Poker Machines - What's the Opinion of the OzBargain Community ?

Last year we heard that a legal firm was alleging that poker machines were illegal (e.g. https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29883004/poker-machines-are-ille…). They say that it's been proven addictive, increasingly deceptive and should come with the same warnings that come with cigarettes, for example.

What's the opinion of the OzBargain community?

Renowned as a "nanny state" (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/welcome-to-austr…), somehow Australia has persisted it's pokie-playing rights to become the country with the most poker machines in the world, with our minuscule 0.33% of the world's population owning 20% of the world's machines.

I've personally seen several families ruined from them so I know how harmful they can be (bankruptcies, family break-ups, crime and suicide). Other than creating focal points of depression among family groups (that may be contagious to others…https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201308/depression-and-loneliness-are-more-contagious-you-think) and compensatory criminal activity, this may be seen as benefiting society in other ways. Poker machines creates jobs and tax revenue. A lot of tax revenue (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/steketee-gambling-pays…). From anyone with a sound grasp of statistical probability, this sacrifice of the few can be seen as a form of modern evolution, an idiot's tax or "idiot and his/her family tax" to benefit those with more logic.

But are we being a little too friendly with these pokie-dealing clubs and bars? We put pictures of dead babies and ruined teeth on cigarette packets but then create specialised outdoor gambling areas so addicted smokers have a place to throw away their money and health in unison. This is despite a smoking ban within those very same venues under all other circumstances (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/outdoor-gambling-areas-escape-new-…).

But we shouldn't say the government is avoiding a nanny approach completely. They've created a hotline (1800 858 858) to assist people (or their families) who recognise they have a problem. The number is right up there on every machine (though no pictures or videos of suicides or family fueds just yet). And they even have extra language services in Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin and Vietnamese. And they understand that gambling can become a problem. Want to know one of the main signs that you've become a gambler: "A big win can change gambling from entertainment to being about winning money." (quoted from the government website - http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/getting-help/signs…).

If gambling is all about entertainment, should there be a comparable transaction limit, maybe based on the 2 sqm space required for said entertainment? Most people think $100 would be too much for the level of entertainment provided by one day at a theme park. Yet imposing a $100 limit for a day at the pokies will be seen as an infringement of individual liberty and business profitability. And if you start with the pokies, then it would be double standards not to crackdown on Timezone and other entertainment venues which also return tickets to be exchanged for gifts rather than cash (alternately known as "introductory gambling for kids"). "And what about the Easter Show…"

Poll Options

  • 64
    Pokies should be banned outright
  • 20
    Pokies should not be banned but more heavily regulated
  • 11
    Pokies should not be banned and stay regulated at current levels
  • 3
    Pokies should not be banned and should be completely unregulated

Comments

  • +9

    Banned in WA except for the Casino. Best thing the local government has done imo :)

    • +1

      I didn't know that. I read about it on the Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machines_by_country#Austr…).

      "…poker machine playing is a mindless, repetitive and insidious form of gambling which has many undesirable features. It requires no thought, no skill or social contact. The odds are never about winning. Watching people playing the machines over long periods of time, the impressionistic evidence at least is that they are addictive to many people. Historically poker machines have been banned from Western Australia and we consider that, in the public interest, they should stay banned."
      — Report of the Royal Commission into Gambling 1974, p. 72

    • Those machines at the casino in WA suck. When I was there two or three years ago, while they have the same symbols and animation as the ones in other states, they only pay scatters or something…

    • +1

      And our AFL clubs are one of the few who manage to turn a profit without investing in such a grubby industry

      http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/only-5-clubs-profit-wi…

    • +1

      Those beer prices though..

      • I'd be happy for pensioners to subsidise my beer spending haha.

  • +1

    If all profit from Pokies went to gov, like the old lotteries, then maybe. But pokies for the most part are about big business getting people addicted and then taking all their money. And then spending that money to lobby politicians into not regulating pokies.

    But I'm a bit unusually strong in my anti-gambling views, I refuse to even buy raffle tickets. (Or maybe I'm just such a hard-core bargain hunter… why pay for raffle tickets when I can enter competitions for free!)

  • +1

    Pokies are the evidence of not trying hard enough in life. They are the equivalent of a rest-stop meal, in the culinary world, or a public toilet in terms of personal hygiene. They dumb-down the Australian populace, and make me ashamed in general. There is a general sadness about them that is akin to carnival-folk. Get rid of them, or relegate (and regulate) their use to casinos, where they belong.

  • +3

    A tax on the stupid.

