Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regulation is applied as and when it's deemed necessary by our elected government when corporations
or anyone else acts in a way that has a detrimental effect on society at large.
There seems little need for regulation covering the supply of Mr. Kipling cakes whereas I feel confident most people would see the need to regulate a service that targeted sections of society in such a way as to cause harm. Like it or not the gambling industry does just that and without regulation it will get worse. That's why clamping down on credit card gambling will most certainly reduce spending and associated harm. It's a matter of what regulation is reasonable. A good example is wearing seat belts in cars. Perhaps that should be a choice for the individual?
Or maybe you visualise a system where no regulation exists, and if so, how would that work out?
Are you saying obesity is not an issue? Because I can tell ya in 20 years the average British weight has increased a stone to 20 lbs. Do bookies, casinos and gaming applications force people to spend?
What any one person determines is reasonable is highly variable across the population. You're just ok with this because you happen to agree with it.
Sure wearing a seat belt should be a personal decision, the only person harmed is the one not wearing a belt. Even in a head on, the windshield torpedo isnt going to fly through the oncoming windshield, the angle is all wrong.
Are you saying obesity is not an issue? Because I can tell ya in 20 years the average British weight has increased a stone to 20 lbs. Do bookies, casinos and gaming applications force people to spend?
What any one person determines is reasonable is highly variable across the population. You're just ok with this because you happen to agree with it.
Sure wearing a seat belt should be a personal decision, the only person harmed is the one not wearing a belt. Even in a head on, the windshield torpedo isnt going to fly through the oncoming windshield, the angle is all wrong.
You're muddying the waters. It's not important what I consider to be reasonable so again you just don't get it. It's what a consensus of people through their elected representatives consider to be reasonable.
It's they who decide what's acceptable because they have to live together with varying and often conflicting interests.
I fully expected your stance on seat belts, it fits the mould. Conveniently forgetting that a driver wearing a seat belt has a far greater chance of controlling the vehicle following a collision and prhaps saving lives. Additionally a rear seat passenger wearing a belt would not shoot forward in a collision and kill or injure a person in the front.
But of course your right to make your own choices regardless of the consequences overides all that.
I get it.
You're muddying the waters. It's not important what I consider to be reasonable so again you just don't get it. It's what a consensus of people through their elected representatives consider to be reasonable.
It's they who decide what's acceptable because they have to live together with varying and often conflicting interests.
I fully expected your stance on seat belts, it fits the mould. Conveniently forgetting that a driver wearing a seat belt has a far greater chance of controlling the vehicle following a collision and prhaps saving lives. Additionally a rear seat passenger wearing a belt would not shoot forward in a collision and kill or injure a person in the front.
But of course your right to make your own choices regardless of the consequences overides all that.
I get it.
Do the consensus agree that it is reasonable? Or is that a presumption?
I'd expect people who are punters probably care, and care that this should not be done. Everyone else probably don't care at all in the majority, except a few busybodies who think that they have the right to control others (regardless of how altruistic their beliefs).
I don't have rear seats, so I don't carry rear seat passengers. However any collision that a seatbelt will provide safety for isnt a collision that the driver will have sufficient ability to control anything. Even a 20mph impact with a seatbelt can result in a driver concussion from their head impacting the steering wheel or window, if the car has an airbag, then it will deploy obscuring vision (and possibly also causing concussion), denying any control of the driver post collision. Faster than that and we're taking fractured tibias and clavicals. Good example, run as fast as possible into a wall without flinching, and try to remain standing, that's about a 20mph impact, you tell me if you'd have adequate composure and control to make any difference to your vehicle after a 20mph collision.
You mistake my general permissiveness as license to do anything, but, you ignore that part of that permissiveness demands that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their actions. Your ideology absolves everyone of the consequences, because by regulations you pass those consequences on to others, the taxpayer, big business, etc. People being people they generally act how they're treated, if they do not own the consequences of their actions they will act on the very things they own no consequences for. Regulations always pass consequences on to others... do the math.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19477
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff956
The ban on credit card betting is more than welcome as is the cut in betting machine stakes but the problem is moving increasingly online as betting shops close.
There is also an agreement now not to show gambling adverts during live sporting events and I can see more and more advertising bans in the future.
However Government can only go so far, as this is a free country and driving gambling under ground would just mean organised crime taking over and money lenders.
Total prohibition never works in terms of alcohol or drugs and certainly won't in terms of gambling.
. Do bookies, casinos and gaming applications force people to spend?
No, but they use psychological manipulation techniques to mislead people into spending more than is good for them.
Advertising works, marketing works, that's why businesses spend so much on it, and if it leads to harm for individuals and communities there is nothing wrong with regulating that advertising and if necessary the services themselves.
No, but they use psychological manipulation techniques to mislead people into spending more than is good for them.
Advertising works, marketing works, that's why businesses spend so much on it, and if it leads to harm for individuals and communities there is nothing wrong with regulating that advertising and if necessary the services themselves.
Sure but as I stated above, where are the regulations on Aldi, Car Phone Warehouse Sky, etc. etc.
I know advertising works 99% of my work day is either developing identity graphs, or crunching data to target specific segments with highly specific, relevant products. Pays well.
However isnt every advertiser doing the same? If so why limit the issue to gambling?
There are general advertising regulations that apply to all those companies, but because gambling has some specific issues it also has some specific regulations, much like tobacco or booze etc
There are general advertising regulations that apply to all those companies, but because gambling has some specific issues it also has some specific regulations, much like tobacco or booze etc
What specific issues?
Does it really make any difference if kids can't eat because the family has a Sky Sports subscription, and unlimited data plans for them all and new smartphones, or the parents have blown their wages at the bookies?
I'm going to be beyond surprised if anything the government does reduces gambling.
They can manipulate where the profits go: drive it underground and it goes to crime syndicates or regulate it and tax it where some of the profit goes to the government.
There will be no disagreement from me that gambling is harmful and can be devastating to families. I just don't think the government can stop it. Doubly so, now that all sorts of gambling is available online from offshore companies.
Does it really make any difference if kids can't eat because the family has a Sky Sports subscription, and unlimited data plans for them all and new smartphones, or the parents have blown their wages at the bookies?
That's the issues isnt it?
It wouldn't make any difference if the parents blew all their wages on sky subscriptions no, but in reality that doesn't happen, whereas it does happen that gambling addicts blow all their money on gambling.
If there is evidence that lots of families are starving because they are spending all their money every month on mobile data then maybe that should be looked at, but as far as I am aware there isn't evidence of a significant problem there, while there is a lot of evidence for gambling being a problem for addicts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
