Roast It's time to ditch the pokies

[Gohawthorn13]

You should go back an read the articles I linked to about the psychology behind pokies. There is no difference between the chemical stimuli of drugs and the sensory stimuli of pokies in terms of their impact on the brain. in the ten years prior to 2013 the Victorian coroner linked 128 deaths (mostly suicide) to problem gambling most of which were pokies related. That is a similar number to the amount of people who died from heroin overdose in Victoria in the same period 150ish).

People can be addicted to most things actually we are creatures of habit but then If we banned everything that we got addicted to we would have a lot of spare time on our hands

 

[Gohawthorn13]

You should go back an read the articles I linked to about the psychology behind pokies. There is no difference between the chemical stimuli of drugs and the sensory stimuli of pokies in terms of their impact on the brain. in the ten years prior to 2013 the Victorian coroner linked 128 deaths (mostly suicide) to problem gambling most of which were pokies related. That is a similar number to the amount of people who died from heroin overdose in Victoria in the same period 150ish).

but a drug directly kills people, individuals commit suicide for a wide range of reasons all stemming back to depression it's not the gambling that's the problem for suicides it's the people that are succeptable to depression so when something goes bad in they're lives that can trigger it. If we banned things because a person has committed suicide a lot of things would be banned.

 

[Bikefreak]

Heroin is only an act of parliament away from being legal. And Morphine is a close cousin and is legal. The legal status doesn't really impact the moral position.

Not many get the last sentence of your post Brishawk.

Just because something is legal...it doesnt mean that it is healthy or good.

There are many many things that are legal.....but they are still immoral and time will/ has proven that immorality damages our society slowly and insidiously over time.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You should go back an read the articles I linked to about the psychology behind pokies. There is no difference between the chemical stimuli of drugs and the sensory stimuli of pokies in terms of their impact on the brain. in the ten years prior to 2013 the Victorian coroner linked 128 deaths (mostly suicide) to problem gambling most of which were pokies related. That is a similar number to the amount of people who died from heroin overdose in Victoria in the same period 150ish).

That's all true, no doubt, but the question remains...do we really need to protect people from themselves?

 

[Brishawk]

That's all true, no doubt, but the question remains...do we really need to protect people from themselves?

When pokies are simply a psychological reward system designed purely to take people's money under the premise they are a game of chance then yes I think pokies should be banned. They are not a game of chance.

 

[Bikefreak]

That's all true, no doubt, but the question remains...do we really need to protect people from themselves?

A very valid point.

The flipside is that society then ends up having to protect itself from those that have not been protected from themselves. They and the problems dont just go away...they generally multiply and become more complex as some have already touched on.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

When pokies are simply a psychological reward system designed purely to take people's money under the premise they are a game of chance then yes I think pokies should be banned. They are not a game of chance.

I agree they're not, but even so, the human species is always going to be inundated with members who make shit decisions, can't look after themselves, bring grief to their family, take up substances or pastimes that ruin their home life or ultimately take their own life... Should we protect the human species from all these pitfalls, or to be blunt, just let lemmings be lemmings?

 

[Brishawk]

I agree they're not, but even so, the human species is always going to be inundated with members who make shit decisions, can't look after themselves, bring grief to their family, take up substances or pastimes that ruin their home life or ultimately take their own life... Should we protect the human species from all these pitfalls, or to be blunt, just let lemmings be lemmings?

Its a difficult task to find the right balance between personal liberty and government protection. A very difficult task. For me Pokies clearly lies in the category for which the government should intervene. Its purpose is to more or less hypnotise you into the 'zone' in which you play until 'extinction'. It is as malicious a product as heroin.

 

[Gold Member]

Pokies should have starved lions inside them.

Then they can truly become a vehicle of natural selection.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Its a difficult task to find the right balance between personal liberty and government protection. A very difficult task. For me Pokies clearly lies in the category for which the government should intervene. Its purpose is to more or less hypnotise you into the 'zone' in which you play until 'extinction'. It is as malicious a product as heroin.

If the government got rid of the pokies, those with a true problem are just going to find somewhere else, be it illegal casino's (which were rife prior to the legislation in victoria), online, rooter forms (such as sports betting)

It should also be known that 65% of the world's machines are produced here in victoria
That's a hell of acash injection
Gaming venues directly and indirectly provide a lot of jobs, which simply wouldn't be there without them
Shops are there to turn a profit
Regardless of patronage, if people spent their money elsewhere, it wouldn't increase employment numbers
I've seen people spend hours placing $1000 bets at the tab, and exhibit all the signs of problem gambling
Why don't we look at removing tabs also?

