20 year Pokies licenses for 5 AFL Clubs

[Luv_our_club]

Well that's a complete and utter fabrication if ever there was one.

Alcoholism is far more rife in our society than gambling addictions.

Alcohol leads to far FAR more violence, physical harm and deaths. Not to mention the actual impact it has on the health system.

And yet pokies are more damaging? GTFOH.

I think pro-rata, or relatively, pokies are more addictive, and do more damage, than alcohol.

Obviously more people drink more often than play pokies, and given the immensity of that consumption, alcohol does more damage overall.

I think comparing alcohol and pokies really serves no purpose. They share very little in common. For starters, alcohol bans don't work (prohibition).... I can't remember there being a black market for pokies machines before they were introduced by Kennet.

 

[Bostonian]

I think pro-rata, or relatively, pokies are more addictive, and do more damage, than alcohol.

Obviously more people drink more often than play pokies, and given the immensity of that consumption, alcohol does more damage overall.

I think comparing alcohol and pokies really serves no purpose. They share very little in common. For starters, alcohol bans don't work (prohibition).... I can't remember there being a black market for pokies machines before they were introduced by Kennet.

Pokies aren't any more addictive than alcohol.

If you looked at the % of people that actually play pokies compared to drink alcohol the % that drink alcohol would dwarf the pokie players.

Less than 30% of the population play the pokies. That's including people who might play it once a year.

Compare that to alcohol of which only 23% of the population don't drink at all.

So 70% of Australia never play the Pokies, Yet only 23% of the nation never drink.

The reason why people link the two is to point out to the twits who call for bans on things they don't like that if their concern is so great for things that harm society why the silence on alcohol and why isn't it the bigger issue to them?

The answer of course is because they like a drink and don't want something they might enjoy to be banned, just the stuff they don't like or partake in.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I can't remember there being a black market for pokies machines before they were introduced by Kennet.

Eh? Joan Kirner let 'em in.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Pokies aren't any more addictive than alcohol.

If you looked at the % of people that actually play pokies compared to drink alcohol the % that drink alcohol would dwarf the pokie players.

Less than 30% of the population play the pokies. That's including people who might play it once a year.

Compare that to alcohol of which only 23% of the population don't drink at all.

So 70% of Australia never play the Pokies, Yet only 23% of the nation never drink.

The reason why people link the two is to point out to the twits who call for bans on things they don't like that if their concern is so great for things that harm society why the silence on alcohol and why isn't it the bigger issue to them?

The answer of course is because they like a drink and don't want something they might enjoy to be banned, just the stuff they don't like or partake in.

Consumption and addiction are not the same thing. I don't think those statistics help you.

Calling for a ban on pokies, but not on alcohol, is not inconsistent. If you think they are inconsistent then you have not understood that person's opinion, or it is your wish to view them from their most superficial and simplistic level.

 

[Bostonian]

Consumption and addiction are not the same thing. I don't think those statistics help you.

Calling for a ban on pokies, but not on alcohol, is not inconsistent. If you think they are inconsistent then you have not understood that person's opinion, or it is your wish to view them from their most superficial and simplistic level.

They are superficial and simplistic.

Calling for a ban on anything is a bad idea when said thing only impact idiots who can't control their own urges.

It means the majority who can have to miss out on the enjoyment they get from it because of those people.

Pandering to minorities, that's a no from me.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Consumption and addiction are not the same thing. I don't think those statistics help you.

Calling for a ban on pokies, but not on alcohol, is not inconsistent. If you think they are inconsistent then you have not understood that person's opinion, or it is your wish to view them from their most superficial and simplistic level.

Gambling, Smoking, Alcohol, drugs will always be available and always be around.
No one is born addicted to any of these things, well 99.99% aren't.
All addicts make the decision at some point in their life to take a pathway, it would be naive to think they did not know the pitfalls of going down these pathways.
Now of course every human is different and some have stronger will power and other qualities that makes it different for everyone.
I still come back to though that at some point they chose to go down that path, be it your first time gambling, first drink, first smoke, first try of drugs. Each individual chooses when they start and then its their call from then.

