What's the motive behind the anti gambling campaign

[bryant.coleman]

I live in a country where gambling is de jure legal. But it is very difficult for the casinos to get license so 90% of the gamblers depend on illegal gambling dens. Here organized religion is kept out of governance, so we don't have stupid anti-gambling laws. On the other hand, I have travelled to countries such as India, where gambling is illegal. Here the gambling sector is completely under the control of criminal gangs, since legal gambling is not possible. And this is what happens when the government comes up with stupid bans.

[Vaskiy]

I live in a country where gambling is de jure legal. But it is very difficult for the casinos to get license so 90% of the gamblers depend on illegal gambling dens. Here organized religion is kept out of governance, so we don't have stupid anti-gambling laws. On the other hand, I have travelled to countries such as India, where gambling is illegal. Here the gambling sector is completely under the control of criminal gangs, since legal gambling is not possible. And this is what happens when the government comes up with stupid bans.

Gambling is something similar to the usage of cryptocurrencies. In several countries there isn't anything regulated for the usage of cryptocurrencies. Quite often there comes a message stating the ban of cryptocurrency usage, but there won't be any strong reason for it. So, people look for the other loop holes for cryptocurrency usage. Same as that is with gambling, people make use of the illegal possible ways.

[Silberman]

The thing is

1. Most of the people who gamble lose their money
2. Gamblers who win money inspire others but then those inspired people gamble and lose money because (see no. 1)

Also, money don't last forever. Those who win money gamble again and lose it or spend it lavishly.
There are many other factors which contribute to the negative fame of gambling.

While it is true that the vast majority of gamblers lose money only a very small minority lose big amounts of money, the rest spend money similar to what any person will spend in any hobby and yet those people also get the the bad image of being a gambler, we need to differentiate between those two types of gamblers, the ones with some issues and the ones with not a single one and yet most of the time all gamblers are lumped together and this is what bother many gamblers.

[AmoreJaz]

The thing is

1. Most of the people who gamble lose their money
2. Gamblers who win money inspire others but then those inspired people gamble and lose money because (see no. 1)

Also, money don't last forever. Those who win money gamble again and lose it or spend it lavishly.
There are many other factors which contribute to the negative fame of gambling.

While it is true that the vast majority of gamblers lose money only a very small minority lose big amounts of money, the rest spend money similar to what any person will spend in any hobby and yet those people also get the the bad image of being a gambler, we need to differentiate between those two types of gamblers, the ones with some issues and the ones with not a single one and yet most of the time all gamblers are lumped together and this is what bother many gamblers.

because the negative effects are highlighted even if you are in the minority category. just take for example, you only have the money for your basic expenses, and yet, you still gamble it, and once you lost it all, what will happen to your bills? if you can't afford this lifestyle, better not try it. the fact is, very few gamblers have their full control once they are already in their games. so many anti-gambling campaigns, because of so many lives ruined, whether you are a small timer or high roller. only few can really find success in gambling.

[pawanjain]

The thing is

1. Most of the people who gamble lose their money
2. Gamblers who win money inspire others but then those inspired people gamble and lose money because (see no. 1)

Also, money don't last forever. Those who win money gamble again and lose it or spend it lavishly.
There are many other factors which contribute to the negative fame of gambling.

While it is true that the vast majority of gamblers lose money only a very small minority lose big amounts of money, the rest spend money similar to what any person will spend in any hobby and yet those people also get the the bad image of being a gambler, we need to differentiate between those two types of gamblers, the ones with some issues and the ones with not a single one and yet most of the time all gamblers are lumped together and this is what bother many gamblers.

May be that's right but a gambler is a gambler no matter how much he loses. Most of the time the negative fame is due to the repeated losses in gambling.
For example if a person lost in his first attempt he would deposit more and gamble again and lose his money again.
This cycle continues until he loses big and get broke. This is the most common reason since most people fall into this category.

[Silberman]

The thing is

1. Most of the people who gamble lose their money
2. Gamblers who win money inspire others but then those inspired people gamble and lose money because (see no. 1)

Also, money don't last forever. Those who win money gamble again and lose it or spend it lavishly.
There are many other factors which contribute to the negative fame of gambling.

