Addiction Isn’t Always Tied to Gambling Revenue

[Sanitough]

Just because a country earns massive revenue from gambling doesn’t automatically mean there’s no addiction problem. Sometimes those big numbers only hide the reality that people are losing more than they can handle. What really makes the difference is how strong the regulation and enforcement are.

Take Singapore as an example. Even though the casinos bring in a lot of money, the government enforces strict rules like limiting how often locals can enter, because they know addiction can get out of control. Australia is another case where gambling generates huge revenue, but different states have faced strong public pressure to address problem gambling. And in South Korea, many forms of gambling are restricted for citizens, while tourists are free to play, simply because the government doesn’t want addiction issues to get worse among locals.

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

[robelneo]

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

It's bad for the country if criminality increases because of addiction, not only criminality, but also neglect, the head of the family neglecting his duty to his family, workers abandoning their jobs because of gambling.

It's the government’s duty to combat a menace that threatens the nation's stability. I have seen the worst in addiction here in our country. Imagine a security guard robbing his place of duty because of his addiction to gambling.

Prevention is better than a cure. The government will spend 10 times the amount on curing addiction if it only implements the prevention of this menace. The government should know when to pull the plug.

[retreat]

-snip-

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

A country cannot expect to avoid gambling addiction problems when it legalizes gambling. Gambling addiction is a very real possibility when people engage in gambling activities, and the government's role is to regulate gambling to prevent more serious consequences. For example, in the UK, the government has implemented various strict regulations, such as age restrictions for players and time limits. If the government allows this problem to persist, it will only worsen and cause widespread social damage. Before that happens, the government should take preventative measures by tightening gambling regulations and educating people about responsible gambling.

[cryptoaddictchie]

That’s exactly the point OP! Revenue figures can look impressive on paper, but they don’t reveal the hidden social costs of addiction that ripple through every families and communities out there. Strong regulation usually prevents the problem from spiraling before it becomes unmanageable.

In my opinion Governments should treat gambling more like alcohol and tobacco, where proactive regulation is seen as a public health responsibility rather than just an economic issue. Its also related somehow its not about the money but the mental state of any addicted gamblers.

[fullfitlarry]

Just because a country earns massive revenue from gambling doesn’t automatically mean there’s no addiction problem. Sometimes those big numbers only hide the reality that people are losing more than they can handle. What really makes the difference is how strong the regulation and enforcement are.

Take Singapore as an example. Even though the casinos bring in a lot of money, the government enforces strict rules like limiting how often locals can enter, because they know addiction can get out of control. Australia is another case where gambling generates huge revenue, but different states have faced strong public pressure to address problem gambling. And in South Korea, many forms of gambling are restricted for citizens, while tourists are free to play, simply because the government doesn’t want addiction issues to get worse among locals.

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

Why would a country wait before they started to tightening their gambling rules. They should enact, not react, and they should really know that gambling has it's bad effect in their population. If the damage has been done before they do something about it then something is wrong with that government. As you have, one good example is Singapore, they restrict their local as much as possible and they only allow tourist to go and play on their big casinos, why? Because they know the ill effects that it can bring to their country and the harm. That's why they wanted to cut it from the very beginning and now allowing their citizens to go and become drug addict. Yeah, there could be good taxes that a government can get from allowing casinos to flourish, but at what cost? Widespread addiction?

[Wapfika]

Just because a country earns massive revenue from gambling doesn’t automatically mean there’s no addiction problem. Sometimes those big numbers only hide the reality that people are losing more than they can handle. What really makes the difference is how strong the regulation and enforcement are.

Who said this? A country earning huge revenue from casino usually have a lot of cases of gambling addiction due to the volume of gamblers contributing to the revenue.

Higher revenue means high number of gambler and we all know that there’s a high chance of gambling addiction rate of many is playing.

Australia is the best example on this since they have a lot of active gambler. Casino is booming but there’s a lot of problem related to gambling as a downside.

[Pandu Geddon]

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

If a country has decided that the issue of gambling and its addiction is very important, they will surely formulate regulations to limit or even prohibit it. 
But for countries that may not pay much attention to the effects of addiction on their own citizens, they will only implement the regulations that have been set. As long as they gain revenue from gambling taxes, they will be content. 
It would be better if countries indeed paid attention to regulations to limit the gambling activities of their citizens. But of course, that would require a strict system and supervision.

