If smokers can sue and win against tobacco companies then I guess this is fair.
When its an absolute certainty that your business is going to ruin many lives, you know it and you don't provide 'reasonable' care to prevent it....Isn't that tort law?
Its been a while since my intro to law course at U of C.
Those things are insidious though.
I wouldn't say its an absolute certainty like tobacco . . . . .
On my desk is a 1982 Newsweek, which I have there for other reasons, but which also contains an amusing two-page tobacco ad warning people to be careful about believing everything they hear about second hand smoke.
I was watching an interview with the owner of a Vegas Casino once. he said: "Listen, for every $1 that goes into the slots, I know I'm going to get 80 cents of it. I hope you're the one that gets the other 20 cents. In fact, I'm rooting for you but ultimately, I don't care who gets the 20 cents. There's no incentive whatsoever for me to fix the machines."
My wife has actually won far more money playing slots than she's ever put into it. It's absolutely remarkable. The big job I have is convincing her to walk away when she's up $700 on a quarter slot machine instead of inevitably watching it decrease back to zero.
I've never found gambling interesting or even remotely fun so I don't get the attraction but it seems to me people simply don't approach it like its a business, like the casino owner for example . . . . . take your winnings when they're there and have the discipline to limit your losses if things aren't going your way.
And never gamble with money that's important.
I can't see how she would win this thing.
Cowperson
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone
wonder how she calculated her travel costs? i feel sorry for her, but that being said, she needs to take responsibility - not everything in life can come with a warning?
Funny thing is though, gambling does come with a warning.
Just about every VLT I've ever seen has pamphlets and the phone number for AADAC right next to it, and casinos have that stuff all over the place. They even have programs where you can voluntarily have yourself put on a list so you aren't allowed to gamble there.
Gambling addictions can be tough, but there is a lot more in place to help people at the source than there is for a lot of other addictions.
Anyone ever see a liquor store with a sign for a "Don't sell me booze" list?
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
My wife has actually won far more money playing slots than she's ever put into it. It's absolutely remarkable. The big job I have is convincing her to walk away when she's up $700 on a quarter slot machine instead of inevitably watching it decrease back to zero.
This sounds so much like my mom its crazy. The attitude usually goes something to the effect of "Well, its not my money I'm losing anyways, I was up". True story...but who doesn't want an extra $700 in their pocket?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Gambling addictions can be tough, but there is a lot more in place to help people at the source than there is for a lot of other addictions. Anyone ever see a liquor store with a sign for a "Don't sell me booze" list?
IS there something like that for gambling?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I am a regular patron at my local casino. I enjoy it. And I am responsible with my gambling habits.
There is a woman who is attempting to sue to two casinos in my neighborhood. Casinos have good policies in place they just do not enforce them. I know you can self exclude yourself from casinos here, its apparently an extensive process that takes a good 30 mins and you have to sign many documents and get your picture taken from several angles. However, security in no way attempts to block excluded people from entering the casino. Their excuse is that the facial recognition software they have is not good enough but they are working on it. That is a bunch of BS. Any gambler who enters a casino as much as these people do is well known by security, and security knows they have self excluded themselves. They just turn a blind eye to it.
The last time my friend was in the UK, he looked into checking out a casino there but he had to use his ID and sign up for a card that he would have to swipe before entering any casino and it brings up all your information right then and there. He decided against it, thought it was a hassle. Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution that would be easy to implement. If the government was actually serious about dealing with problem gambling this would be a great solution. If you had to swipe a card before you entered that then showed security all your info it would reduce issues like this. It would make self exclusion actually work. In my area we had several casinos letting in minors for crying out loud. It would eliminate that issue. It would never happen tho. Less money for the casino, means less money for the municipalities.
I know some people are against holding peoples hands when it comes to stuff like this. However, the government has chosen to profit of an industry that takes advantage of peoples addiction and brings in crime to the immediate surrounding area. When the government makes the choice to profit off stuff like this, they owe it to the public to limit as much damage as they can. If it takes some hand holding, im ok with that. I've seen many people with obvious mental disorders gambling, which i think is a complete joke. They let people in that are so intoxicated they could barely walk. As mentioned before they let in minors and they let in people that are trying to exclude themselves. So long as you are putting money into the machines they do not care.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pacem For This Useful Post:
At casinos people can willingly put themselves on a list which forbids them to be on the property and they can be removed if they are found to be there. At the end of the day though no matter what casino you go to, no matter what time you go, the place will be busy and it isn't a social atmosphere, it is depressing as all hell actually.
A casino can be a fun atmosphere I guess but slot machines have always seemed so non-social and depressing that I wonder how someone starts with them in the first place.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Even though most people know the odds are against them, few people realize that VLTs and slots are actually not random generating programs at all. They are programmed to provide a number of enticement features that, for most people increase the sense of excitement at the chance to win, but, for some people, create an irristable sense of the need to continue to play.
These include programming in a large number of extra "near misses" and a larger number of smaller payouts that reinforce the habit and will get replayed and fewer than average large payouts that will get cashed out.
The government has paid for and received plenty of research and studies on how to make the machines safer and less addictive (slower, time limits, less visual and auditory stimulus, higher payout rates, using real cash values not credits, locating the machines away from lower income areas), but few of these measures ever got implemented. That's probably where their legal exposure will be tested.