    • +1

      Better tax the stupid, and have the extra money go to government and redirected into services than letting dumb people get conned for the benefit of a handful of deceitful individuals.

      Gambling (pokies included) has been apart of society since the dawn of time, probably as old as prostitution. You can ban one thing, call it pokies, but u can stop it from happening. So may as well have it legal, and regulate it hard.

  • Unlike everything else that the government has banned, they have full pockets from poker machine taxes.

    It'll eventually just become like cigarettes - on the face of it, they're totally against it, but behind the scenes, they're filling up their coffers with taxes.

    At the end of the day, we want to have freedom and choice.
    We can't rely on the government to continuously ban everything that they see as a risk because a few people have impulses that they can't control.

  • +1

    I always feel sad for humanity whenever I go to the pokies. The addiction is real. The politicians should go to the local pokie den out there in the suburbs and see for themselves the walking dead they've created. The first step should be restricting the machines to casinos only.

  • Taxing idiots and gambling addicts, taking food away from kids tables.

  • In the 1970's my wife's neighbour "programmed" machines for Aristocrat. Even he became so addicted that he lost his house.

  • -3

    should be banned, or limited to a set amount.

    dole bludgers should not be allowed to play them, nor smoke, nor drink alcohol.

    why is alcohol legal or not limited to establishments or raise the age to 21

    Alcohol causes so much violence its insane. Certain people should be stripped of the right to drink it. This should be limited to only drink in establishments, but hey then we become boring…

    Any coward punchers resulting in death should be executed. Eye for an eye

    P.S I'm playing online poker right now

  • your daily shopping trolley is probably helping to fund more poker machine if you have not known. Coles and Wooliea are the biggest owners according to this

    • I think it's the other way around. Your pokie losses are filling up people's trolleys. Colesworths get a substantial amount of their profits from their hotel businesses, much more than their petrol businesses.

  • +1

    We don't have poker machines in WA, so I haven't seen their 'impact' first hand, but I believe that adults should be responsible for their own actions.

    • -1

      you wouldn't say that if your mum or dad was an alcoholic or a gambling addict, and their lives were being destroyed

      • +1

        Sure, but a person in that position is hardly a disinterested judge.
        We don't let the family of victims of crimes decide the convict's penalty.
        I have a few acquaintances who have suffered from alcohol or gambling dependencies, and a few with dependencies to illegal substances. The lawfulness or otherwise didn't impact their desire to partake, and in the case of drug dependency compounded the damage as criminal sanctions were added on top of destroyed families/finances/health.

        I don't think it is a black and white issue that would see the problem substantially diminished if government regulations changed. There are avenues like online gambling, and black market booze that are already widely available and would only grow if there was serious restrictions on pokies or alcohol.

        I'm a fan of harm minimisation strategies (like smoking packaging, for example) as the most broadly effective approach.

        • having seen an alcoholic in a family, there was no way family members could prevent them buying more alcohol, and as an addict they don't want to stop, I think that is a massive shame.

          We don't let the family of victims of crimes decide the convict's penalty. This is an interesting point, in Saudi Arabia a murder victims family can chose the punishment for the murderer, more than likely beheading them in public. Funny enough the murder rate is very low.

          Western countries are pathetic for punishment. Just on tv today one girl drugged her bf forcing him to die, she got 4 years for manslaughter, what a pathetic sentence.

          black market booze etc would occur, but why not just make the ramifications for being caught harsher. You can drive home blind here, and all that happens is you lose your license, if you run someone over, just a few years in jail and your fine.

        • +1

          @unclesnake:
          I'm more from the camp that says a custodial sentence should act as a deterrent and opportunity for rehabilitation rather than retribution on the offender. There is a huge amount of research that shows harshness of penalties has next to no impact on reducing offence rates. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-…
          In terms of whether the Saudi approach is useful, they have only a slightly lower homicide rate than Australia, and a higher rate than Sweden, who operate sentences more directed toward rehabilitation than here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention…

          Evidence shows you can push penalties to the moon for certain offences and there is little impact on incidence assuming you enforce the penalties and run a low corruption justice system. People rarely consider whether jail sentences have recently increased when they are in a murderous rage, or seeking to satisfy their addiction.
          Consider the effect of prohibition in the USA that cemented organised crime in that country. Reflect on the way liberalisation of gambling laws in this country has largely eliminated the SP bookies who used to be everywhere.
          Consider how our current outlaw gangs are funded, by the profits to be had supplying drugs that are often dangerous and carry quite harsh sentences already.

