Hard News: Dopamine psychosis and other great nights out
119 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
While i'm in distraction mode.
<quote> It seems that the rate of cigarette smoking amongst young New Zealanders has increased. One theory is that the kids don't like the man telling them not to smoke, so they're sticking it to the man by lighting up. <quote/>
Herald report seems to suggest a greater increase in smoking amongst women. Thin = pretty/healthy to smoking = Thin anyone ?
-
I remember a NatRad interview with John Stansfield (Problem Gambling Foundation) who was talking about harm minimisation by forcing people make their gambling choices away from the machines.
If I remember correctly all pokie machines would require a card to operate, similar to the "loyalty" card systems operating in casinos already, except that the cards would be programmed with a lose-limit that wouldn't allow someone to lose more than a predetermined amount in any 24 hour period.
Seemed to me to be a good compromise (short of banning the machines which i think is a far better idea).... of course as 24% of pokie revenue comes from the 3% of problem gamblers source: PGFNZ Fact sheet that this scheme would be principally targeted at, I can't imagine the casino and pokie trust operators would be too thrilled to get on board.
-
Sky City reported a drop in takings after the anti-smoking legislation came in, and I believe this is because gamblers were going outside and realising how much time (and consequently money) had passed.
I'd mandate compulsory visible daylight, and clock displays on machines at eye-level.
-
I'd mandate compulsory visible daylight, and clock displays on machines at eye-level.
Don't know much about casinos, but I'll bet that clocks anywhere are a no-no, just as they are in shopping malls. And for a similar reason.
-
Can't say I agree with any of the harm minimization arguments. Everyone's got their drug. For some poor saps it's gambling. Can't understand it, but can't understand BZP either.
I currently have an addiction to online blog commenting, which my dealer (whose identity is carefully hidden, let's just call him Mr B) profits from via the small amount of content I add every week to his site which no doubt triggers some Google hits that drag some people in who see some ads and click something which sends a few cents to Mr B. It is a major timesink. At times it detracts from my work. I also have children, btw, and you must think of them when you consider the harm caused by all this nefarious blogging being so easily accessible to my kind of sucker.
If you think it's not a problem, then perhaps it's just not a problem for you.
In this parody, which is not entirely humorous, I think the key to all the 'your fun shouldn't be allowed' rebuttals lie.
-
Can't say I agree with any of the harm minimization arguments. Everyone's got their drug. For some poor saps it's gambling. Can't understand it, but can't understand BZP either.
In a world of pure individual responsibility I might agree with you Ben, but surely society's interest also lies with the dependents that lose out because of addiction. Banning fun isn't the point - in this case the house always wins.
-
worst of all is the e-betting system that was being installed into pokies a couple years ago. i presume that means you just put in your credit/eftpos card & keep playing until your account is cleaned out.
i've also seen the "donation" process of a pokie trust. fair & transparent it is not.
-
Banning fun isn't the point - in this case the house always wins.
The house always wins down at the pub selling beer too. And fags. For every addiction, the house wins.
I don't think it's a matter of 'pure individual responsibility'. It's much like arguments to ban this drug or that. The addicts will still get their fix, but it will cost them more and they'll be getting it from gangsters. The people who wouldn't even try it gain nothing. But those who could control their addiction and have a bit of fun (however lame you might think their fun is) do lose something. Much like piss, where most people just have a budget they stick to, most gamblers are really just time-killers doing something that they like at a fairly consistent cost. Yes, some people take it way too far. This happens in almost every single thing that humans can do, that some people obsess about it to the detriment of themselves and their loved ones. They need help, and banning their obsession just makes it an illegal obsession which they still have.
You can't cure gambling by banning it. And you can't effectively ban it, either. Remove pokies in one place, they'll just go somewhere else. One less suburban pokies machine is one more loser at the casino. One less casino is just 10,000 more people playing it online and sending the money to the Nevada gaming commission. One less TAB is one more illegal bookie.
I'm not opposed to any number of minor restrictions on it, particularly for children (remember them anyone??). Indeed, I think it is a great evil, much like being addicted to cigarettes. But banning is not a solution, it is problem. The solutions are helping addicts and their families, educating society at large, and letting those who have some degree of control over their vice be. Feel free to give them a piece of your mind though.