If you know plenty of ways you can make something safer, but chose not too because it means a decrease in revenue, are you not at least partially responsible for the outcome?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to j_j For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Funny thing is though, gambling does come with a warning.
Just about every VLT I've ever seen has pamphlets and the phone number for AADAC right next to it, and casinos have that stuff all over the place. They even have programs where you can voluntarily have yourself put on a list so you aren't allowed to gamble there.
Gambling addictions can be tough, but there is a lot more in place to help people at the source than there is for a lot of other addictions.
Anyone ever see a liquor store with a sign for a "Don't sell me booze" list?
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
IS there something like that for gambling?
You mean like that exact thing I mentioned right right above the part you quoted?
Yup, there is.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Just let them know you want to be on the banned list and they'll boot you when they see you in the casino
You still have to take the time and do the required steps under the voluntary self exclusion program run by the AGLC. People still come back, sometimes using disguises, sometimes not. I'm not sure how many people are on the program but security and the AGLC reps are not going to identify every single person as soon as they come back in to get kicked out. However if you are caught there can be consequences.
and for the person that said it was quite extensive, like 30 minutes worth of signatures and photos.....Well if you can't take 30 minutes to save yourself from an addiction, you probably have some other issues too.
If only the provincial government had required these warning labels to be prominently displayed on all VLTs.
It could have saved her!! Go baby. Sue the government for every penny you can. Its all their fault.
I'm actually somewhat surprised they don't have them. It was only a matter of time until somebody decided to sue. VLT's will be like cigarette packages in the near future.
__________________
"Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it."
-Steve Prefontaine
Just let them know you want to be on the banned list and they'll boot you when they see you in the casino
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
At casinos people can willingly put themselves on a list which forbids them to be on the property and they can be removed if they are found to be there. At the end of the day though no matter what casino you go to, no matter what time you go, the place will be busy and it isn't a social atmosphere, it is depressing as all hell actually.
They do not enforce the self exclusion list, so it is pointless. The people that are trying to get help, are not getting it. The people that put in the effort to help themselves and their families do not receive it, its a broken system. Its nothing more then a PR thing. Hey look we are doing something to curb problem gambling, we have a ####ing list. We are doing all that we can, because we have this list. Completely ignoring the fact their list is worthless if its not enforced.
Its wrong for the government to prey on peoples addictions to the tune of millions of dollars and not have a good system in place that helps the people who genuinely want help. At least try and put in an honest effort to help the people who want help. The current system is not an honest effort.
I would be very curious to find out how many individuals are on the list vs how many have actually ever received a fine for attempting to come into a casino. The solution in the UK is perfect, but it'll cut into profits so it will never be implemented.
My friends brother worked at one casino as part of their security team. My dad, and my cousins husband both worked at another casino, again part of the security team. At the time, part of their shift work was spent on a computer looking at photo's of customers they did not want in the casino. Not the self excluded ones, but people that were banned for other reasons.
For example, one time a fist fight broke out at the poker tables, those people received a 6 month ban. They would also study the pictures of employees at other casinos that are not allowed in the casino they work at. There are two main casino companies that own the casinos in my area. The people that work at the casino in Richmond can't play in the one in Langley because they have the same owners. They can play in the one in Cloverdale, because the main operator is different. The homeless were another problem at my local casino. They would go in and collect all the tickets people left by machines that were worth pennies but when you get enough they would amount to a buck or two. There was also a problem with them coming in to the smoking area and taking all the cigarette butts. They were right on top of stuff like that, and they recognize those people asap and stopped them from entering. They do not do that for people who are trying to help themselves. Pretty easy to figure out why. $$$
All 3 people i talked about worked at the casinos a couple years ago, so i am not sure if they still spend time looking at peoples pictures anymore. I don't see why that would change. If not that system, then they still have to have a system in place that makes sure the casino keeps out the people they want to keep out. The casino has no interest in keeping out problem gamblers, that is why the self excluded list does not work and never will work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
I'm suing the city for that accident I had. They built the road.
I agree with your point. Suing the government for loses at a casino is ######ed and I think it shouldn't happen. The government could use these attempted lawsuits to look at their current system and make changes to make the system better. That is of course assuming they want people to get help.
Your analogy is horrible. The government giving licenses to an industry that preys upon addiction is no where near close to the same as a city building things that are essential to a cities' infrastructure.
Even though most people know the odds are against them, few people realize that VLTs and slots are actually not random generating programs at all. They are programmed to provide a number of enticement features that, for most people increase the sense of excitement at the chance to win, but, for some people, create an irristable sense of the need to continue to play.
These include programming in a large number of extra "near misses" and a larger number of smaller payouts that reinforce the habit and will get replayed and fewer than average large payouts that will get cashed out.
The government has paid for and received plenty of research and studies on how to make the machines safer and less addictive (slower, time limits, less visual and auditory stimulus, higher payout rates, using real cash values not credits, locating the machines away from lower income areas), but few of these measures ever got implemented. That's probably where their legal exposure will be tested.
If you know plenty of ways you can make something safer, but chose not too because it means a decrease in revenue, are you not at least partially responsible for the outcome?
the use of a slot machine may be stupid (well always is to be frank) but it is neither unsafe or addictive in any medical sense.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
