Problem Gamblers
I condemn Tattersalls' spirited deflection of responsibility for problem gambling (29/10). Clearly, Mr. Fischer sees it lies with the individual. And their family. Or society as a whole. Anyone but the gambling companies.
It's clear that no company would ever refuse a bet from a punter on welfare grounds: to do so may invite legal proceedings from punters (discrimination) and shareholders (failing to maximise investment). Also, they cannot help but market to problem gamblers, the underage and the vulnerable with their media and in-venue messages. These two facts render near-useless the "self-exclusion", warnings and advertising accord of which Mr. Fischer boasts.
This built-in lack of self-control means that it is not appropriate for private or public companies to own gambling. Other countries have nationalised gambling: why not us?
It's clear that no company would ever refuse a bet from a punter on welfare grounds: to do so may invite legal proceedings from punters (discrimination) and shareholders (failing to maximise investment). Also, they cannot help but market to problem gamblers, the underage and the vulnerable with their media and in-venue messages. These two facts render near-useless the "self-exclusion", warnings and advertising accord of which Mr. Fischer boasts.
This built-in lack of self-control means that it is not appropriate for private or public companies to own gambling. Other countries have nationalised gambling: why not us?
| Vent! | ↑ |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home