BF2S Forums Casino loss limits- nanny state crap or necessary for the public good?

When the government has to pick up the tab for bad debts, bankruptcy and social welfare caused by gambling addiction it has every right to force people to be more responsible with their money.

On the other hand they lose tax income, and many people can easily afford to lose more then $6k a day without it effecting anything while others can't really afford to lose $6.

I have no sympathy for casinos.

Ty wrote:

I have no sympathy for casinos.

I never knew casinos were considered to be "Australian"

Macbeth wrote:

Do you think this cutoff limit was an unnecessary burden on the Casinos business and an encroachment on the civil rights of gamblers or do you think this was a necessary act to mitigate the harmful societal effects of gambling?

I'm pretty torn really. I don't gamble and pretty much despise it so I do have a bias against the casinos but at the same time I believe the government should stay out of people's private lives.

Couldn't care less about the casinos, but at the same time, the government should stay out of people's private lives.  Sad when people have an addiction and their family's suffer because of it, though.

A better rule would be to hang loss limit on an initial deposit at the front desk rather than make it a flat cap.

Still seems like nanny state stuff to me though. Should they also monitor our bank accounts to make sure we don't buy too much from Amazon.com?

"Gamble wisely or Killbane will find you."

Jay wrote:

Ty wrote:

I have no sympathy for casinos gamblers.

I get your point but you might have a bit more sympathy when you consider some of the well known tactics and tricks casinos use, particularly with slot machines.
- Actively making sure that gamblers handle as little real money as possible while they incur real debt.
- Lights and seating designed to keep gamblers alert.
- Supplying a steady stream of inexpensive alcohol free to gamblers.
- There have been reports of some casinos using synthetic pheromones in their air supply to keep gamblers calm and content.
- Machines designed to emit colourful pictures and cheerful sounds even when you are losing.

It's not secret that casinos are designed in the best possible way to make people the most willing to part with their money as much as possible. None of this should be surprising. However while it is completely accurate to say gamblers are victims of their own greed and some fault does lie with them it is also fair to say that casinos are horrible places designed to victimise as many people as possible for their own profit. What's worse is that the people lulled into losing all their money and more can be criticised for being foolish or weak willed it is often their family that pay the real cost with increases in family violence and poverty.

Onto this question of a bet limit - I don't agree with it. I think it's too restrictive. If a bit spender wants to come in and throw his cash around I say let him, a fool and his money are soon parted as Hobbes once said, (not Thomas Hobbes, his namesake the tiger.) What I would be far more open to would be mandatory pre-commitment. Anyone should be able to do this themselves before they enter any gambling den; work out how much money you're willing to lose and stick with it. But a lot of people don't do this, others can't do it, some try and are encouraged out of it by the many casino tricks. And Casinos - of course they don't want this, they will encourage anyone to spend more than they plan to and they will shun anyone who only intends to lose a little. But fuck 'em. People come in, empty their pockets and leave, they have a pretty sweet business model and I have no problem making it difficult for them.

Jay wrote:

It's not really any different than any other business model though. Shiny lights, flashing gizmos, bells, whatever, it's just marketing taken to the garish extreme. I don't see it as being all that different from convincing people to buy stuff they don't really need via commercials or infomercials.

I get why they have limits, just like they have limits for serving drunks at a bar. At some point the people become a public nuisance through their own negligence and stupidity. The problem with that not everyone that is served at a bar while drunk is going to get into a car and drive or end up in a hospital with alcohol poisoning or whatever else. If people go over the limit and commit a crime, by all means charge them, but until then I can't agree with treating adults like children that don't know their limits. I think it's enough that casinos are forbidden to accept credit cards.

I think it's a bit of a stretch actually to relate casinos to other business models but that's neither here nor there really.

It depends who's freedom you're really interested in protecting; the casinos so they can continue to gas and mind-fuck their clientèle or the people who are more often than not too stupid and weak willed to resist losing thousands of dollars they don't have. I would err on the side of people and mostly because so often their inability to control themselves impacts negatively on innocent parties. I think their freedoms need to be protected too, particularly kids and their right to a safe and healthy living environment.

I'd be interested about your opinion on my pre-commitment proposal.

I still don't agree with it, but I think another way to do this would be to install a state's gambling license system for individuals. Other than increased management costs, this would have little effect other than red-flagging individuals who have had harmful addiction issues (and cheating) noted by other casinos. A casino could then decide whether or not to allow patronship upon receipt of a flagged ID and what sort of deposit and limits it wants to impose.

The state could get their fingers in the pie by way of ~$30 individual licensing fees and the casinos could improve their public image by pretending they care about the welfare of self-destructive gambling addicts.

Jay wrote:

I think it's as silly as loss limits. Look, a very tiny percentage has a problem with gambling. Forcing everyone else to jump through hoops is asinine. I've been to casinos probably a dozen times and I've walked away a loser only twice. I view it as nothing more than entertainment and only gamble what I'd spend on a normal night out. People without self control are the exceptions, not the rule.

So your argument is that an incredibly minor inconvenience is just too much to ask. That is asinine, especially equating it to 'jumping through hoops'. I jump through more hoops when I cross the damn road.

I'm sure you're correct in that the majority of people manage their gambling perfectly well - so such a pre-commitment scheme wouldn't impact them anyway. That's a good thing. Why then is it too much to suggest the people who are negatively effected by gambling aren't worth this extra security? I hope you remember that next time you deal with a kid who has to cope with a parent's gambling problem. It's not particularly pleasant to deal with, trust me, and especially when it could have been prevented with a pretty non-invasive solution.

And what does shooting down this idea achieve anyway? The ability of casinos to make that little bit more money? The ability for 'responsible' gamblers to not have to think for a second or two about how much they're willing to lose before they start throwing their money away? (This doesn't by the way force them to any state-mandated limit, they are completely free to bet the house if they wish, it just stops them from going overboard when they are caught in the maelstrom of gimmicks, tricks and splendour that is a casino.) But apparently these values are more important than protecting the families that suffer needlessly due to problem gambling - caused mostly by the tactics used by institutions that do nothing for anyone aside from making obscene amount of money for themselves and a temporary thrill to patrons. Fuck that.

I'd be willing to accept an argument that a pre-commitment scheme wouldn't work to curb problem gambling but to say that it isn't worth it for the sake of casinos and the convenience of people wanting to throw away their disposable income on a temporary thrill is not even close to being reasonable.

I'm sorry if I seem touchy on this issue but as you may be able to tell I have dealt with people who are completely innocent yet have had to cope with the negative impacts of uncontrolled gambling. It's fucking awful to see what these disgusting decadent institutions get to do to people who aren't even old enough to gamble. People get fucked up for life because of this shit. To suggest that preventing these sorts of things to the extent that such a minor measure is deemed 'asinine' is fucking insulting.

Jay wrote:

It's not really any different than any other business model though. Shiny lights, flashing gizmos, bells, whatever, it's just marketing taken to the garish extreme. I don't see it as being all that different from convincing people to buy stuff they don't really need via commercials or infomercials.

It preys on people with addictions and inadequacies, and the social consequences are huge.

Fuck casinos.