Diver Dan,

Addicts are not without hope. They can and do recover. But you're right that the transformation has to begin from within, which is why this law (or any other) won't achieve anything - you can't legislate for folk's thoughts, only their actions.

Fester,

You are aware that some random bloke on the interweb asserting that poker machines are hypnotic doesn't actually make it true, right? People claim all sorts of things on the interweb - you can't believe everything you read. Do you actually have any evidence that poker machines are hypnotic, or just more hearsay and conjecture?

You might find this link relating gambling addiction to brain chemistry interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/19/your_brain_on_gambling/

or this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861872/

It wouldn't be hard to determine changes in brain activity induced by pokie playing from an eeg, though I haven't found a published study yet. Might be a fun segment for aca. I also found this article by a machine designer outlining some of the psychology of slot machine design:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/magazine/09SLOTS.html?pagewanted=all

Well from all the comments so far, I would suggest the best options would be to limit the amount any one machine can accept in an hour and, introduce a plain packaging style of machine.

Well, from what I know of pokies they are nothing more than a legalised scam. So whatever good comes of the revenue they raise, you cannot escape this fact.

It is sad to see the victims denigrated in light of the way they are exploited. From the NYT link I gave:

"When I asked one I.G.T. artist if he ever plays, he acted as if I had insulted him. ''Slots are for losers,'' he spat, and then, coming to his senses, begged me to consider that an off-the-record comment."

I see people profiting from pokies as being better than drug dealers, but not by much.

rehctub,

The best option would be to replace poker machines with roulette tables. It's still a mug punters game, requiring no more skill or knowledge than a poker machine, but it's not as addictive and has better odds. It also has social aspect that is absent from poker machine lounges. Or maybe we could bring back two-up.

Fester,

Poker machines are not a scam. The word scam implies that poker machines gather their revenue through dishonest means - that they defraud the punters through trickery and deception. This is clearly nonsense - EVERYBODY* knows that poker machines are weighted heavily in favour of the house, and that there is a better than even chance that they will never again see said money again. Poker machines may or may not be an unethical means of obtaining revenue, but they are most definitely not a scam.

I agree that drug dealers are worse than pokie barons. Which is why I find it perplexing that so many people rail so vehemently against poker machines in licensed venues, whilst completely ignoring the roaring trade in a highly dangerous & addictive drug (ethanol) that takes place in the bars of such venues. Ahh, the hypocrisy.

* Everybody who hasn't been living under a rock for the past decade, that is.

Poker machines are a scam, simply because they deceive people into believing that they will win. Yes, you or I might realise what they are about, but there is no shortage of people who play them in the belief that they will win. And it is a fact that the machines are designed to reinforce this misconception with many features, most notably large jackpots and near misses. The near miss is a psychological ploy known to keep pathological gamblers playing. The near miss ploy is widely regarded as a scam in its own right.

http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/labels/slot%20cheating.htm