While it is true that the vast majority of gamblers lose money only a very small minority lose big amounts of money, the rest spend money similar to what any person will spend in any hobby and yet those people also get the the bad image of being a gambler, we need to differentiate between those two types of gamblers, the ones with some issues and the ones with not a single one and yet most of the time all gamblers are lumped together and this is what bother many gamblers.

May be that's right but a gambler is a gambler no matter how much he loses. Most of the time the negative fame is due to the repeated losses in gambling.
For example if a person lost in his first attempt he would deposit more and gamble again and lose his money again.
This cycle continues until he loses big and get broke. This is the most common reason since most people fall into this category.

I disagree there are many studies that show that from the whole population of gamblers only 4% to 5% can be described as having problems with the activity, the rest are responsible gamblers, again it seems many people do not see the difference, gambling is like any other activity from which you get entertainment or pleasure, I see many people that have problems with the time they invest in social media to the point their real lives take a hit and yet you see no interest from society to curb down this problem and yet the problem of addicted gamblers is so low and so much attention is given to it.

[milewilda]

The thing is

1. Most of the people who gamble lose their money
2. Gamblers who win money inspire others but then those inspired people gamble and lose money because (see no. 1)

Also, money don't last forever. Those who win money gamble again and lose it or spend it lavishly.
There are many other factors which contribute to the negative fame of gambling.

While it is true that the vast majority of gamblers lose money only a very small minority lose big amounts of money, the rest spend money similar to what any person will spend in any hobby and yet those people also get the the bad image of being a gambler, we need to differentiate between those two types of gamblers, the ones with some issues and the ones with not a single one and yet most of the time all gamblers are lumped together and this is what bother many gamblers.

May be that's right but a gambler is a gambler no matter how much he loses. Most of the time the negative fame is due to the repeated losses in gambling.
For example if a person lost in his first attempt he would deposit more and gamble again and lose his money again.
This cycle continues until he loses big and get broke. This is the most common reason since most people fall into this category.

I disagree there are many studies that show that from the whole population of gamblers only 4% to 5% can be described as having problems with the activity, the rest are responsible gamblers, again it seems many people do not see the difference, gambling is like any other activity from which you get entertainment or pleasure, I see many people that have problems with the time they invest in social media to the point their real lives take a hit and yet you see no interest from society to curb down this problem and yet the problem of addicted gamblers is so low and so much attention is given to it.

What would you expect? Its part of reality on where people do only focuses out on to those addicted gamblers who do mess up their life without even knowing on whats the statistics
of it which is really way too less if we do compare out on the entire population which i dont see to put up much attention on that.Its true that there are still lots
of gamblers who could really able to control up theirselves when it comes to gambling. Whenever we do see a country which does prohibit nor banned gambling then
its up to their own reasons on why they have done that but mostly this do talks about minding their own citizens to avoid such addiction
but honestly there are still lots of ways when it comes to accessbility.

[chaser15]

I disagree there are many studies that show that from the whole population of gamblers only 4% to 5% can be described as having problems with the activity, the rest are responsible gamblers,

But didn't you know that there are small gamblers who actually feel depressed and stressed because of their continuous losses even for a small stake? For sure they are not part of that 4% to 5% you are saying that I don't know too where you got it.

Their stats can't be determined by any source because, in the first place, these people aren't showing to the public or maybe hiding that experience from anyone.

In reality, there is no source or reports that can validate how much gamblers are really having a problem. That's why a public drive of the anti-gambling campaign is the solution to reach any gambler audience as much as possible.

[DoublerHunter]

I disagree there are many studies that show that from the whole population of gamblers only 4% to 5% can be described as having problems with the activity, the rest are responsible gamblers,

But didn't you know that there are small gamblers who actually feel depressed and stressed because of their continuous losses even for a small stake? For sure they are not part of that 4% to 5% you are saying that I don't know too where you got it.

Their stats can't be determined by any source because, in the first place, these people aren't showing to the public or maybe hiding that experience from anyone.

In reality, there is no source or reports that can validate how much gamblers are really having a problem. That's why a public drive of the anti-gambling campaign is the solution to reach any gambler audience as much as possible.

^ I think there is no problem with having an anti-gambling campaign and you are definitely right. The solution to this anti-gambling campaign is that the awareness of some gamblers that one step ahead they will become addicted. Probably that was the fact in here and there is the anti-gambling campaign, just through the notification at least you will be notified. However, this thing that I am sure will lessen the number of gambling addicts, it a big help though.
Nevertheless, you can delete it if you found not good.

