The Forum > General Discussion > Alcohol & gambling: more harm than good?
Alcohol & gambling: more harm than good?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 September 2010 8:37:57 AM
| |
cont...
<< 24 August 2010: A new research report commissioned by the Alcohol Education & Rehabilitation Foundation (AER Foundation) reveals the true financial cost of alcohol-related violence in Australia is yet to be uncovered, with the latest estimate at a conservative $117 million in 2005. The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others report estimates, based on police data, that there were 70,000 alcohol-attributable assaults reported in 2005 costing the nation over $117 million. Notably, this estimate does not take into account the associated costs incurred by police, courts and corrective services. It also does not factor in the intangible costs, which include fear, pain, suffering and lost quality of life. The costs to the health system were the highest reported of all impacts at $58.92 million. The second major contributor was lost output at $57.1 million, which includes missed work time and time spent calling police, seeking counselling and time in emergency departments and hospitals. The report highlights that these costs are substantially underestimated given that victimisation surveys show that only 37% of assault victims report the crime to police.>> (http://www.aerf.com.au/showcase/MediaReleases/2010/Media%20Release%20-%20New%20Research%20Shows%20Costs%20of%20Alcohol%20Related%20Violence%20Significantly%20Underestimated.pdf) So there is enormous benefit to be had if people were to abstain willingly. Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 September 2010 8:38:50 AM
| |
Mindlesscruelty:
<<If they gave up drugs of their own volition, yes, undoubtedly everyone would be better off, except the marketers of such products. But society won’t give it up. An interesting statistic from the period of Prohibition in America during the 1930’s, was that the incidence of alcoholism doubled during that period…when it was illegal to make it, sell it and consume it, addiction to it doubled!! So the key is that it must be given up, not taken away.>> I think there is good reason to disagree. Society would give up under the right conditions. It is fair to say that Islam succeeded in eliminating alcohol as a social disease and this has been because it has succeeded in having people willingly abstain from alcohol. In particular, when the parents abstain then they have a clear moral authority to explain to their children the problems that can occur with gambling and alcohol (and other drugs) and the harm outweighs any benefits. <<Gambling is different. We all gamble everyday in life. I know you’re referring to poker machines, horse racing, casino’s, lottery tickets etc, but they are merely microcosmic examples of some of the small risks we take in life, but in this instance, with money, which is not too different from what a businessman does in risking capital in a venture. >> I think you are blurring the meaning of gambling a bit: Gambling: involves the transfer of money based on chance Business: involves the transfer of money with the intention of purchasing something, to produce something else to sell it to someone else. The profit is derived from a calculated risk, not pure chance. The gambling industry: is a business of facilitating gambling If people were to stop gambling they would be spending their money on other things. Other industries would replace the gambling industries cont.. Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 September 2010 9:06:54 AM
| |
MindlessCruelty:
<<We’re addicted to materialism, what is “trendy”, “cool” and “sexy”, and our marketers give us what we want. We, as a society, follow what our favourite celebrities do, and they are mostly dysfunctional. We then wonder why we and our kids have problems when we attempt to emulate dysfunctional people. We’re addicted to screens and monitors and the ever pervasive swill that oozes from them, and have the temerity to call it “information”. We’re addicted to the trappings of Capitalism…you can get anything you want (at Alice’s Restaurant).>> Agreed. The idea that happiness can be purchased is what sells products. Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 September 2010 9:07:59 AM
| |
Yabby
<<*An addict does not want to be an addict* Well not quite Grateful, for of course self delusion is one of those great human foibles. The stuff I've read on dealing with addictions, starts with trying to get people to accept that they have an addictive problem in the first place. Some do, but a great many are in denial. Addictions nearly all relate back to brain circuitry, dopamine and the reward/pleasure centres of the brain.>> Yabby, the addict will say that they can give up any time they want. So they are in denial of their addiction. But this is different from saying that they actually WANT TO BE ADDICTED. Show me the science which supports this idea. The very fact that they are denying their addiction implies that they see addiction as a BAD thing not something that is good for them. If they wanted to be addicted there wouldn’t be addicts in denial or trying to kick the habit! Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 September 2010 9:16:26 AM
| |
Yabby <<Religion works on a similar level. Hope and fear are
the drivers. Many people become anxious over uncertainty. Religion gives you perceived certainty, it brings the homeostasis of your brain chemistry back into balance. In other words, religion rewards you with feelgood brain chemistry, as addictive substances reward addicts. The very thought of understanding/coping in a world without that religious certainty, sends many believers into a frantic panic. I've had some admit to me that if they did not believe one religion, it would be another one. They need that religious certainty to cope with life. Real addicts.>> A religious person is not in denial of his belief or trying to get rid of his religion. Therefore the religious cannot be characterised as addicted. What i think you and others are trying to say is that people like myself have no rational or scientific grounds for believing in a Creator and so there is a need for an alternative explanation. A primordial need for certainty is one such explanation and presumably you can think of others. However, atheists whose only experience is with Christianity are trying to ‘cut corners’ and avoid a bit of hard work when they project their experiences to all religions. With Christianity there are obvious examples in which the doctrine can be challenged: Science: the earth much older than the Biblical account of 5,800 years Reason: God does not need to do anything, let alone become a man, to get anything done: He simply say ‘Be!” and it is’ Here you can argue that thus beliefs can not be understood on rational grounds. However, you and others generalise without justification. There are a large number of claims and propositions within the Qur’aan which provide refutable propositions suitable for this purpose. If you are correct then it shouldn’t be too much trouble to find justification. In the meantime you need to be a bit more circumspect in your assertions about Muslims and the grounds for their belief. Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 September 2010 9:34:54 AM
|
<< You're still not listening, grateful.
>>If the majority of Australians were to forgo alcohol and gambling (and do so WILLINGLY thereby eliminating the prospect of a black economy emerging) then society would be better off. I think most of us agree with this statement.<<
On the contrary, I think that the evidence of this thread weighs heavily against that conclusion.
The reality is - as dotto is trying so hard to point out to you - that addiction is the problem. Alcohol and gambling are simply the vehicles through which that addiction manifests itself.
So the "willing" abstainers are most likely to be those whose drinking and gambling is not a problem to society.
Hence, even if they all willingly abstained tomorrow, society would still have the exact same problem from the unwilling (the addicts), and will not be better off at all.>>
Perecles,
Two questions:
1. How do you think addictions start?
2. Is addiction the only social disease associated with alcohol?
Some answers:
Addiction begins as a bit of fun, not an addiction. You with your mates, at parties, pubs, ‘socialising’, ‘celebrating’, having sex, etc..., with the community providing constant encouragement.
Other social costs:
As for the other costs Alcohol Education & Rehabilitation Foundation has just released a report entitled "The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others". "The report was commissioned to assess harm caused by the heavy drinking of others. It draws on and analyses a wide variety of existing and newly developed data, including a national survey of more than 2,600 Australians aged 18 or older conducted in 2008."
Look at the index to get an idea of the range of issues.
In relation to alcohol-related violence alone:
cont...