Scratchies are simple, and provide the same visual feedback as pokies
Lotteries offer "value" picks, which barely affect the odds of even payouts, let alone jackpots
I've seen some of those at over 1200...

It's not as simple as government just getting rid of it
The fallout would be immense

 

[Brishawk]

If the government got rid of the pokies, those with a true problem are just going to find somewhere else, be it illegal casino's (which were rife prior to the legislation in victoria), online, rooter forms (such as sports betting)

It should also be known that 65% of the world's machines are produced here in victoria
That's a hell of acash injection
Gaming venues directly and indirectly provide a lot of jobs, which simply wouldn't be there without them
Shops are there to turn a profit
Regardless of patronage, if people spent their money elsewhere, it wouldn't increase employment numbers
I've seen people spend hours placing $1000 bets at the tab, and exhibit all the signs of problem gambling
Why don't we look at removing tabs also?

Scratchies are simple, and provide the same visual feedback as pokies
Lotteries offer "value" picks, which barely affect the odds of even payouts, let alone jackpots
I've seen some of those at over 1200...

It's not as simple as government just getting rid of it
The fallout would be immense

I have previously posted links in this thread which show that Poker Machines cause a net job loss, not a job gain (search this thread for my posts and you will find them). 40% of money lost on poker machines in Australia is due to problem gamblers. No other form of gambling has that profile. 62% of all money lost on gaming is on poker machines yet it accounts for 75-80% of all problem gamblers. There is a clear correlation between poker machines and problem gambling. You won't end problem gambling by getting rid of pokies but the evidence suggest it would be reduced as other forms of gambling are not as addictive. Add to that the social cost of gaming is estimated to be 4.7 billion per year as of 2011. State revenue is approximately 5 billion. Doesn't really seem to be a fair trade to me.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-25/key-facts-gambling-in-australia/2730414

 

[Matt Stevic]

For those talking about sugar, and why we aren't asking to ban that: I consider "sugar" as a whole to be equivalent to "gambling" as a whole. I consider "soft drinks" to be equivalent to "pokies", the super insidious form which causes so much more damage. I think soft drinks are awful awful things, they aren't addictive in the true sense of the word like pokies and cigarettes are, but they are habit forming; the body has an inherent need for hydration which we would normally satisfy with water, but soft drinks present a tasty substitute. So many drink 2+ litres of Coke per day, it's more common than you think. While I don't think they should be banned, their availability should be restricted (in places such as schools they should not be available, and that includes the teachers), and their risks should be educated to a public which on the whole simply doesn't realise how much damage they cause. As a dentist I do this every single day, but I'm just one guy, only seeing people who are motivated enough to come to a dentist in the first place. It's an interesting argument to have, and if anyone wants to further discuss sugar from a public health perspective, just PM me.

 

[Bikefreak]

If the government got rid of the pokies, those with a true problem are just going to find somewhere else, be it illegal casino's (which were rife prior to the legislation in victoria), online, rooter forms (such as sports betting)

It should also be known that 65% of the world's machines are produced here in victoria
That's a hell of acash injection
Gaming venues directly and indirectly provide a lot of jobs, which simply wouldn't be there without them
Shops are there to turn a profit
Regardless of patronage, if people spent their money elsewhere, it wouldn't increase employment numbers
I've seen people spend hours placing $1000 bets at the tab, and exhibit all the signs of problem gambling
Why don't we look at removing tabs also?

Scratchies are simple, and provide the same visual feedback as pokies
Lotteries offer "value" picks, which barely affect the odds of even payouts, let alone jackpots
I've seen some of those at over 1200...

It's not as simple as government just getting rid of it
The fallout would be immense

Gambling is gambling.

The fallout would not be potentially so immense if the industry hadnt been allowed to grow to the size that it is now with so many drawing a livelihood from it.

Its a bit like knowing someone is sick (poor physical health) but not seeking a diagnosis or administering any treatment until they show signs of being really sick. It could be too late by then.