It seems to me that even quite rational people are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to vices. Always, their vice is OK, but everyone else's should be banned. I try to at least be unhypocritical about it - I personally can't stand gambling, and consider any money put on a raffle or any other such crap as a charitable donation which I've already written off. But I won't moralize about it, because I also waste money stupidly on things I like too. That's money that's not going to my kid's education, or my life savings, or whatever. It's foolish and detrimental, but I do it anyway because I like it. If you want to ban gambling, then in all consistency you have to find one of your own vices and ban that too. Preferably one that you really, really like, so that you feel the pain that you will be inflicting on others. And if you think you don't have any vices, then your vice is most likely being a sanctimonious bastard, and you will have to give that up. Can you do it?
-
My brother was actually on one of those 'committees' that aportion the 'proceeds' to 'community groups' a few years back. He and his mates formed their own club, and sought funding for what was essentially a 3 day 'sports fishing trip' up North. Hired Boats and accommodation all to be paid for by the funds sought. But they were an officially registered club so they met the criteria for funding. And by 'fishing trip' I mean 'drinking binge'.
if you want really disgusting, try the committee that spent money sucked from poor people in Naenae on paving a private road (where one of the members lived) in the Western Hutt Hills. Talk about stealing from the poor and giving to the rich...
-
What percentage of the NZ population gamble at all frequently? I don't believe that myself and most of my friends are part of some freak statistical outlier that hardly ever gamble? So what makes us different - it isn't randomness - I think it just comes back to the self-respect thing.
Or being able to do maths. Apparently, most people can't.
The thing to understand about gambling is that the house always wins. always. And even if you win, the money is just coming from some other poor sod who threw their life savings into the hole. It's a tax on stupidity, a tax on hope, and a tax on desperation. And any decent person would want nothing to do with that sort of caluclated exploitation and evil.
-
Re: gambling. The problem is people think they can win (addicts think they win all the time, except for just this minute). The solution is to take away the ability to win.
So you walk in, you buy chips with money. These may be gambled for the usual loss or occasional gain. Chips may never be exchanged for any good or service, they are only ever allowed to be gambled with until they are all gone or you get bored.
Of course, then people wouldn't gamble on the old games as much, and the new games would become more and more like World of Warcraft, another form of reward addiction for those vulnerable.
Oh my god, it's 3:17, and these blogs are indeed proved addictive. You soulless bastards, stealing my sleep away. 8]
-
While the average English pub may not have as many pokies as the average NZ pub (from a very unscientific study performed by myself) the England does appear to have a rather high number of betting chains and pokie dens on many a high street (or just off). Especially in comparatively poorer areas. Head outside the tourist/richer parts of town and one will usually see at least 5 (or more) bookies and a couple of pokie dens. I think there is something to be said for making gambling venues either community owned or heavily taxed having seen this.
-
Oh and I guess we can be thankful that two of the three biggest MMO markets are rather moralistic countries - can you imagine how much more addictive Warcraft would be to its core 20-40 y.o demographic if gambling or heavily adult content was allowed as well?
-
You can't cure gambling by banning it. And you can't effectively ban it, either. Remove pokies in one place, they'll just go somewhere else. One less suburban pokies machine is one more loser at the casino. One less casino is just 10,000 more people playing it online and sending the money to the Nevada gaming commission. One less TAB is one more illegal bookie.
Ben, that's a complete load of crap. Pokies are a pernicious form of gambling specifically targeted at the people who can least afford it. There are 76 pokie dens in Manukau City alone, many of them right where people live -- or handily, alongside easy-credit shops -- and they take in an average $3m each a year.
The "charitable" trusts that operate the machines don't necessarily return the money back to the places they make it either: money extracted in Otara has literally been spent on a pony club in Remeura and water polo on the North Shore. Even where the trusts' operation isn't illegal, it's quite often an effective rort.
And it costs you and me money too. Non-casino pokies are the primary factor in between two thirds and three quarters of all problem gambling assessments in New Zealand (casino pokies account for another 17-20%). That comes out of the public health budget.
