I am in favour of the poker machine limit!

This has been exactly what I have always done... even though I hate the things.

In days prior to pokies in Victoria, friends would come to Sydney and always want to go to the clubs, as boring for me as that was.

So I'd get a $4 tube of 20c pieces, put them all through, then play the stupid pokies.

That was in the days when the money tinkled into the tray after every win.

When I had spent the $4 I'd take what was in the tray and cash it in.

Usually I ended up winning a couple of bucks, or at least had a percentage of the $4 I had inserted.

It was my way of having self control.

Later when the winnings were retained in the machine I never played the pokies. It was obvious why they stopped paying out into the tray. Most people just keep playing and spend both their original investment and their winnings this way.

So give it a try... It used to work for me!

As far as I know NSW had poker machines decades before the rest of the states.
Sorry but I find the way the statement nanny state is used quite selective.
As stunning as it may be for some we always have been such.
And in fact quite Socialist in part ,and we would go to war if some of our nanny state safe guards are removed.
In work my trips away over night or for a week, saw nights in clubs and pubs.
NSW has banks of them in pubs too.
Myself and mates would head for TAB, often we would pool $20 each half for poker machines half for punting.
We, like almost every one, never expected a return.
Sitting their nearly always, was elderly women or younger putting cash in as if their life depended on it.
Even worse? men still in work cloths doing that consenting adults?
How about the hungry kids at home.
These two nigh mares are true!
Hard working loved bush man, wed and watched his wife, gamble every cent away, two homes and land his via three generations of family owner ship.
He quietly slipped in to a shed and hung himself the day before repossession.
As a union official I helped as I could in 5 such deaths, each of those involved the gambler killing him self twice after wife and kids left.
Poker machines used as I do are ok.
Building palaces by letting low income victims, well if nanny state suits you ok.
My idea is its enforcing some thing clubs, long ago, could and should, in the best do now.
If nothing else matters we SHOULD try to help those unable to help them selves.

It seems that there's more to this anti-pokies campaign
than just politics. (What a surprise). From Eddie McGuire,
Jeff Kennett, retired Liberal Senator Coonan, and quite a few
others - all have vested interests (mega bucks) invested.
And there is a conflict of interest muddying the anti-pokies
campaign. The following website is just one example:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/05/bolt-talks-up-anti-pokies-campaign-fails-to-disclose-association/

Lexi

I assume your research is right as far as the interests of Kennet, MacQuire etc. Don't forget however the Labour party has many who stand to lose from restrictions on gambling. In Canberra we have the popes place (Southern Cross club), the Labour club and numerous sporting clubs who will lose out. I suspect many unions also benefit from these things as their membership has declined so rapidly over the last 20 years. I for one would be happy to see all one armed bandits (showing my age) banned. I doubt whether blanket restrictions or bans will change a gamblers behaviour. There are many more ways for them to blow their doe.

Wobbles, I think that's a good place to start. After all, if we make them unattractive, it should make some difference.

So why not just limit the amoun that can be lost in any one machine ad, if clubs insist on having high volume machines, then tax them big time.

From what I understand thi is about effecting all pokie players an that's the part I don't get.

I will divert my thread now, I just must.
But return after to its intended paths, please do not see this as me putting barriers in your way comment as you wish.
A TAX ON FOOTBALL?
WHO THEN GETS THE TAX, IF YOU BUY THE LIE! FROM RSL AND bowling clubs, from ethnic clubs and from hotels.
MUST WE? put every issue in the I hate Labor/Liberal basket?
NANNY STATE! we prohibit youth from drinking, voting, put pedestrian crossings on roads, we pay in part health costs for every one even self inflicted , nanny state?
Out country is desperately in need of answers to Drug use, its destruction of so many lives the fouling of our institutions by its bribes and purchasing of police and law.
Yet legislation meets with nanny state claims?
Have interstate people seen our clubs? do they know how much was paid ,,, to Labor and Liberals to allow pubs owned by questionable front people, to have poker machines in there.
Do you know of former ALP Ministers and Liberals who own such pubs.
NANNY STATE? is it ok to see kids go hungry day after day because dad is in the pub spending the last cent.
Do we then let the voices saying action against such is nanny state rule?
Drop drug laws stop picking the human wreckage up from our streets and let them die.
Those calling this a tax are? no dare not say.
South Sydney NRL club was dropped from the game.
Two rich men bought it, payed the debts,that part of our City is poor mans country.
They sickened by the poker machine grief, for a long while banned them!
That is what we should be asking, knowing they thieve, that the end result is cash for the owners why not ban them.
No one is asking for that,I would do it is football, a reason I love life, worth the sponsorship of hungry kids?
Is politics our only moral compass?