The one percenters.

I agree that one percent of all poker machine players have serious problems. As a national agenda item this issue has been blown way out of proportion by the spin doctors of Whine and Victim Nation - and I cite Xenophon as the prime spinner.

Heroin addiction? Nah, been there, done that. Gay marriage? No votes in it. Indigenous health? No votes either - and depressing too. Rural suicides and depression? Too gloomy. Juvenile crime? Too tabloid.

Every time you make a new law such as the ones Victim Nation want to enact with pokies, you slowly erode people's rights. What power the one percenters have.

Cheryl, I don't play the pokies myself, however I do know some who do and they enjoy it.

The bit I can't grasp is why they don't simply reduce the amount one can loose in a machine. This way you don't effect those without problems and you stop those with a problem from wasting thier money on these machines.

Now of cause they may find some other way of wasting thieri money, but that's life. You can't legislate against stupidity.

Another sensitive issue is to stop paying welfare as cash, but governments won't do this as they rely on the taxes they get from gambling, tabbacco and grog.

It's a catch 22 situation, especially considering how much of our taxes have been wasted both state and federally.

Unfortunately, our system now relies on the likes of the pokies.

It would not matter if all poker machine clubs went broke .The persons who now use them can obtain drinks and meals in restaurants , fast food venues , pubs or taverns . They can socialise in other places , which do not have poker machines .

If patrons genuinely see some benefit in club membership that cannot be obtained elsewhere , they should be prepared to pay increased membership fees to offset the loss of revenue from the poker machines . Those who object that poor people cannot afford to pay increased membership fees should admit that such people are the very people who are made even more impoverished by the machines .

It has been demonstrated that the percentage of revenue which clubs contribute to community causes is minimal , and it is all derived from gamblers , not created by the clubs .

Any income tax exemptions which clubs now have should be removed , to the extent that such income is derived from poker machine revenue . No further poker machine licences should be issued , regardless of how worthy the applicants for such licences may be .

Governments should gradually acquire , compulsorily if necessary , a percentage of poker machine licences from the clubs until they have all been acquired , the compensation for such acquisition being derived from the removal of tax exemptions from poker machine clubs .

...Carping for gambling addicts is the same carping as for drug addicts and alcoholics. These are a group in our community who can only be assisted by themselves.

...Just as clubs and pubs (and bottle shops), plunder alcoholics for their "Booty", and drug dealers plunder the addict for their "Booty", gamblers present themselves for plunder to casinos and the myriad of gambling venues available.

...Personal responsibility dictates the spouses and their families have a personal responsibility to save themselves from such people, as the addict must in the end, bend to personal responsibility to save themselves if they so desire.

...Addicts build their own environment to suit a personal need; it becomes their own choice to remain in that environment or to advance out of it. All the Wilkies, clubs and law changes will not alter the fact!

Diver Dan:

Making an argument that we shouldn't attempt to help problem gamblers and the vulnerable because they will look for alternate ways of feeding their addiction is the easy way out.

On that basis we should shut down the injecting room in Kings Cross, we should stop trying to protect our borders, we should stop imprisoning people who steal when on drugs.

Our society must have the moral fortitude to look after its people, one family saved is worth this legislative change.,That is not intended to abdicate anybody from personal responsibility, but rather to reinforce our capacity to care for each other in times of need.

daniel: www.spinspun.com.au

Dan, I'm not having a go at people who play pokies and I'm very sad that there are people out there who are peeing their pensions and salaries up against a wall of pokie machines.

But ask yourself, are you really right to suggest that "one family saved is worth this legislative change"? Me thinks not. Not by a long shot.

rehctub's idea of reducing the amount one can lose is a good one.