[tabas]

I live in a country where gambling is de jure legal. But it is very difficult for the casinos to get license so 90% of the gamblers depend on illegal gambling dens. Here organized religion is kept out of governance, so we don't have stupid anti-gambling laws.

That's better if there's no religion being involved in making laws. Because we know that there are countries that are involving their religion to their laws but we can't question them, their belief and way they manage their countries.

On the other hand, I have travelled to countries such as India, where gambling is illegal. Here the gambling sector is completely under the control of criminal gangs, since legal gambling is not possible. And this is what happens when the government comes up with stupid bans.

This is what really going to happen to countries that have restricted gambling, individuals and private people would be the one managing it for the "protection" of the business.

[magneto]

I live in a country where gambling is de jure legal. But it is very difficult for the casinos to get license so 90% of the gamblers depend on illegal gambling dens. Here organized religion is kept out of governance, so we don't have stupid anti-gambling laws. On the other hand, I have travelled to countries such as India, where gambling is illegal. Here the gambling sector is completely under the control of criminal gangs, since legal gambling is not possible. And this is what happens when the government comes up with stupid bans.

Exactly. It's completely unproductive - as long as there is demand for gambling products, the government shouldn't be anti-industry. Rather, it should embrace it and healthily regulate (not through draconian means).

You'll simply get a bunch of unregulated entities springing up that will likely have ridiculously high house edges/rigged games.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have licensed, regulated casinos that are more transparent compared underground gambling dens that are more likely to be addiction inducing and likely have much more immoral connotations associated with them.

[uneng]

I disagree there are many studies that show that from the whole population of gamblers only 4% to 5% can be described as having problems with the activity, the rest are responsible gamblers,

But didn't you know that there are small gamblers who actually feel depressed and stressed because of their continuous losses even for a small stake? For sure they are not part of that 4% to 5% you are saying that I don't know too where you got it.

Their stats can't be determined by any source because, in the first place, these people aren't showing to the public or maybe hiding that experience from anyone.

In reality, there is no source or reports that can validate how much gamblers are really having a problem. That's why a public drive of the anti-gambling campaign is the solution to reach any gambler audience as much as possible.

But if you don't know from where he got those statistics how can you say the small problem gamblers aren't included on the 4%-5%?

It's actually possible to find such statistics and many different reports on google if you search for it. People who conduct these studies have their methods to reach estimated results even if gamblers hide their personal experiences from everyone else.

The problem is that those anti-gambling campaigns are using the example of problem gamblers, which are the minority, to lure the public opinion to believe it's a common behavior among gamblers, what isn't the true. They can't misrepresent the facts with the excuse they are helping people to avoid a possible addiction.

[Wexnident]

But if you don't know from where he got those statistics how can you say the small problem gamblers aren't included on the 4%-5%?

It's actually possible to find such statistics and many different reports on google if you search for it. People who conduct these studies have their methods to reach estimated results even if gamblers hide their personal experiences from everyone else.

The problem is that those anti-gambling campaigns are using the example of problem gamblers, which are the minority, to lure the public opinion to believe it's a common behavior among gamblers, what isn't the true. They can't misrepresent the facts with the excuse they are helping people to avoid a possible addiction.

That's the thing though, you don't exactly both sides of something when trying to argue with someone (especially one ignorant about the topic), you instead show the bad side, the side that would guarantee you a win in an argument. Even if you back it with facts, and say that 95% of gamblers are responsible and the rest are the ones that are bad, people will always, ALWAYS, nitpick the 5%, instead of the 95% good. Why? Because being responsible or good is something NATURAL, so people take it for granted.

[MCobian]

It was directed to everyone who's primarily seeking to gamble for gains. Because they will have this negative connotation that it's very easy to earn huge racks of cash when you gamble which is not entirely true. It's for people who are aware that they do not have self-control, so they don't go bankrupt over a very stupid decision such as gambling all their life savings away.

I think that campaign is for every person, including those who already gamble and people who want to start gambling. It will remind them about the danger of playing gambling and what they can get from gambling. If more people can know about that campaign and they can think about the danger, maybe they will not try to involve in gambling instead stay away from gambling and search for other ways to make money.

