mightychurch.com

Why are clubs and their patrons so opposed to the proposed mandatory pre-comitments for gambling?
 
If the clubs are really being funded by problem gamblers, to the extent that clubs would be non-viable without the ‘contribution’ of these people who can least afford it, then I hope they would want to change that. 
   
Putting up signs advocating responsible gambling etc. is not going to be enough. Optional pre-comitment doesn’t impress me either.  I think that would mostly miss the target.
   
Would mandatory pre-comitment deter casual gamblers?  It applies to bets over $1 (I needed to look that up).  Perhaps a lot of people are just unaware how much they’re really spending on their little flutter.
   
I think pre-comitment is a good idea.  Setting oneself limits is something responsible people will do anyway.  This would formalise it for the sake of those with problems.
   
We’ve got used to wearing seat-belts, random breath-testing, removal of tobacco advertising for sports and other tobacco sanctions,... and accommodated all those.  If the clubs are as valuable to the community as they say, surely they could get over this.
     
Here is an article about the current politics of this.
     
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/wilkies-poker-face-has-labor-staring-at-defeat-20110819-1j26l.html

I used to work in a RSL. From my oberservation the Government is right. Most problem gamblers are those who play the pokies. We did have one person who had problems with Keno. He was ripping off his pool shop to fund his problem and his parents bailed him by selling a piece of land they own. Which was subdivided and ended up being where my parents purchase their house. Anyway, I think most patrons are concered about their beer prices going up. The food there is now cafe style prices so the $2 meals have been gone for years.
In fact when I worked on the pokies I learn’t that when you put your members card in the machiene your members number comes up on a computer as well as the denomination of the machine. So they’re all ready half way to having what the government wants to implement. I think this is something the governtment has to do. I know of a Chirstian school which was given a donation from a Catholic Club which would of come from those with problems gambling. Should we be accecpting those donations?

I go to clubs occasionally for a meal - as a guest of someone else, usually.  They are an easy and affordable way to have a get- together or simple celebration with a group. 
Brian used to have a club membership near his work, for an after-work drink with co-workers.
These are good and useful social facilitators, but I don’t want to be subsidised by problem gamblers.

Recently we we went to a local Catholic Club in order to see the Soweto Gospel Choir - and received quite a positive Christian message from them - certainly not the usual fare up on stage there I imagine !  I have been a member for several years and see the occasional show and have eaten quite a few meals there with family and friends.

I have heard the arguments that some toss up - even about Christians never going to these clubs. In the NT we also read of NT church leaders wrestling with their consciences about whether to eat meat offered to idols. I can also see a similar argument with the current issue at hand.

However, where do we stop ? Some ( perhaps many ? ) Christians state that they feel uncomfortable with eating meals that might have been subsidised by problem gamblers. That is understandable in some sense.  But, following that logic, if you then ban yourself from entering these clubs, what do you do about other places that ‘profit’ from gambling - problem or not ? I am thinking of our biggest supermarket chains ( Coles and Woolworths ) who between them own many hundreds of hotels ( which have a multitude of poker machines inside them - as well as TAB agencies ). If Christians are avoiding giving any business to the clubs because of the gambling problem, then will they also refrain from getting their groceries ( and petrol ) from these branded shops and service stations ?
Food for thought ?

There has to be a lot of nuances to acting with integrity when so many businesses have these kinds of connections and in many situations.
It would be boorish for example to refuse an invitation to dinner on the grounds that one won’t set foot in a club.
 
I wouldn’t want clubs to fold because they do provide valuable community connection for people.
But on the other hand, problem gambling is going to proportionally undermine that community.
 
I know people who gamble a small to moderate amount, and are convinced they come out ahead.  Some Christians also think a small flutter is okay. 
 
Personally, I’m opposed to gambling as not relying on the Lord, but on luck; and taking from others as opposed to working and being generous. 
   
However, I think that kind of approach wouldn’t get very far in the general community, but I think supporting harm minimisation is a good thing.

I often go to clubs for the cheap meals, and avoid the gambling outlets (which are generally pokies in the clubs context) like the plague.  I find no problem with that because it’s the pokies that are the issue here.

