Is It Fair to Ban Gambling for Everyone Because of Addicted Gamblers?

[BRINIRHA]

If gambling is one of the major sources of income for a country, is banning it completely really the best solution just because some people are addicted?

I know gambling addiction is a serious problem, but sometimes governments go straight to the last option which is banning it totally, instead of trying other ways to reduce the addiction first. Because if they ban gambling, everyone gets affected, not only the addicted gamblers. Responsible gamblers, workers, businesses, and even government income will be affected too.

So what do you think governments should do instead of banning gambling completely?

That is not a solution especially when the country can benefit from gambling because when it is banned completely then other conditions will arise such as underground gambling and of course the reduction of income from their revenue sector which affects the economy so it can be difficult for them to close down completely.

They should be prepared for the consequences of losing revenue but if they want to reduce addicts I don't think they need to close gambling but provide stricter regulation and consumer (gambler) protection.
This will probably be effective for casinos but for onlien sites though this is difficult but at least when there are casinos in their country this can be established though in the end there will always be pros and cons again in it.

[red4slash]

Currently there are many countries that legalize gambling because it is one of their benefits in terms of income in taxes etc. Until now they don't even do a complete ban but they limit as much as possible in terms of rules that must still be met by casinos.

At least with this they can still control so that gambling does not make its citizens too badly addicted.  I have a friend who is in Australia and he said there gambling is limited even for players because the maximum they play is only about 12 hours in the casino and when there are players who have done this they will be banned for 24 hours and their weekly time limit for gambling is 36 hours.  This is one of the ways their government is making efforts to prevent players from getting addicted to gambling.

They know that banning it completely would be a disaster for their economy because of the lack of income from the gambling sector so they try to minimize the number of addicts but on the other hand gambling still operates in their country.

[Versatile_choice]

These reminds me of a parable that says "when a finger touches a pot of oil, it affects others. Therefore if a gambler is addicted people would definitely want to put an end to gamble because they feel that if they don't do so, other people will be addicted as well, But that's not true. Addiction can only get to you if you want, but if you don't want to get addicted to gamble then you would try as much as you can to prevent it from not getting to you, as you will limit from whatever thing that would make you become addicted. So I believe those who are addicted to gamble chose to be addicted, but that shouldn't stop other responsible gamblers from doing their thing.

[batang_bitcoin]

It's an unfair judgment if the decisions are only made based on a few additional problems, but if they analyze the whole issue and observe that gambling is doing more harm than good to their people, such a decision can be said to be a tough one, but it's the only way to go about it. Everyone can't be pleased, but to some extent we also need to understand that some decisions must be taken.

Yeah, that's unfair treatment just to save the few. But if this is done by a government, I'll still salute them for that because they're trying to save these few out of the many and that's what they have to do as body of a state that takes care of its people. Because you'd see them that they're trying to do something out of what they can but at least, there's still a need to study if it's fair for them to include all of the responsible and disciplined gamblers because of them. Either way, you see them act with this decision then that means that they're just reactive and not being prepared for it which they should do long time ago.

[Questat]

I don't think the government would resort to ban gambling completely, it will be a big loss for a country's revenue. Instead, they will impose strict rules and regulations for gamblers and gambling sites, so that gambling addiction will be properly address and gamblers will be given early treatment with the help of the government rehabilitation centers.

Gambling is actually never bad, its how the gamblers took it as their own advantage that makes it bad for the eyes of everyone.

[LGD2Business]

That's a ridiculous idea. Should we ban all cars just because some people drive with alcohol? Should we ban alcohol? People who drive with alcohol face severe penalties and that solves the problem. Why should everyone's freedom be taken away just because some people are addicted to something?
Unfortunately in countries with gambling bans, the real goal isn't to keep people away from gambling, it's the oligarchs' desire to protect their own interests. Governments don't do anything for the benefit of the people anyway. They only do things that have a positive financial impact on their own circles.

[alastantiger]

Banning of gambling by the government should not be the resolution, but rather, there should be measures in place to checkmate addicted gamblers and also to enforce strict rules to make sure players are protected, because some casinos exploit their community vulnerability to their own advantage, and that is where the problem lies, and this is what makes the government always want to go harsh on casinos not minding what they stand to lose from their taxes and revenues from casinos.

