"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

As one who once once had the misfortune of having to share a house with a problem gambler, I say physically rip out every last poker machine in the country and turn them into scrap metal.

If they could do it in the Netherlands, they can do it here.

It is true that it is not easy to create an equal society for all but I think we are so used to having a welfare system that pays out cash to those in need that we think anything else is paternalistic. If welfare or financial assistance was paid in the form of rent/electricity/food vouchers and a nominal amount of cash for other needs why is that paternalistic. It is a society caring for its people who are most in need. What people do with the balance of their financial assistance is a choice they will make. I am a single Mum and I would be happy to receive my welfare in the form of rent/electricty and food can't say there is much left after that anyway but at least I know the society I live in would be providing for my basic needs. I do not see what is paternalistic about this, it is what I believe welfare means. A society looking after their most vulnerable. As far as poker machines go, I think they are a means not only for revenue collecting by Government and business but also a way of controlling the working class. Arguing for the right to have poker machines in any community is like arguing for the right to have plutonium in the drinking water. Plutonium is very useful to some people but not in a towns drinking water. Poker machines may have their uses, but keep them in the safety of a casino. I don't see that as paternal I see that as responsible Government.

It is like the NRA debate.

Its not the fault of the gun, it’s the fault of the people who use them.

Its not the fault of the pokie machine, it’s the fault of the people who use them.

But pokies are different to guns.

No third party is even remotely likely to be injured by someone recklessly using a pokie machine.

Paternalism is a form of dictatorship.

The role of government is to represent the will of the electorate, not to dictate it and not to dictate to the electorate.

Sure some seem doomed to squander their life’s resources on stupid pursuits, pokies, loose women, drugs, smoking and alcohol.

Temperance movements represent the aspirations of both the righteous, the self righteous, as well as the dull, envious and meddlesome.

Gambling is not addictive in any physical sense. There are no ‘cold turkey sweats’ or cardiac arrests from suddenly not gambling.

There is no good reason to ban pokies. There is however, a need for people to take responsibility for their own actions.

My “gambling of choice” is poker among friends, tax free.

On a selfish note, I would far sooner see people like me benefit through government spending of their cut of pokie machine income than wait until the pokie players contributed it in some other way.

Good to see the author makes a note of the adverse consequence of marijuana use. I quite literally got back my brother a couple of years ago when he stopped smoking it every day. Thankfully, he didn't end up drug-fu__ed like a lot of people in the Croydon-Ringwood-Lilydale area.

However, the author underestimates the impact of the occasional joint smoked by the university-educated middle class- its effects are just as detrimental to society. It turns already obnoxious, self-righteous, brainwashed douche-bags into complete wan_ers who believe it their sacred duty to impart to you the knowledge they have gleaned from their noxious weed. They become as fanatical as a Mormon going door-to-door, trying to convince you that until you partake in their disgusting habit, you will not know self fulfillment or spiritual enlightenment.

Complete bunch of toss-pots.