 

[HairyO]

Consumption and addiction are not the same thing. I don't think those statistics help you.

Calling for a ban on pokies, but not on alcohol, is not inconsistent. If you think they are inconsistent then you have not understood that person's opinion, or it is your wish to view them from their most superficial and simplistic level.

Its not inconsistent if you accept that they are consistently wrong.

Alcohol is far more damaging. Wanting a less damaging thing banned just seems dumb.

 

[Luv_our_club]

They are superficial and simplistic.

Calling for a ban on anything is a bad thing idea said thing only impact idiots who can't control their own urges.

It means the majority who can have to miss out on the enjoyment they get from it because of those people.

Pandering to minorities, that's a no from me.

Take a look around mate. You live in a nation of laws... or are you a true separatist, libertarian outlaw? Your freedom of choice is constantly being curtailed by polices for the benefit of the majority or a minority. It is a totally absurd position to take that on one particualr issue like pokies that it shouldn't happen as a matter of principle.

However, if you are just saying "I like pokies" and "I would prefer they exist", then fine. You are entitled to that opinion.

 

[Aramis]

5 clubs on the wrong side of history

Absolutely... so much for the "family club".. its an utter disgrace tbh.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Its not inconsistent if you accept that they are consistently wrong.

Alcohol is far more damaging. Wanting a less damaging thing banned just seems dumb.

Nah, for example, what if you want alcohol banned but you accept that it is impossible and was proven impossible by prohibition?

People who draw comparisions between alcohol and pokies are comparing apples and oranges, and they are putting forward simplistic unhelpful arguments that really don't apply.

 

[HairyO]

Nah, for example, what if you want alcohol banned but you accept that it is impossible and was proven impossible by prohibition?

People who draw comparisions between alcohol and pokies are comparing apples and oranges, and they are putting forward simplistic unhelpful arguments that really don't apply.

Ah. So you give up. Like the way the Government gave up on banning heroin and cocaine and meth.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Well that's a complete and utter fabrication if ever there was one.

Alcoholism is far more rife in our society than gambling addictions.

Alcohol leads to far FAR more violence, physical harm and deaths. Not to mention the actual impact it has on the health system.

And yet pokies are more damaging? GTFOH.

You're missing the point - relative to their existence, yes, pokies is more damaging.
A lower percentage of people who consume alcohol do so that causes problems for society, than people who play pokies.
Not to mention that alcohol, even with all its issues, at least serves a social purpose.
Pokies serves no other purpose other than to take money out of problem gamblers. That's it. That's their entire business model. Pokies owners wouldn't make money if problem gamblers didn't exist. Alcohol companies would still make money if problem drinkers didn't exist.

 

[DannyJ]

This. Remove the pokies revenue and Hawthorn might not be in a position to pay the equalisation taxes that go into proping North up.

It would be remiss not to mention that the only reason why north bailed on pokies is because they wouldn’t make a dollar on them (sound familiar?)

They also take money from alcohol and gambling sponsorship.

True post.

People wont like it though

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You're missing the point - relative to their existence, yes, pokies is more damaging.
A lower percentage of people who consume alcohol do so that causes problems for society, than people who play pokies.
Not to mention that alcohol, even with all its issues, at least serves a social purpose.
Pokies serves no other purpose other than to take money out of problem gamblers. That's it. That's their entire business model. Pokies owners wouldn't make money if problem gamblers didn't exist. Alcohol companies would still make money if problem drinkers didn't exist.

So horse racing should be banned? all casino games banned? Both of them the house is the only winner. But just like pokies you can have good days or bad days if you partake.