          It seems common sense that banning things and making the penalties harsh will result in stopping the problem, but in reality, that approach is largely ineffectual and has numerous downsides that impact law abiding citizens (e.g. increased break and enter crime to fund addictions).

        • @unclesnake:

          This kind of thinking:

          "Western countries are pathetic for punishment. Just on tv today one girl drugged her bf forcing him to die, she got 4 years for manslaughter, what a pathetic sentence."

          Leads to these kinds of countries:

          "Saudi Arabia"

          Western countries are not "pathetic for punishment" unless you're a sadist who just wants to see vengeance acted out publicly. Western countries have realised that punishing crime isn't as important as preventing crime. Frankly I believe our sole focus in the justice system should be "How can we prevent more crime in the future?" - If that means keeping someone in jail for life, who would currently get 15 years for manslaughter, then keep them isolated away from the public in jail for life. Forget sentence terms. HOWEVER, if someone commits manslaughter but is clearly NOT a danger to the public, that should be taken into consideration. Jail is a waste of time and resources so it might be handled differently.

          This idiotic idea of "punish people who dun wrong and broke the law!" is medieval, ignorant, and childish. Look at the bigger picture.

  • -1

    In the UK 'fruit machines' were limited to paying out a max £15.
    That resulted in many fewer problems, but still allowed casual entertainment play.
    I'm generally against government interference in personal choices, but the industry has grown so large and pervasive it needs some sort of limits over and above current restrictions.
    I understood the long term policy in NSW was to reduce the number of machines, but it doesn't seem to be working so far.

    • +1

      pokies are actually illegal in UK because as it is a game of chance, fruit machines are legal just because their is some human interaction in them, not sure what

      darts used to be illegal to for the same reason, until someone proved it wasn't a game of chance, this is back many many years ago.

      • +1

        Sounds like a sensible regulation, if it allows some low stakes wagering for entertainment but limits the attractiveness to addicts and the damage to their budget by limiting the size of their wagers.

      • But it's not a game of chance. It's programmed very deliberately so you will lose more than you will win

  • +1

    People who want to gamble needs to first get reversible-sterilisation so they can't have any children (ie. their bad habits won't negatively affect their children, because they won't have any).

    Any former gambler who wants to procreate needs to have abstained from gambling for at least 1 year as well as show general good behavior befitting of a potential parent. Otherwise, their reproductive facilities will remain non-functional.

    Vote #1 Eugenics Party.

  • I never understood the pokie machines I've seen in NSW, what is the appeal to play them?

    When I visit Finland, I spend a good 10 euros during my trip in coins on these:

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTE2E_e…

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToxz01…

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmwAp5…

    They can be found everywhere, supermarkets, gas stations etc. While I don't agree that they accept card and paper money (in Finland they do), they are heaps of fun if you know to control yourself :)

    I have always wondered, why we don't have these types of machines here, or do we? I haven't been to Casino in here yet, only some RSLs that have those horrible pokies, so you may enlighten me.

  • I don't have a problem with poker machines. I'm not a fan of them, and wouldn't play them, but Australia doesn't trust it's population. We ban everything, we over-regulate, look at how badly Sydney's nightlife has been (profanity) up with knee-jerk emotional reactions by conservative governments.

  • I think the argument is kind of moot. On an altrustic level I think they destroy lives at their worst.

    But they are owned by powerful people and groups, with a billion dollar industry ie. Aristocrat Bally Capcom Konami etc. and the govt. loves that income so there will no change reform whatever.

  • I live in country WA, so unless I go to the casino, I can't play them. A couple of years ago, my wife and I did the big trip around Australia. We went to one of the rugby league clubs in Sydney and decided to play the pokies. For me it was one of the most boring times of my life, but I had to drag my wife away from the machines. I ended up winning, she lost all of her $50 that she started with.

  • RSL and sports clubs are tasteless palaces built on people's losses. They "proudly support" local causes but every dollar received by those causes comes from other people's losses.

    Pubs now change hands for multi millions based on pokie revenue.

    I did not know about WA but I am mightily impressed. SA senator Xenophon came to prominence on a ban pokies ticket but what do we hear from him now?

  • Do millennials find them entertaining? I think they need an upgrade in gameplay to keep being relevant with the newer generation. I have heard of people spending serious dough in apps though. Although I don't like gambling, I don't even know if that is to blame, as games/clothes/cars, etc can just as well entrance you enough to buy multiples of them to the point of bankruptcy, with no 'gambling' coming into the equation. We should just set up a voluntary funds lock for those people who can't pass the marshmallow test?

Login or Join to leave a comment