Did a quick google search after posting it it seemed females are more inclined to games of chance instead of 'skilled' betting. Stress, loneliness and boredom were key factors according to a study which is unsurprising considering it seems as you stated the most common poker machine user are retiree aged women.

Pokies are an excellent income to social clubs with each machine average around 100k in profits a year IIRC. On one hand our club needs them to survive but on the other it's not a great look for any club to be using these devices. I think everyone just looks the other way as it is the easiest way out.

 

[Skoob]

At the risk of sounding sexist, (I'm a believer in "Men are from Mars,...) my own experience (and I'm not a punter) is that while more men will look at the form of a horse & track condition, many women (and this is a generalisation) will pick a winner based on the colour of the jockey's silks.
Looks and feels. This explains not only the higher interest of women in pokies, but also the general addictiveness of machines. Races have a large element of calculatable risk. That doesn't make it a sure thing, just like footy, anyone can win on a given day, but a logic can be applied. With pokies, even though odds are preset, the punter has no idea what they are and literally any spin could be a winner. The dopamine generated by those chances is highly addictive.

 

[MICKYCONLAN]

One of the things we found at Gam-Anon was that one of the common threads among compulsive gamblers was low self esteem. The gambler would often be the one to bring the biggest present to a Birthday party or the one most likely to shout everyone a drink at the bar. Make of it what you will.

 

[MICKYCONLAN]

One of the things we found at Gam-Anon was that one of the common threads among compulsive gamblers was low self esteem. The gambler would often be the one to bring the biggest present to a Birthday party or the one most likely to shout everyone a drink at the bar. Make of it what you will.

 

[bungalow_bill]

the punter has no idea what they are and literally any spin could be a winner. The dopamine generated by those chances is highly addictive.

Now this is something tangible that people can relate to. A brain chemistry thing which is at the heart of every addiction. A gambler needs that dopamine fix. An alcoholic needs to feed the GABA receptors.

 

[irel]

One of the things we found at Gam-Anon was that one of the common threads among compulsive gamblers was low self esteem. The gambler would often be the one to bring the biggest present to a Birthday party or the one most likely to shout everyone a drink at the bar. Make of it what you will.

Or post the same comment twice.

 

[Tassie4ever]

The funny thing is that I've noticed a lot of people who cry "nanny state" are also ironically among the first people to whine about how their taxes are spent.

Profound ignorance to the economic and social externalities of these problems. They don't just affect the individual. All those people who smoke 2 packs /drink 6 litres of rum and coke/eat three quarter pounders a day and ride around without bike helmets utilise the same public healthcare we do. Who will advocate for the innocent child of gambling or alcohol addicts? What do we do when these addicts come to steal your jewellery and electronics to pay for their rent because they blew their Centrelink on the pokies as well. Sure, we can lock them up. But it all costs a lot of money. Think about it next time you say "but muh taxes!!!".

I've also observed that a lot of these "nanny state!" Libertarians usually have a chink or two of hypocrisy in their armour somewhere. There's always something they can't stomach being deregulated despite how much it clashes with the "government should let people decide for themselves" fundamentalist philosophy they use to back up their arguments elsewhere.

TBD- have you been stalking me?

Otherwise how are you so intimately acquainted with my long-established lifestyle.

And just so you know, it's 2 quarter pounders per day, not 3. I'm on a health kick. Doing my bit for MediCare.

And it gives me more spare change to gamble with. Swings and roundabouts. But you'd already know that I suppose.