In the case of Maori women, about 85% of those who come to public health services cite pokies as their primary means of harmful gambling. These aren't people who are going to jump on their broadband connections and have a flutter online. They are people who might accidentally spend the family food money on the way home.
You and Rich are indulging yourselves with the fallacy that these things are a force of nature, have always been with us. But pokies were introduced by statute. The communities where they were established (or even the people who use them now) didn't lobby for the statutory change -- the putative industry around them did. You guys fancy that you're defending the right of people to play them -- you're not. You're defending the right of other people to extract money with devices built around powerful psychological principles.
Pokies could equally be removed by statute -- although a more practical option is probably local sinking-lid policies, where as pokie dens shut down, they aren't replaced.
Part of the problem with policy change is that the trusts can use the loot they make for political lobbying. You saw this when the bastard licensing trusts in West Auckland managed to convince people there not to vote for competition for liquor licences, using pokie money to run their campaign.
I'm pretty relaxed about most things consenting adults do. And most vices -- including your blog comments addiction and even other forms of gambling -- have redeeming features. I just don't think that's the case with pokies.
-
PS: After 14 years, North Carolina has legislated a sinking lid -- to zero -- on pokies. The problems there have been such that the state Senate has passed such a measure five times since 2000 -- but each time the House, under the direction of (Democrat) Speaker Jim Black, refused to vote on it. The game was up when it emerged that Black was taking campaign contributions from ... guess which industry?
Once that was cleared up, the House voted 114-1 for the ban.
-
Agree 100% Russell
God this blogging adiction is turning my personal politics as well as wasting time
Anyway
Gambling will always be with us and the poor are often driven by circumstances to gamble
Not sure what the answer is but pokies should be made really hard to access, not next door to the local easy credit shop
There was a time when the TAB was the only legal way of betting and it was required to be very low profile, bring it back -
I agree with Ben that people always object to others vices.
Which I'm trying not to do. Personally, like I said, I think pokies suck. Because a large proportion of NZ pubs are pokie parlours, that cuts down on the number of places I might want to go for a drink, apart from anything else.
But I want to be allowed booze, drugs, loud music, fast cars, etc. So I think it behooves me not to stamp on other peoples vices.
I'm all for sensible harm reduction measures - making a pokie machine less profitable per square foot than a pool table would seem to be reasonable. Teaching kids that they will always lose from gambling might be another.
I'm sure there are personality traits that make some people prone to gambling addiction - but there is a reason why there are a lot more pokie bars in Makukau than Grey Lynn. People who feel their life's going somewhere aren't inclined to spend hours feeding coins into a lot - people with crap lives will. So making peoples lives less crap will reduce gambling and other problem behaviours. In the long run, this is going to work better than prohibition.
-
Over the years the amount you can get out of a pokie machine has gradually increased as has the amount you can put in. The insideousness of this causes the problem, it's like jacking up the dose to get the same high as you get immune to the effects of whatever you are addicted to. I the powers that be were serious about harm reduction they would gradually reduce the ability to feed your habit and wean the victims off.
Hmmm, just saw Russells post after loging on, so we agree ;-)
So anyway. The corelation between poverty and gambling is a spurious one, you could say any buisness is a form of gambling and there are many rich buisness people, it's just that in buisness the harder you work the luckier you get, this principle does not apply to low paying jobs so you chase the luck in other ways so you dont' feel such a loser. -
There's an incredible graph here of gaming machine numbers in New Zealand.
The number of machines doubled between 1999 and 2003, when the Gambling Act 2003 was passed. Since then, there's been a gradual decline in numbers.
The table for expenditure on non-casino pokies is even more striking.
That continued to increase until 2004 when it cracked the billion dollar mark -- a 10-fold increase from the introduction of pokies in 1991, a tripling from 1999, and an amazing half of all money gambled in New Zealand.
It's now also slowly declining, but it's not hard to see what the trend would have been had the government not put the clamp on in 2003.
-
I'm all for sensible harm reduction measures - making a pokie machine less profitable per square foot than a pool table would seem to be reasonable.
If anyone suggests charging me $20 for a game of pool (which is about what it would take) then I'm organising my own revolution.