 

[Bostonian]

Take a look around mate. You live in a nation of laws... or are you a true separatist, libertarian outlaw? Your freedom of choice is constantly being curtailed by polices for the benefit of the majority or a minority. It is a totally absurd position to take that on one particualr issue like pokies that it shouldn't happen as a matter of principle.

However, if you are just saying "I like pokies" and "I would prefer they exist", then fine. You are entitled to that opinion.

Can someone not just be sick to death of hypocrites interfering in others lives?

It's really as simple as don't like Pokies, don't play them. Otherwise stay the hell out of other peoples lives if they want to play them.

I don't play pokies, I don't smoke, I don't drink but if someone else wants to go for it. I'm not going to be an utter bitch and cry for them to be banned just because I might not like or agree with them.

 

[Shadow89]

Um





What?

By people losing their jobs through gambling their lives away... Lol, it's not rocket science.

 

[Furn2]

Again, the 'what about it'isms shouldn't really play into it.

The AFL was sponsored by tobacco companies - legally - along with cricket, F1 etc and then the social stigma grew so much that they no longer sponsor any major sport. Tobacco is still legal too.

I don't see why people arguing for clubs to transition away from pokies must necessarily be lumped into the 'no alcohol/fast food/unhealthy pursuit' basket.

Tobacco advertising is illegal as is pokie advertising.

 

[Forward Press]

So horse racing should be banned? all casino games banned? Both of them the house is the only winner. But just like pokies you can have good days or bad days if you partake.

I think it's fine to have pokies in casinos. I think it's fine to have horse racing events at Ascot and bookies there taking bets.

But I do think we are going too far if we have pokies proliferate in hotels and sporting clubs and RSLs, and bookmakers advertising live betting odds during the news. I think we have a serious problem with the normalisation of gambling, and one thing I like about WA is that we have banned pokies outside the casino and that there is no political will to remove that ban, whether the government is Liberal or Labor.

It is a consistent position I have always held.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Can someone not just be sick to death of hypocrites interfering in others lives?

It's really as simple as don't like Pokies, don't play them. Otherwise stay the hell out of other peoples lives if they want to play them.

I don't play pokies, I don't smoke, I don't drink but if someone else wants to go for it. I'm not going to be an utter bitch and cry for them to be banned just because I might not like or agree with them.

Yeah, but it is funny to me that you take this liberalist stance on THIS particular issue, but yet you are happy to comply with so many other laws that impinge on your freedom of choice.


Look, the TRUTH is that pokes are computers and they could easily be adjusted to make it impossible to abuse by problem gamblers. Or they could implement something similar to the national registry at chemists that prevent individuals hopping from pharmacy to pharmacy and abusing pharmacy drugs. None of this would curtail your rights, except your right to ruin your life.

But, the Government has not put in these protections because they know the pokies industry is primarily funded by addicts.

 

[Furn2]

You're missing the point - relative to their existence, yes, pokies is more damaging.
A lower percentage of people who consume alcohol do so that causes problems for society, than people who play pokies.
Not to mention that alcohol, even with all its issues, at least serves a social purpose.
Pokies serves no other purpose other than to take money out of problem gamblers. That's it. That's their entire business model. Pokies owners wouldn't make money if problem gamblers didn't exist. Alcohol companies would still make money if problem drinkers didn't exist.

do u have a source for any this nonsense ?

 

[Bostonian]

Yeah, but it is funny to me that you take this liberalist stance on THIS particular issue, but yet you are happy to comply with so many other laws that impinge on your freedom of choice.

Who says I do?

I break stupid laws all the time. Why wouldn't I?

Look, the TRUTH is that pokes are computers and they could easily be adjusted to make it impossible to abuse by problem gamblers. Or they could implement something similar to the national registry at chemists that prevent individuals hopping from pharmacy to pharmacy and abusing pharmacy drugs. None of this would curtail your rights, except your right to ruin your life.

But, the Government has not put in these protections because they know the pokies industry is primarily funded by addicts.

