"So is it a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor? ...Is it OK for university types to smoke joints and go to wine bars while we impose drug and alcohol bans on Northern Territory Aborigines?"

Well....yeah.

Hi Peter,

Yes it's a great dilemma, not easily solved. Pokies just churn through money and the major benefits go to Governments, clubs and hotels.

A few years ago, I recall John Howard raising the prospects of gambling and governments' addiction to it's proceeds as a possible growing community problem.
I don't know where the following initatives, soon after, came from and I don't think it was Howard but I applauded the introduction of a few subtle changes.
First, the introduction of one cent machines. At the time the amounts acepted were five, ten, twenty cent and a few rare $1 machines. Second, the restricting of machines to accepting only $10 and $20 dollar notes instead of $50 and $100 demoniations as well.
I felt these two seemingly insignificant unannounced changes would limit the amount of money pokie addicts could possibly push into the buggars, and social players, of whom pensioners seem to be overrepresented, could send more or the same time at less expense.

I thought, wrongly, these may have had the effect of reducing the amounts spend in gambling outlets. I was wrong. Gambling increased. A number of things resulted not long after these changes.

Governments expanded greatly the number licences of machines and expanded the number of outlets.

'Vested interests' circumvented the first initative by expanding the use of multiple plays per gamble thereby increasing the possible individual outlay... quite significantly... and as well each venue increased numbers of $1 machines...with multiples of course.

ATM's in prominant positions within gambling establishments started issuing $20 notes rather than $50's. That had an advesre effect on the second initative.

While I think the dilemma you raised is very interesting and worthy of great thought, any aim should be of a sensible uniform policy to be implemented across governments to limit the amounts spent. I also feel a little 'thinking outside the square' with an emphasis on introducing greater physical difficulties being put in the way of punters and vested interests might help solve the growing problem. I don't think banning them from some venues is the only answer.

Regards

Sorry Peter

I did realise but failled to acknowledge, in my comment, your article addressed a much wider question, while my response was deliberately limited to the much narrower focus of pokies and gambling.

Sounds suspiciously like Mr Saunders of the CIS is admitting that market failures do exist: otherwise, why shouldn't Pokie operators or alcohol vendors be able to sell their wares to anyone who wants to buy them at whatever price that market will bear?
No doubt true laissez-faire advocates would argue that the problem is welfare payments - if the government would just stop giving money to these people, they wouldn't be able to spend it on pokies or alcohol. Well...sure...just too bad about the majority of welfare recipients that rely on that money to get them on their feet after circumstances out of their control leave them broke and jobless.

Thank you Peter for highlighting the dilemma. I wish I knew the answer. In principle I think that we all ought be willing to do without a privilege that causes one of our brothers to stumble. But, the problem with that is that we would have a totally repressed society. I think we have to start from scratch. What fundamental can we rely on? Self interest. Why do people play pokies to excess? Because they see the activity as their best way forward in the immediate present. Bingo nights used to fill this need in a much more benign way. More bingo, fewer pokies would be a useful start. But, more seriously, what can we do to promote activities that offer more reward to participants than the present gateways to hell? Wish I knew the answer. The answer is somewhere in the province of providing more Hope.

Good article,

The bigger percentage of people who play the poker machines arent addicted gamblers and just treat it as another form of entertainment that you may spend money on like dining out, going to the movies etc.
All these activities cost money. Why do people get so moralistic about poker machines as opposed to all the other money Western society wastes on entertainment.

What about all the money people waste on unneeded jewellery and fancy cars and trips overseas whilst at the same time being in debt up to their necks with credit cards and mortages. What about the billions of dollars we pour into the ticket office at the movies to amuse and entertain ourselves while half the world cant afford the basic necessities of life.

If the children of some people on welfare are actually not being fed then give them a portion of their welfare in food and rent coupons and a portion in cash. Allow them total autonomy over the cash portion