-
Gambling will always be with us and the poor are often driven by circumstances to gamble
See, I don't buy into that either. The idea that poor were always poor and driven to gamble. Prior to the liberalisation of the gambling laws (that saw the introduction of casinos, which in turn saw the introduction of pokies) the only legal way to gamble was by placing abet on a horse race thru the TAB. Or the ubiquitous 'raffle' for a meat tray at the local pub on a Friday/Saturday afternoon.
Whilst vast sums of money were spent/wasted on the TAB, it was a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent now on Lotto, Pokies, and casinos. Why? because most ppl weren't interested in horse racing. Now you can bet/gamble anytime almost anywhere and now the result is immediate (as opposed to having to wait for the weekend race day, and then for the actual race). As has been noted by others: by having an immediate result you provide instant gratification to the gambler. They either win or think they're about to win. If a scratch card gives you 2 of the 3 icons needed to win you think you're lucky and maybe will get all three next time, so you turn round and buy another. If your scratch card has no matching icons then you don't, so guess how the scratch cards are printed?
-
Modern gambling is now a mathemetical equation designed to ensure the House always wins. Gambling machines (pokies and their variants) are programmed to deliver a % to the house, a % to the government, and a % the punter. But not every punter gets to win of course. The only guaranteed winner is the Casino who knows that for every dollar put in the machine they get to keep 40ยข. The only way the Casino can lose is if not enough punters come in.
The other weird thing is that when it comes to games of skill (ie where the %'s can't be programmed) Governments protect the Casinos from losses by making it legal to turf out winning players. If you win a lot at Blackjack then you must be 'counting cards' which is illegal and you are out. No player can predict the next card out of the deck (or 'shoe') all s/he can do is make a guess based on probability based on the cards already dealt previously. That is a skill and you can still be wrong when the actual card is dealt. But even with 4 or 5 decks in the 'shoe' (200+ cards!) the casinos don't want to risk losing so they toss winning players as card counters. And the Govt have made this legal.
Try going into the Roulette Table in a Casino and putting $100k on red. They won't accept the bet, because they might lose $100k. They'll accept five bets of $20k each, but they won't accept it in one hit. This was famously proved by a UK reality TV show in which a Brit sold all his worldly goods and went to Vegas to put it all down on Black. No casino would take it.
Remember how we were sold the idea of casino's in NZ? Monte Carlo comes downunder! The international jet set were going to beat a path to our door, and everyone would look so debonair in their pearls or black tuxedo's ...
-
Remember how we were sold the idea of casino's in NZ? Monte Carlo comes downunder! The international jet set were going to beat a path to our door, and everyone would look so debonair in their pearls or black tuxedo's ...
Whereas the reality looks more like an abattoir. But I'm not able to deny middle Auckland its night out at Sky City,however little it appeals to me. I just despise the low-rent versions that sprout like corner dairies where the poor people live.
-
3410,
This was famously proved by a UK reality TV show in which a Brit sold all his worldly goods and went to Vegas to put it all down on Black. No casino would take it.
I'm pretty sure they'd take my bet, under similar circumstances. ;)
Another point* is that these parasites use every Applied Psychology trick in the book to make the punter think he's got a chance. They are clinical about it.
I just groan when I see my friends claiming they were "so close" to winning on the scratchies.
*really an extention of a point made by I.O.
-
I have more than a little sympathy for Ben's argument that we should be tolerant of other people's vices (on the grounds that otherwise, our own behaviour should then be subject to disapproval by others). However, there is a hidden assumption in that argument that doesn't really stand up to close inspection: that all behaviours labelled "vices" are morally equivalent.
What does calling some behaviour a "vice" actually signify?
* some section of society disapproves of it,
* indulgence to excess is harmful to the individual concerned (and possibly, but not necessarily, to others).Note that legal status is not a defining criterion. It should go without saying that the legal status of a behaviour does not necessarily indicate its moral standing (although in general, law should be about harm reduction more than anything else).
However, we still are left with a valid moral criterion for ranking "vices", in terms of the potential for harm to others. As such, it would still be possible to take a consistent moral position in which some vices are treated differently from others.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.