[Charles-Tim]

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

Gambling addiction can be seen anywhere regardless of regulations or no regulations. But countries that ban gambling like the Muslim countries, gambling addiction is less there.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

What are countries that have tight regulations even doing against addiction that is effective? Nothing. They care most about the taxes and not addiction. Only what I also see they care against is underage gambling.

[goldkingcoiner]

Just because a country earns massive revenue from gambling doesn’t automatically mean there’s no addiction problem. Sometimes those big numbers only hide the reality that people are losing more than they can handle. What really makes the difference is how strong the regulation and enforcement are.

Take Singapore as an example. Even though the casinos bring in a lot of money, the government enforces strict rules like limiting how often locals can enter, because they know addiction can get out of control. Australia is another case where gambling generates huge revenue, but different states have faced strong public pressure to address problem gambling. And in South Korea, many forms of gambling are restricted for citizens, while tourists are free to play, simply because the government doesn’t want addiction issues to get worse among locals.

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

Gambling addiction is the same as any other addiction. And it does not stem simply from an activity or a drug. An addiction is a dysregulation of the brain's neurochemical processes, especially dopamine, which means the addiction is simply the symptom of that. The main cause is the dysregulation. There could be many reasons for why this happens. Sometimes it is simply genetic and there is nothing we can do about it.

So a higher rate of gambling may put a light on the problem but it is not actually related to the cause, I would say.

[mindrust]

Let people do whatever they want. Government involvement often makes everything worse so I say keep them out of it. Adult people can choose to gamble, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. It is their choice. The government is not there to parent us. If they prevent people from playing, people will some other way of having fun and since they’ll also get angry at the government, they’ll harm themselves even more.

Instead of making it harder to gamble, why not give people a better education? Higher paying jobs, less inflation etc? That way people would be happier and gamble less.

[Sanitough]

Prevention is better than a cure. The government will spend 10 times the amount on curing addiction if it only implements the prevention of this menace. The government should know when to pull the plug.

Their approach is wrong. maybe they only act once the problem is already serious and can’t be cured anymore, so they end up having no option but to declare a ban.
But that also affects the positive inflow of money into the country, all because from the start they didn’t have good policies in place to combat addiction.

Before that happens, the government should take preventative measures by tightening gambling regulations and educating people about responsible gambling.

Maybe before it even happened, they should’ve already tightened their preventive measures.
that’s what good governance is supposed to do.

We can always blame this on the government. for example in the PH, addiction is high because the officials are corrupt.

Instead of focusing on campaigns to educate people about responsible gambling, they focus on milking the operators and even helping them spread marketing in an uncontrollable way, tempting even those who really can’t afford to gamble.

Who said this? A country earning huge revenue from casino usually have a lot of cases of gambling addiction due to the volume of gamblers contributing to the revenue.

That’s a fact we can’t deny. if you read the OP, I mentioned countries that have high gambling revenue but their own people aren’t really suffering from addiction, because the industry is serving tourists instead of locals.

[Dogedegen]

Take Singapore as an example. Even though the casinos bring in a lot of money, the government enforces strict rules like limiting how often locals can enter, because they know addiction can get out of control. Australia is another case where gambling generates huge revenue, but different states have faced strong public pressure to address problem gambling. And in South Korea, many forms of gambling are restricted for citizens, while tourists are free to play, simply because the government doesn’t want addiction issues to get worse among locals.

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

It is also about how the games are designed. If they don't let them make it too addictive then it would limit the amount of people who have issues.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

At that point it is already too late. They should tighten these rules before signs of addiction come!

That’s a fact we can’t deny. if you read the OP, I mentioned countries that have high gambling revenue but their own people aren’t really suffering from addiction, because the industry is serving tourists instead of locals.

Is that so much better though? Instead of making your own population addicted you are just making other people addicted instead. It is less of a solution but more of a trade I think.

[Hewlet]

Just because a country earns massive revenue from gambling doesn’t automatically mean there’s no addiction problem. Sometimes those big numbers only hide the reality that people are losing more than they can handle. What really makes the difference is how strong the regulation and enforcement are.

Government generate revenue both from gamblers win and the profit made by gambling companies. with that, it means that regardless of the degree of addiction, it does not in any way affect what they are getting as long as the gambling industry remains relevant. to an extent, you can not even judge a societies degree of exposure to gambling by the revenue the government generate. the true statistics comes when you go to the street to get a first hand information on what is actually happening with regards how much they engage in gambling on a frequent bases.

a government that is interested in curbing gambling excesses will first try to create the right orientation in the heart of her people, that way, they don't feel that the government is just trying to deprive them of their source of joy but rather sees the regulation from the government as a source of help that is even to their own benefit.