It is not fair to deny others of gambling when there are things the government can do to educate the people on gambling. Some of the things the government can do include educating the public on gambling properly because one thing the public lack is education as anybody that become a gambler without being disciplined and having the courage to forget that they have lost a game. The government should look for ways in which gambling can be less destructive in the community instead of resulting to banning gambling for everyone because that is not fair to others.

[Agbamoni]

So what do you think governments should do instead of banning gambling completely?

Such rule cannot be accepted. Crypto casino is a business rendered by a group of persons to profit while running the services. They make their money through the losses from gamblers while gamblers make money for winning the crypto casino. One has to win while the other lose. so quitting gambling is not a choice for these investors.

[nelson4lov]

So what do you think governments should do instead of banning gambling completely?

Based on what I've come to understand, most if not all government will only ban a gambling platform or gambling in generally unless the gambling platforms in their jurisdiction generates little to no revenue for their state/country. Government need revenue and gambling businesses are some of the best businesses that generates constant revenue and cash flow for government. So I don't think because a few people wanted to get rich off gambling and didn't have any risk management in place is enough reason for government to ban gambling.

[Marykeller]

A government to ban what is a major source of income to them? Are they dullard to that? The government I know wouldn't try to do such, even when they know that, what serves as a major source of income to them, is somehow affecting its citizens. What they will do is to create awareness on the subject matter on how their citizens will deal with that.

Gambling we all know, governments have somehow let their citizens know that gambling is not for people below 18 years, and they have even educated their citizens on how gambling should be done. Having the government play such a part in educating their citizens, they believe they have played their part, is for their citizens to play theirs

[Mr_Brilliant$]

I don’t think gambling can be the major source of income for a country..
But if peradventure it happens, then I do not think the government would ban it completely, because if they do that, then the country itself might not even survive it… You can’t just remove something that a lot of people depend on overnight..

The best way to take gambling away in that kind of situation is gradually, not an instant ban..  First, the government needs to create other means of income for the country.. Then when people are no longer depending so much on gambling, then they can start reducing it step by step..

[Onyeeze]

I don't think the government would resort to ban gambling completely, it will be a big loss for a country's revenue. Instead, they will impose strict rules and regulations for gamblers and gambling sites, so that gambling addiction will be properly address and gamblers will be given early treatment with the help of the government rehabilitation centers.

Gambling is actually never bad, its how the gamblers took it as their own advantage that makes it bad for the eyes of everyone.

don't you know that there are some countries that does not benefit from gambling Revenue government should bang gambling it will not affect them because it's not most of the gambling platform that are operate with license so that is what you are supposed to know that many gambling platform is not known by the government why they are operating legally, so gambling can be stopped by the government if government wishes to stop gambling totally..

[Rubuchi]

I don't think the government would resort to ban gambling completely, it will be a big loss for a country's revenue. Instead, they will impose strict rules and regulations for gamblers and gambling sites, so that gambling addiction will be properly address and gamblers will be given early treatment with the help of the government rehabilitation centers.

Gambling is actually never bad, its how the gamblers took it as their own advantage that makes it bad for the eyes of everyone.

I am sure that there will be a lot for countries that are heavily benefiting from these gambling sites and won't want to ban the activity completely but will want to regulate it even more and increase the taxes leveled against the gambling companies instead of saying they ill ban gambling. And if you are talking about those addicts, you should know clearly that it is not a problem with the company but a problem with the individuals who are playing it and instead of somebody to quit they will shift the blaim from themselves to any other entity

[blockman]

I am sure that there will be a lot for countries that are heavily benefiting from these gambling sites and won't want to ban the activity completely but will want to regulate it even more and increase the taxes leveled against the gambling companies instead of saying they ill ban gambling. And if you are talking about those addicts, you should know clearly that it is not a problem with the company but a problem with the individuals who are playing it and instead of somebody to quit they will shift the blaim from themselves to any other entity

That is true because of how taxation works for them, it's possible that there's also a revenue share from the casino given to the government. And that's why even with a lot of gamblers who became addicted and it's in their statistics, they're not going to ignore that they're benefiting from the situation. If they have to choose, they'll have to balance the situation and will still continue to benefit from it and with the tax that they're getting from it is so much. There's no doubt about that and we know that as long as there's money getting in to the government, they'll not let go of it unless the leader has the political will and other means of solving the problem.