I agree that the true intent of the anti-gambling campaign is good purpose, and it is shown for everyone, not only for those who have gambled.
In order to understand the dangers of gambling, because there are still many people who consider gambling as a source of income. So if we find
an anti-gambling campaign, there is no need to think negatively first, maybe they want to remind gambling is not good as a source of income
and only as entertainment. So everyone who wants to play gambling can finally be more careful when playing gambling, so that people gamble
with money that they can afford to lose. Maybe also with an anti-gambling campaign people can avoid gambling addiction, people who want to
play gambling can finally limit their time and money to play gambling.

[coin-investor]

Everywhere I look, all I see are negative comments made about money lost gambling. Mental illness associated with gambling and anything that can illustrate gambling in a negative light.

As someone who considers themselves to be a profitable gambler. The trend of covering only the negative side of the industry puzzles me.

Not everyone is like you or those who can make a profit from gambling these anti-gambling crusades by some people is just to warn people to play responsibly and they are preaching the reality of gambling too much, so you will hear or read their post about only play with money that you can afford to play because it's the reality of playing in gambling platform if you fail to follow that, the problem will come along the way.

[Karartma1]

It's about reading the stats and knowing about a bit of statistics and mathematics. There are for sure a bunch of lucky players who have the chance to win and, sometimes, to win big but these data are outnumbered by the millions who keep losing.
This is how life works in the end, sometimes we're ahead, sometimes we're behind and the race it's only with ourselves.
To me it's not about negativity, but about reality and facts.

[tabas]

Not everyone is like you or those who can make a profit from gambling these anti-gambling crusades by some people is just to warn people to play responsibly and they are preaching the reality of gambling too much, so you will hear or read their post about only play with money that you can afford to play because it's the reality of playing in gambling platform if you fail to follow that, the problem will come along the way.

They're reminding people to gamble responsibly but most of them are reminding to stop wholly because they're showing the bad results of it.
That's why those campaigns are really discouraging people to gamble which is their right. But no matter how they do their campaign if their people will have that curiosity to gamble, they will gamble.

[Mauser]

It's about reading the stats and knowing about a bit of statistics and mathematics. There are for sure a bunch of lucky players who have the chance to win and, sometimes, to win big but these data are outnumbered by the millions who keep losing.
This is how life works in the end, sometimes we're ahead, sometimes we're behind and the race it's only with ourselves.
To me it's not about negativity, but about reality and facts.

I think there are two negative type of people towards gambling and who try to stop it. The first group is former gamblers who either lost money or who tried hard and never managed to win big. The feel like they deserve to win but the bad casinos are rigged and they had to chance. This is probably the more extremer group where changing their mind seems very hard. The second group is not so extreme and could like be reasoned with. They are just negative people, probably never really gambled and just want to ruin the fun for others.

[pilosopotasyo]

is it intended to deprive people like me of opportunities to make money.

I don't think so, you have little chances to make money from gambling and it will take some time before you can set up a method or your own strategy so you can win, the anti-gambling sentiments are from people who are once compulsive gamblers or had one of their family members, it is to warn people not to consume all their times and money to gambling and not to be deceived that you can make money in gambling.

[Silberman]

I live in a country where gambling is de jure legal. But it is very difficult for the casinos to get license so 90% of the gamblers depend on illegal gambling dens. Here organized religion is kept out of governance, so we don't have stupid anti-gambling laws. On the other hand, I have travelled to countries such as India, where gambling is illegal. Here the gambling sector is completely under the control of criminal gangs, since legal gambling is not possible. And this is what happens when the government comes up with stupid bans.

Exactly. It's completely unproductive - as long as there is demand for gambling products, the government shouldn't be anti-industry. Rather, it should embrace it and healthily regulate (not through draconian means).

You'll simply get a bunch of unregulated entities springing up that will likely have ridiculously high house edges/rigged games.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have licensed, regulated casinos that are more transparent compared underground gambling dens that are more likely to be addiction inducing and likely have much more immoral connotations associated with them.

This is why prohibiting a product or service should only be used for the stuff that is really dangerous, gambling does not qualify as the number of people that area addicted to it is so low that if governments ban it and people keep gambling then they will be way more unprotected and this will apply not only to the addicted gamblers but those that are responsible as well and many honest people will lose their jobs while governments lose a lot of money on taxes, all things being considered banning gambling seems like a losing move for the governments.