[coin-investor]

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

It’s the duty of the government to protect its people, as the people are above any government; they should not prioritise profit and revenues over the welfare of their citizens. This kind of government will eventually perish if it fails to prioritise the welfare of its people.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

The government is the next to crumble if it ignores all the warning signs. Whoever is the leader of that nation will be overthrown for neglecting his duty of protecting his people from every menace, and addiction is one menace that the government cannot and should not ignore.
The government should prioritise welfare over profit; it should show concern for its people, or eventually, the people will not show concern for their government, leading to protests or revolt.

[Floxynice]

One of the duties of government is to maintain laws and order. Any government who has the interest of the people at heart will not wait until things go out of hand before doing the needful. There should be appropriate laws and regulations for every activity the country approves so conflicts will be resolved amicably and to also take care of abuse as in the case of addiction.

It is unfortunate that most of the gambling laws available are only focused on getting revenue when the real problem is left unattended to. Gamblers should have their right, as well as casino operators. As much as gamblers would enjoy these rights, gambling limits imposed by the government will be neccessary to keep the gambling industry sane.

[Dogedegen]

Government generate revenue both from gamblers win and the profit made by gambling companies. with that, it means that regardless of the degree of addiction, it does not in any way affect what they are getting as long as the gambling industry remains relevant. to an extent, you can not even judge a societies degree of exposure to gambling by the revenue the government generate. the true statistics comes when you go to the street to get a first hand information on what is actually happening with regards how much they engage in gambling on a frequent bases.

For revenue numbers it does not mater if gamblers are winning or losing. It only matters that they are playing.

a government that is interested in curbing gambling excesses will first try to create the right orientation in the heart of her people, that way, they don't feel that the government is just trying to deprive them of their source of joy but rather sees the regulation from the government as a source of help that is even to their own benefit.

Source of joy? Addictive things are not source of joy. Gambling, smoking or any of that is never a source of joy. Temporary satisfaction alright, but joy no. Joy is something else.

[348Judah]

So high revenue doesn’t equal a healthy system. In many cases, the worst addiction problems show up in places where regulation is weak and there’s no real enforcement.

Regulations cannot fix things in this manner, because if we look at the cause of addiction, we are going to discover that it's about a personal and individual kind of behavior in doing something, some can be modest in their dealings and some may not at the same time.

Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

No, governments alcannot help in this, because this same addiction we are talking about does not only exist in gambling, we have people being addicted on other things.

[Findingnemo]

~
Do you think countries should start tightening rules as soon as they see signs of addiction, or is it better to let the market keep running until the problems are impossible to ignore?

Addiction is very common in countries where the economy is weak too because people are looking for ways to make more money when there is no real possibility from their economy and high level of unemployment and the addiction exists everywhere not where the people are rich or poor.

And tightening the regulation is indeed the next step but instead of just focusing on regulations they also need to keep their citizend educated about the gambling and it's consequences when they are doing it for wrong reasons.

[Wapfika]

Who said this? A country earning huge revenue from casino usually have a lot of cases of gambling addiction due to the volume of gamblers contributing to the revenue.

That’s a fact we can’t deny. if you read the OP, I mentioned countries that have high gambling revenue but their own people aren’t really suffering from addiction, because the industry is serving tourists instead of locals.

I do read the OP and you’re right about that. I’m just interested where do you get about your info for your opening remarks that assume high revenue assumed the country is successful with less addiction.

Anyway, this is the common negative impact on gambling industry despite being profitable. The society is the one being affected just like what happened to our country Philippines that they resort to close POGO despite earning huge revenue on that sector due to its bad impact to society.

[mcdouglasx]

I think the regulations are fine as they are, but the real problem comes from society, not from the casino. The existence of a casino doesn't mean gambling will stop. It's normal in Latin America to see bars and places where people go to gamble, so government regulations are the equivalent of putting a bandage on a broken pipe instead of replacing it.

And by this, I mean that homeschooling should be reinforced, including subjects on economics and the proper use of money in schools, encouraging activities unrelated to gambling, and improving the quality of life of its residents. It's very difficult for a busy person to become addicted.