[Bright0515]

There are people that take gambling as a fun activity and it helps them to stay relaxed, banning gambling because of how addicted some people might be is an insensitive thing to do, it is better for the government agency to restrict those that are addicted alone instead of banning gambling entirely. Like I said, gambling is a means of entertainment for a lot of people, if some people see it as something for recreational purpose then they should not be deprived of gambling whenever they want to. Banning doesn't even fix the problem of gambling addiction.

[Orpichukwu]

The phrase 'major source of revenue' is pointing at a situation where gambling also generates income for the economy of that country. Banning gambling will be considered unfair in such situations; instead, that same government can use resources to create a programme which can help reduce addiction and also stop many from getting addicted if they have access to the right guidance.

[Sonia_123]

No it's not fair to do that because of some gamblers that has failed to stick to the rules and regulations of gambling be affecting the innocent ones.

The government should build a rehabilitation center for the addict and if any gambler gets addicted and treated should be banned from gambling in wherever he goes in the world maybe that will help control addiction, since the government must move on in achieving it's aim in the gambling world.

[Japinat]

It's hard to completely ban gambling because these VIP owners do have strong connection with the government officials. And as long as the government can benefit from them, they will never be out of the operational market.

If there's one to be banned, it should be those illegal gambling casinos that are operating freely because they are the reason why irresponsible and addicted gamblers exist by not following the strict rules that are supposed to be imposed in every gambler and in every licensed gambling casino. With that, the number of addicted gamblers will be minimized.

[Pi-network314159]

If gambling is one of the major sources of income for a country, is banning it completely really the best solution just because some people are addicted?

Since it's not the only source of income of that country, they can be fine without it if it's banned. The truth is that they will think they can't do without something they are used to, but actually they can do without it, just that it is difficult in the beginning but later People usually look for way out when the desirable is not available. What I mean is that it's only but a few time after banning it, the economy will cope without it because many countries are doing better without gamble.

I know gambling addiction is a serious problem, but sometimes governments go straight to the last option which is banning it totally, instead of trying other ways to reduce the addiction first. Because if they ban gambling, everyone gets affected, not only the addicted gamblers. Responsible gamblers, workers, businesses, and even government income will be affected too.

So what do you think governments should do instead of banning gambling completely?

What else do you think government will do to reduce gambling addiction apart from banning it. The only thing government can do is to open more rehabilitation center for gambling addict. Gambling is like drug business, it is profitable to the seller but at same time harmful or hazardous to the buyer. Government may be getting revenue from it but what about the effects or harm it will cost the mases? Sometimes we just forget about profile and think about human life or health. If government sees that gambling is beyond or out of control, then they deserve the right to call it a quit instead of it destroying the life of many innocent citizens of the country.

[noorman0]

What are the true impacts of gambling addiction, huge losses, mental damage, criminal potential?
If the government regulates gambling as best as possible, there will be huge expenses behind huge revenues especially if addiction rates get higher. If we demand the government morally for cutting off several business flows to suppress addiction, why don't we also demand the same thing from everyone involved in that business?

What particular expense do you have in mind and why do you believe it requires huge expenses? Regulation for me does not need high expenses, it is just a strategy on how to minimize gambling addiction.

And since regulators are the ones making and implementing the rules, they have to ensure that casinos are complying with them. So it is not just one way, it is not only the government solving the problem, it should be both sides that are benefiting from it.

But it will not work without proper measures being put in place, and that is a big challenge in many nations. That is why they just resulted to banning gambling overall.

What I've never seen in this industry is a direct regulatory role.
We often see gamblers having to find their own ways to resolve disputes; and there are also many cases of self-exclusion requests that are never effective. Consider the high addiction rate, the availability of adequate rehabilitation facilities in countries with high gambling rates (which usually have high addiction rates as well).

A morally responsible regulator wouldn't simply grant licenses and leave gamblers to solve their own problems, but would proactively serve the gamblers who are essentially their source of income.