It is also very simplistic to say that people will just go elsewhere for their "fix" if gambling was regulated more heavily or in some forms, abolished. Why do we even bother trying to make things better if its all so hard????? I am pretty sure because many people have a fair idea that it could be much better but they dont want to give up their vices or exercise a stronger level of self discipline.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[flinchfree]

For those talking about sugar, and why we aren't asking to ban that: I consider "sugar" as a whole to be equivalent to "gambling" as a whole. I consider "soft drinks" to be equivalent to "pokies", the super insidious form which causes so much more damage. I think soft drinks are awful awful things, they aren't addictive in the true sense of the word like pokies and cigarettes are, but they are habit forming; the body has an inherent need for hydration which we would normally satisfy with water, but soft drinks present a tasty substitute. So many drink 2+ litres of Coke per day, it's more common than you think. While I don't think they should be banned, their availability should be restricted (in places such as schools they should not be available, and that includes the teachers), and their risks should be educated to a public which on the whole simply doesn't realise how much damage they cause. As a dentist I do this every single day, but I'm just one guy, only seeing people who are motivated enough to come to a dentist in the first place. It's an interesting argument to have, and if anyone wants to further discuss sugar from a public health perspective, just PM me.

Super post!
Thanks for the insight.

 

[flinchfree]

Its a difficult task to find the right balance between personal liberty and government protection. A very difficult task. For me Pokies clearly lies in the category for which the government should intervene. Its purpose is to more or less hypnotise you into the 'zone' in which you play until 'extinction'. It is as malicious a product as heroin.

I want to thank you for your posts and well thought out and considered opinion.
Can I ask if you've spent any time yourself in front of a poker machine?

I have, and oddly I can't find anything about it remotely as you describe.
Maybe I've played them 4 or 5 times, 1 of those would have been at the Bellagio hotel in Vegas.
At said venue, I walked up to one chrome upright after looking through a room full of flashing lights, an ocean of retina overload, and wondered If I'd chosen a 'lucky' one. I knew I'd find out by the bottom of my cup of coins/tokens. I had approx. $15 worth of playing ahead of me.

From nearly the second I started I was bored. I fed the machine, picked a few variations of playing lines as I went, watched the spinner, and in between let my eyes wander the room looking for pretty waitresses. I couldn't wait to be finished playing to be honest. There was nothing hypnotic, no heroin rush - and I've used enough drugs to recognize a good high, and as soon as I was done I was thrilled to lift my non-sleepy derriere off the stool and walk away.
The place nauseated me and left me with an instant headache.

I understand everyone is different, but I can't help but think your descriptions are exaggerated for the temptress you paint the machines to be.
I honestly think it would make zero difference to the overall playing patterns of people who choose that form of gambling if the machine was all black and only the spinner visible.
Sure some old folk turn up to clubs for something to do and to fill a couple of otherwise lonely hours, but for even them I believe it's the chance to win something that is the draw. Their lives become so small in relationship terms, a cash win gives them something to talk about, to share, or maybe to even use to buy the grandkids a special gift.

It would be really interesting to know the best educated statistics for numbers of hardcore addicted gamblers to poker machines.
If they numbered less than 1,000, and you knew 500,000 used a machine at some point through the year to waste some time, would you still feel so strongly about banishment? If 0.2 % showed an inability to cope with this form of gambling, would you need to rule 99.8% unable to participate in a generally non-harmful way?

Just wondering.....

 

[threesixpio]

I want to thank you for your posts and well thought out and considered opinion.
Can I ask if you've spent any time yourself in front of a poker machine?

I have, and oddly I can't find anything about it remotely as you describe.
Maybe I've played them 4 or 5 times, 1 of those would have been at the Bellagio hotel in Vegas.
At said venue, I walked up to one chrome upright after looking through a room full of flashing lights, an ocean of retina overload, and wondered If I'd chosen a 'lucky' one. I knew I'd find out by the bottom of my cup of coins/tokens. I had approx. $15 worth of playing ahead of me.

From nearly the second I started I was bored. I fed the machine, picked a few variations of playing lines as I went, watched the spinner, and in between let my eyes wander the room looking for pretty waitresses. I couldn't wait to be finished playing to be honest. There was nothing hypnotic, no heroin rush - and I've used enough drugs to recognize a good high, and as soon as I was done I was thrilled to lift my non-sleepy derriere off the stool and walk away.
The place nauseated me and left me with an instant headache.

I understand everyone is different, but I can't help but think your descriptions are exaggerated for the temptress you paint the machines to be.
I honestly think it would make zero difference to the overall playing patterns of people who choose that form of gambling if the machine was all black and only the spinner visible.
Sure some old folk turn up to clubs for something to do and to fill a couple of otherwise lonely hours, but for even them I believe it's the chance to win something that is the draw. Their lives become so small in relationship terms, a cash win gives them something to talk about, to share, or maybe to even use to buy the grandkids a special gift.