Your theory is flawed. If it is as you say why would they be coming down so hard on a potentially far larger cash cow like the smokers?

 

[Shadow89]

Which bit was wrong?

Did domestic violence only start when poker machines were invented?

No gambling addictions before poker machines?

Which causes more issues in society: poker machines or alcohol?

Is there a long list of things you want banned? Or just poker machines?

BTW is it all poker machines or just the ones owned by football clubs?

Will those wanting the bans happily pay extra tax to make up for the $6 billion or $7 billion they raise each year around the country?

Why don't you actually read something for a change, instead of just spouting out rhetoric.

183,000 of the world's 241,000 non-casino poker machines, are located in Australia.

I also already addressed the differences, which you were either too ignorant to read, or too dense to understand.

"It's not about a recreational thing that people do, it's about always losing more than you put in. This process does not happen with caffeine, tobacco or alcohol. You don't ever buy those things and go 'oh, maybe I'll just spend another $50 and try and win back the alcohol that I drank or the cigarettes I smoked', lol. Gambling is a unique issue, and is only exacerbated by the institution's unwillingness to regulate how much you can spend in one sitting."

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ripped-by-poker-machine-addiction-report-says

For clarity, I want all poker machines banned in non-casino venues...ya know...like the majority of the rest of the world.

 

[Blackhawk42]

A disgraceful scourge on society.

I find sports gambling to be far worse and look how popular the Spring carnival is. Not to mention the endless TV commercials.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Your theory is flawed. If it is as you say why would they be coming down so hard on a potentially far larger cash cow like the smokers?

They are. Haven't you noticed?

A lot more people smoke and vote, too.

 

[Nugett]

The machines are not designed for the self-controlled casual user. chucking in a few dollars while waiting for their meal to be served. The profit generated from them is from the addicted user. The machines and the venues are designed for people to sit for long hours, spending large amounts, without any inbuilt protections. If they were thus regulated, they would lose their cash cow status. Plus, it is the vulnerable who fall victim... people perhaps weaker than you, such as the elderly. I am sure you wouldn't mind a world without pokies after talking to a young kid who has no place to live, or a grandmother whose life's story has become tragedy. I don't feel my life would be less interesting without the option of pokies.

It is not just the elderly that are effected by the pokies. It’s a range of people that it effects. From single mothers to business people.

Going from memory which is about 20 years ago. As legislation may have changed, as well as state to state laws differs. There were 3 ways a person could be barred from a pokies premises to gamble. 1. Was the venue barring that person, wether it be indefinite, a month or a year ect. 2. Family members of the person, although the families had to prove why they were doing it, which was very difficult to do. 3. The most common, people barring themselves. Which also has its own problems. Technically venue staff are encouraged to read through a book ect of who has barred themselves and memorise faces. If that book has 200 photos of people, how can anyone really memorize that? So it’s very hard to enforce from that point of view.

As to why people may gamble, it comes down to a lot of things, that is personal for the individual. It could be that they want to pay a bill, so think $5 might turn into $20. So after $5, it turns into them spending $20, now trying to get $35 ect. In other words chasing money.

It could be boredom, mum has dropped the kids off to school, house work is done, nothing on tv, can’t be bothered reading a book, so heads down to the local where there is adults she can have a quick chat to, free cups of coffee, possibly a biscuit, maybe some familiar faces from other mothers at her kids school. There goes the grocery money.

It could be stress, work has been rough, working 60+ hours a week, relationship is on the rocks, because of work hours, heads to a pub, bar closes, but poke room opens til 4. Finds that the pokies releases a bit of stress with an adrenaline rush, with a big win. Makes a $500 desposit, leaves with nothing, creating more stress and anxiety, comes back the next night to relieve more stress, not realising that they are creating more.

It’s just not about people being weak and vulnerable it’s the circumstances that enable the thought processes that makes them act the way they do. Just my opinion.