Yes, Daniel, it is a bad thing if some clubs fold as a result of the proposed legislation. You see, clubs employ a lot of people. If the clubs go, so do the jobs and the income from said jobs. It's sad when Dad's pokie addiction puts a family in the poorhouse. Is it not equally sad when Dad being fired has the same effect? Or should we only care about people who choose to make themselves poor through gambling, and not those who have poorness thrust upon them through unemployment?

I work in a club restaurant. I have nothing to do with the gaming section, and I don't prey upon people's vulnerabilities. So why, Daniel, do you think it is reasonable that I be financially punished as a result of other people's gambling choices (which is what will happen if this legislation puts my employer out of business)? How is that fair or right?

I cannot stand pokies.They are anti-social and moronic.Are we to assume addictive personalies will not find another outlet for their obsessive compulsive disorders?

Govt regulation solves nothing.Get Govt out of our lives then we will have less disorders.

Taking Diver San seriously is a risk but let's assume he seriously believes what he says. "Poker machines are no more exploitative than horse racing." Wrong. People who wager on horses do so in normal climatic conditions and races are discrete, not continuous events, creating thinking time between temptations for gamblers to evaluate what they are doing. Poker machines entrap addicts in artificial climates which mess with their sensual perceptions and provide no breaks during which they might have time to reflect on the stupidity of what they are doing.

Playing poker machines is regarded as "generally innocuous"? Get real. It might be for some but for the hooked it is about as innocuous as eschewing condoms during a philandering tour through AIDS infected parts of Africa.

His observation that "there is ample help in conventional areas such as psychological counselling clinics and specialist areas in the community" is chilling. It implies that he thinks it OK to exploit the vulnerable if he can identify provisions to ameliorate the damage he inflicst on them. And it suggests that his awareness of the damage he is prepared to inflict to make himself (or his club) a dollar extends only to the first hand victim, and not to the victim's family, who even by his criteria, can hardly be judged to have copped what they deserve for being flawed people.

Horse racing is very different to pokies, generally because the outcome can be influenced by ones abillity to follow form.

Lotto is another really bad form of gambling that seems to fly under the radar.

As a retailer, I see a major change in shoppers spending habits when there is a super draw.

Many people choose to gamble ratherbthan feed thier families or meet their commitments.

Acolyte Rizia,

Clearly my desire is not for people like you to lose your jobs, however your component of the business (the restaurant area) is propped up by the pokies component. I would far prefer the restaurant was able to survive on its own merits. I accept however that in some cases that won't be the case due to the pokies revenue being so significant.

I stand by my article and my position.

If we accepted yours, then we accept that evil, amoral businesses should be allowed to flourish if they provide employment.

Daniel: spinspun.com.au

Daniel,

Clearly your desire is for people like me to lose our jobs, otherwise you'd not be supporting this legislation.

As for your point about allowing evil, amoral businesses to flourish: we already do. You see, I'm a former addict myself. Not to pokies (a game for the innumerate), but to alcohol. Which is actually a lot more addictive than poker machines, due to the chemical rather than behavioural nature of the addiction. And coincidentally sold in the same places that you'll find pokies, plus bottleshops to boot. As a former drunkard, it amuses me no end to see your mob wailing 'Oh, please, won't somebody think of the pokie addicts', whilst ignoring the pissheads slumped at the bars of the very clubs you want to shut down. So why the inconsistency? Why don't you want to stop grog merchants plying their addictive wares and profiting off human misery? Is it because you just don't care about alcoholics, in the same way you don't care about hospitality workers? Or is it because you accept that just because some of us can't handle our piss it doesn't follow that other people's livelihoods should suffer? Do you think the alcoholic is responsible for his condition, or the barman? I would say that it's the alcoholic, every time (and I'd add that it's his responsibility to sort it out - none of this 'higher power' crap). And I would stand opposed to anybody who argued that the barman should be punished for my stupid decisions.

If you were to be consistent, any argument you made which applied to pokies would also apply to alcohol (only more so, because alcohol is more addictive and worse for the addict's health). I'm pretty sure they don't. Which suggests it actually is okay to let 'evil, amoral businesses' flourish, provided that they're sort of 'evil, amoral businesses' you approve of.