It would be really interesting to know the best educated statistics for numbers of hardcore addicted gamblers to poker machines.
If they numbered less than 1,000, and you knew 500,000 used a machine at some point through the year to waste some time, would you still feel so strongly about banishment? If 0.2 % showed an inability to cope with this form of gambling, would you need to rule 99.8% unable to participate in a generally non-harmful way?

Just wondering.....

Yep - whether you agree with Brishawk or not he has backed up his points with a lot of decent arguments and sources. Top poster

 

[Dinsdale]

Its time to ditch Woolies too:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...i-pokies-groups-gambling-rewards-card/6784210

Woolies owns more pokies than the top 5 Vegas Casinos.

(hmm, this is the second thread I've posted this in today, I'm off BF {and my high horse} until tomorrow).

 

[Brishawk]

I want to thank you for your posts and well thought out and considered opinion.
Can I ask if you've spent any time yourself in front of a poker machine?

I have, and oddly I can't find anything about it remotely as you describe.
Maybe I've played them 4 or 5 times, 1 of those would have been at the Bellagio hotel in Vegas.
At said venue, I walked up to one chrome upright after looking through a room full of flashing lights, an ocean of retina overload, and wondered If I'd chosen a 'lucky' one. I knew I'd find out by the bottom of my cup of coins/tokens. I had approx. $15 worth of playing ahead of me.

From nearly the second I started I was bored. I fed the machine, picked a few variations of playing lines as I went, watched the spinner, and in between let my eyes wander the room looking for pretty waitresses. I couldn't wait to be finished playing to be honest. There was nothing hypnotic, no heroin rush - and I've used enough drugs to recognize a good high, and as soon as I was done I was thrilled to lift my non-sleepy derriere off the stool and walk away.
The place nauseated me and left me with an instant headache.

I understand everyone is different, but I can't help but think your descriptions are exaggerated for the temptress you paint the machines to be.
I honestly think it would make zero difference to the overall playing patterns of people who choose that form of gambling if the machine was all black and only the spinner visible.
Sure some old folk turn up to clubs for something to do and to fill a couple of otherwise lonely hours, but for even them I believe it's the chance to win something that is the draw. Their lives become so small in relationship terms, a cash win gives them something to talk about, to share, or maybe to even use to buy the grandkids a special gift.

It would be really interesting to know the best educated statistics for numbers of hardcore addicted gamblers to poker machines.
If they numbered less than 1,000, and you knew 500,000 used a machine at some point through the year to waste some time, would you still feel so strongly about banishment? If 0.2 % showed an inability to cope with this form of gambling, would you need to rule 99.8% unable to participate in a generally non-harmful way?

Just wondering.....

The language I used is the language used by those in the business. Its literally how they talk about Pokies.

Problem gamblers account for 40% of money lost on Pokies. 75-80% of problem gamblers gamble primarily on pokies. Those numbers come from the 2010 productivity commission report on gambling in Australia. To me they are horrific numbers.

 

[flinchfree]

The language I used is the language used by those in the business. Its literally how they talk about Pokies.

Problem gamblers account for 40% of money lost on Pokies. 75-80% of problem gamblers gamble primarily on pokies. Those numbers come from the 2010 productivity commission report on gambling in Australia. To me they are horrific numbers.

Yup, very ugly numbers....but you didn't go close to answering my question.
If 500,000 regular non-problematic gambling joes lose an average $10 each on pokies, we have $5 mill given away to such machines.
If 1,000 problem gamblers lose an average of $200,000 each on pokies, we have $2 mill - or approx. 30% of total money lost on pokies.

Should the 99.8% of the population not having serious issues be unable to enjoy that form of gambling, to save the 0.2% who can't help themselves?

Can you put any type of number to the percentage of problem gamblers as part of the total number of gamblers that require us to rid ourselves of this poker machine sickness?

 

[Brishawk]

Yup, very ugly numbers....but you didn't go close to answering my question.
If 500,000 regular non-problematic gambling joes lose an average $10 each on pokies, we have $5 mill given away to such machines.
If 1,000 problem gamblers lose an average of $200,000 each on pokies, we have $2 mill - or approx. 30% of total money lost on pokies.

