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.
The Gambling Industry is being urged to act in cutting the number of addicts.
A better example of pi**ing into the wind is hard to imagine, and
is akin to asking the Drinks Industry to ensure people drink 'sensibly.'
When will we learn that the notion of self regulated competition is a contradiction in terms?
After the stake cut from £100 to just £2 on fixed odds terminals, bookmakers saw profits more than half and they are closing high street outlets in record numbers.
The Government is also now implimenting a ban on credit card gambling which will have major implications in terms of on-line gambling.
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.
It's worth mentioning that Philip Hammond resisted calls to cut the betting machine stakes to £2. Typical Tory Party mentality. They never like intervening in business however much harm it causes because tax revenue is their priority.
By the time they're dragged kicking and screaming to act, much damage has already been done, as in this case.
The current government line up will be the same or worse.
Because addiction is a disease, and gambling addiction causes huge problems.
Sure, is there any evidence that government controls reduce addiction?
How many drug addicts are there? If I'm not mistaken most recreational drugs are illegal, so how are those controls working?
Might be more effective to educate and spend more on treatment than on criminalization.
Further there's hundreds of things people do that cause huge problems from making insensitive comments to casual sex, should government regulate them all?
Is there any reason to prevent adults from choosing how they disburse their income?
Why should the government be treating people like children?
You seem to be mising the point here. It's not about preventing adults from spending their income as they choose or treating them like children. It's about not allowing big businesses to do as they like by way of harmful unfettered coercive marketing.
Just a reminder - we don't have a 'them & us' relationship with the government. They are put there by us, for us, to make the collective decisions that need to be made to keep chaos at bay.
We can't all do as we like when we like, much as that idea may appeal.
You seem to be mising the point here. It's not about preventing adults from spending their income as they choose or treating them like children. It's about not allowing big businesses to do as they like by way of harmful unfettered coercive marketing.
A rose by any other name...
Do people not choose the spend money at the bookies, or Tombola.com, etc.?
If so then that's their business. Legislating that they don't is treating them like children. Reducing maximums is pointless, since it does not reduce total spending.
If it's about predatory marketing, then where are the regulations against grocery stores, cell phone companies and services, Mr. Kipling, etc? Do you think they're any less predatory? They're far bigger business than UK gambling companies too.
Do people not choose the spend money at the bookies, or Tombola.com, etc.?
If so then that's their business. Legislating that they don't is treating them like children. Reducing maximums is pointless, since it does not reduce total spending.
If it's about predatory marketing, then where are the regulations against grocery stores, cell phone companies and services, Mr. Kipling, etc? Do you think they're any less predatory? They're far bigger business than UK gambling companies too.
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?
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.
