Other "vices" are not analogous to pokies plugger66.
Foolish comparison.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/l ... ntentSwap1
There are levers that can be pulled to disarm poker machines
Charles Livingstone
March 5, 2008
EVERY week in Victoria, people using electronic gaming machines lose about $50 million. The best available estimate is that about half of that money comes from the pockets of people with gambling problems. The harm this causes includes financial ruin, relationship breakdown, the neglect of children, theft and fraud, and in some cases suicide and imprisonment.
At any given time at least 45,000 Victorians have a serious gambling problem, and more than 85% of those have that problem because of pokies. For every individual with a problem, many others are affected.
Pokies are everywhere. In many suburbs public social space is almost entirely colonised by pokies, especially in relatively disadvantaged suburbs.
For all their gauche glitter, poker machines are sophisticated and highly developed devices that can easily consume $1200 an hour. And, as many researchers, including me, have discovered, few people have any understanding of how they actually work. Fallacies abound, but the harsh reality is that the operators are the winners.
And, of course, so is the Government. Not counting the GST levied on machines (which mostly comes back to the Victorian Government as well),
state pokie taxes will generate about $1 billion this year. It's a super, soft tax, and it allows the Government to avoid raising taxes in other, unpopular areas. It has often been pointed out that Australia's state governments are the system's biggest addicts. Cliche or not, this is one addiction that stands in the way of genuine change.
Can we reduce the harm that pokies produce? Undoubtedly. Apart from eliminating them entirely we can certainly do much better. At present, governments adopt what public health practitioners call a "downstream approach" — we fix people up after they've fallen into the pit. A better approach is to put a fence around the pit (or perhaps, fill it in) and so stop people from falling. This is an "upstream" approach. Indeed, in its 2006 policy document, the ALP promised to implement some such measures, including reducing maximum bet limits from $10 to $5 per spin (which can occur once every 2.14 seconds), reducing the amount one can "load-up" into a machine from $9949 to $1000, and reducing the maximum that can be extracted from venue-based ATMs to $400 a day.
Unfortunately, the implementation of these measures is painfully slow, but the Government has conceded the point. The reality is that there is now ample evidence of how to make the system safer, and if we really care about public safety and wellbeing, and are committed to providing publicly licensed and sanctioned gambling that is genuine entertainment, then we could act, particularly since the Government is set to announce new arrangements for gaming machine licences from 2012 until 2032.
Although a relatively complex process, in essence, reducing maximum prizes to a couple of hundred dollars and maximum bets to $1 would form the core of a harm minimisation approach. For most recreational users such changes would have no effect. The available evidence is that they're not noticed by users, and do not reduce their enjoyment. But, again, the evidence is that these modifications do reduce harm, and are likely to cut the uptake of problem gambling.
We could split the current stock of machines into two streams. In the first stream, re-configured pokies would be licensed for use in suburban clubs and pubs. Recreational users would be unaffected. Problem gamblers could still use them, of course, but their capacity to induce harm would be drastically curtailed. There is a big difference in losing $1200 an hour and losing $200. Of course, government and the industry would lose money. Use of high-impact machines (those already in use) could be licensed only in designated gaming areas. But, instead of open access, a smart card or similar device would be required to use them. Such a card would permit setting time and/or money limits, and would allow patrons to be advised of how much money they are spending. Going further, in Canada, computerised algorithms that recognise the patterns of problem gambling, and alert gamblers accordingly, have recently been developed. Such a system would help some problem gamblers, and could even curtail use of fraudulently obtained funds — a common problem if reports from our courts are any indication.
Using high-impact machines remains possible, but in a much safer environment. Current Victorian legislation actually envisages such a split: at present, it's between high-impact and higher impact machines. But the principle has been established.
Australian poker machines are generally regarded as the most avaricious and dangerous in the world, and allowing them in suburban spaces is almost unique. This practice continues because governments, large public companies, and pub and club operators have become addicted to the money. Admitting that maintaining poker machine gambling is about making excessive profits for as long as possible would be a good start. As every user knows, being truthful about the problem is necessary if the therapy is to work.
Charles Livingstone works in the Department of Health Sciences at Monash University.