Should the 99.8% of the population not having serious issues be unable to enjoy that form of gambling, to save the 0.2% who can't help themselves?

Can you put any type of number to the percentage of problem gamblers as part of the total number of gamblers that require us to rid ourselves of this poker machine sickness?

Sorry, the report is less clear on precise numbers but to clarify, 95,000 out of roughly 600,000 people who play pokies at least once per week are problem gamblers. This is of a total of 115,000 problem gamblers across all forms. A further 280,000 people are judged as being at 'moderate risk' (this is for all types of gambling). Assuming the ratio is the same as problem gamblers then we can estimate that about 230,000 of the 280,000 people at moderate risk are pokies players. So more than half of all regular players are problem gamblers or are a moderate risk.

Even if those numbers represent a small percentage of anyone who ever players a pokie, you can see that of those that regularly play them (i.e. the people who would be most affected by the prohibition of pokies) more than half of them have some level of issue relating to pokies. I should point out that the number of people who have experienced problem gambling in their life time is much higher than the people who presently are identified as problem gamblers (not clear number on that though).

Gambling addiction then leads to other issues such as suicide and fraud (gambling debt is the most common reason for committing fraud). The average loss due to fraud is 1.1 million per incident. For every problem gambler, several more are affected by problem gambling (report labels this the 'ripple effect' but provides not clear numbers). The impact is a lot wider than just the worst affected problem gamblers.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

For those talking about sugar, and why we aren't asking to ban that: I consider "sugar" as a whole to be equivalent to "gambling" as a whole. I consider "soft drinks" to be equivalent to "pokies", the super insidious form which causes so much more damage. I think soft drinks are awful awful things, they aren't addictive in the true sense of the word like pokies and cigarettes are, but they are habit forming; the body has an inherent need for hydration which we would normally satisfy with water, but soft drinks present a tasty substitute. So many drink 2+ litres of Coke per day, it's more common than you think. While I don't think they should be banned, their availability should be restricted (in places such as schools they should not be available, and that includes the teachers), and their risks should be educated to a public which on the whole simply doesn't realise how much damage they cause. As a dentist I do this every single day, but I'm just one guy, only seeing people who are motivated enough to come to a dentist in the first place. It's an interesting argument to have, and if anyone wants to further discuss sugar from a public health perspective, just PM me.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, obesity, smoking, shit life decisions which lead to people taking their own lives....they are tragic, but can all help regulate human numbers, and as much as that sounds really morbid(I see us as just another species of animal), it's the reality of where we are headed.


We are ruining this planet, over crowding it and raping of its resources at truly alarming rates.....keeping everyone healthy and alive for 100+ years sounds great, but it's really not a good idea in the long run, when we're all destroying the planet as we go and not really giving a ****.


Sorry, I've got a bit off track.

I've come to the conclusion that we should let people live and die by their decisions. No one forces Barry to go and spend all of his hard earned in the pokies, just like no one is forcing Sheryl to smoke a pack a day, or Trent to do 140kmh in beat up old ute down a dirt road with loose gravel and a bunch of trees to keep him company. These people either live and learn from it, or they don't.


/harsh

 

[Bikefreak]

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, obesity, smoking, shit life decisions which lead to people taking their own lives....they are tragic, but can all help regulate human numbers, and as much as that sounds really morbid(I see us as just another species of animal), it's the reality of where we are headed.


We are ruining this planet, over crowding it and raping of its resources at truly alarming rates.....keeping everyone healthy and alive for 100+ years sounds great, but it's really not a good idea in the long run, when we're all destroying the planet as we go and not really giving a ****.


Sorry, I've got a bit off track.

I've come to the conclusion that we should let people live and die by their decisions. No one forces Barry to go and spend all of his hard earned in the pokies, just like no one is forcing Sheryl to smoke a pack a day, or Trent to do 140kmh in beat up old ute down a dirt road with loose gravel and a bunch of trees to keep him company. These people either live and learn from it, or they don't.


/harsh

But their (Barry & Sheryl) life choices can and do take out other people with them along the way.
Its a tough world that we live in.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

But their (Barry & Sheryl) life choices can and do take out other people with them along the way.
Its a tough world that we live in.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Sure is.

 

[The Lemon]

Vegas Room shut down at Waverley.

Good

 

[OzJohnnie]

Vegas Room shut down at Waverley.

Good

I've got nothing but speculation, but could this threaten Dingly? I don't like the pokies so I'm happy they are shut down. I wonder what revenue stream will replace them.