Been reading ‘Bright Lights, Dark Nights’ lately and saw a quote from Tim Costello about the pokies:

“I felt great exhilaration and passion intersecting with the need to stop the spread of a highly addictive machine that was ruthlessly transferring money from the poorest people in our city to the richest, the captains of the gaming industry”.

It is suggested both in the quote and other places that pokies are far more addictive than other types of gambling, and I support measures to cap this sort of gambling.

Great article by Sandy Grant:
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/thinking/pokies_debate_my_top_7_comments/
 

Pokies Debate: My top 7
Sandy Grant
September 27th, 2011

My top seven observations on the pokies debate.
 
7. Political advocacy against (or for) pokies reform has no place on the broadcast of the footy finals, any more than live promotion of gambling odds, especially when so many children are watching.
 
6. The Productivity Commission - not noted as wowsers - urged a focus on pokies because the rapid, repeat, high intensity play possible on the pokies makes them so much more unsafe than other forms of gambling. [See my fact sheet summary of the Commission’s report}
 
5. Most clubs donate less than 5% of their pokie profits to community groups. [See this SMH article]
 
4. The reforms being proposed exempt lower impact, low turnover machines, and allow a longer phase-in period for smaller clubs.
   
3. Sporting and community clubs survive quite well in WA, where they have no pokies.
   
2. A recent opinion poll showed 67% of people in favour of the mandatory pre-commitment scheme being proposed by Mr Wilkie and the Gillard Government. [See this article ]
   
1. The Productivity Commission reports that 40% of pokie profits come from problem gamblers. [Again, see my fact sheet summary of the PC’s report] How can that be a ethical business model for anyone to justify?
 
If this reasoning strikes you as sound, let your MPs know.

Sandy Grant   5 hours, 26 minutes ago

Actually I forgot my top reason to do something: Individual people’s lives and their families are being ruined by problem gambling.

#1 of 4 top

Haydn Sennitt   1 hour, 38 minutes ago

This is a sensational post. Lives and souls are destroyed by pokies (among other things). God bless Wilkie for proposing this.

#2 of 4 top

Sandy Grant   54 minutes ago

Here’s a link to Geoff Gallop’s article on how WA gets on fine without pokies in pubs and clubs.
And here’s Tim Costello’s article refuting Eddie McGuire’s claim the proposed reform is absolutely not a tax on footy!

#3 of 4 top

Sandy Grant   52 minutes ago

Hadyn (and others), please consider taking 15 minutes to write to your MP. They listen to weight of numbers, if not always to good arguments. And at the moment, the Clubs lobby is putting the acid on them. They need to know this is a potential vote-winner.

Pokies are a dumb person’s way of gambling. They cant win, because they are trying to beat a computer.

And it is a bored persons interest. I go into clubs in my work, and I feel sad looking at the people glued to the pokies, with a life which seems meaningless. The people playing them look like the village of the zombie damned.

I worked with a middle aged man who had lost two houses by gambling, and was in debt up to his eyeballs with three or so credit cards up to the limit. His paycheque went towards paying the interest on those credit cards.

One true story was when we went to a club for a Christmas party. He came up to a couple of the other workmates and said he had just lost his whole wages. He said he couldnt pay his rent. One of the guys there said “here take this $200 and pay the rent with it.”

The people then left, but the gambler sneaked back to the pokies and lost the $200 as well.

Personally, I have played the pokies in the past with about $10 limit, and found it the most boring exercise ever. Just pressing a button, and seeing the money dwindle down. Really if someone said they would pay me $250 a day to press that button as a job, I wouldnt do it. It is soooooo boring.

I agree with your comments entirely Ken. All I can say is that you probably have to live with an addicted gambler before you can understand the nuances of their personality that lead to financial suicide.

There is a 4-page feature on this in the December Southern Cross.  No web link, paper only.

http://www.stoptheloss.org.au/#.Txj7FxS1m2Y.facebook comes from a newly-formed coalition against gambling and its effects on society.

I signed up, feel free to also sign up.