I was watching Fox Sports Net tonight and they had their typical poker stars round table with all the well known "pro players". And they asked "when do you know when to quit?".

One of the players said "until my box is empty and I have no one else to borrow from". This came from a legend in poker who has won millions of dollars.

Another player, Jennifer Harman, was giving her suggestions...yet I recall watching a tournament where they said she had lost all of her money and almost quit playing poker all together before her husband gave her a loan!

These are the "winners" of gambling. And now they're treated like rock stars or pro athletes, but when I watch them up close, they look like people with gambling problems.

Now switch to the "losers" of gambling. I live in Detroit and I've frequented the casinos in Detroit. Last year the three casinos made $1 Billion in revenue combined.

I've actually played in the room where a policeman had lost all his life savings and actually took his own life in the very same room with a gun shot to the head.

I've sat next to people throwing down their entire check onto the roulette table. And seen people return again and again until, as the Casino coins it, they are "burnt out".

And just recently, a pro-hockey player, Darren McCarty of the Red Wings claimed bankruptcy partly because of a $600K debt to the Detroit Casinos. Darren runs an organization to aid in cancer research,

My question:

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling?

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?

Well there is definately a rise in the popularity of poker games like texas hold'em over the past few years. To see this, just watch the World Series of Poker from just a few years ago and then watch last years. The size and grandeur of the event has exploded.

However, even with that being said I do not think that poker is being "glamorized" any more than professional sports or celebrities.

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling?

I don't think it's our job to educate people on such a thing. People know that with gambling their is the chance you can loose and anyone who says they "can't stop" is just trying to take away the responsibility for their own actions. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions. If they loose all their money at the craps tables in a casino or on an online poker website than that is strictly their fault.

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?

There were people with gambling problems long before ESPN started showing the "World Series of Poker." We have state supported gambling--the lottery, and playing the stock market is a form of gambling.

We may be glamorizing gambling, but I don't think it makes much difference.

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling

Gambling is but one among many possible addictions. If it becomes an addiction, there's not much that can be done until the individual recoginzes he/she has a problem. Education can't help if one doesn't think they have a problem.

In other words some organization doing with gambling what Nancy Reagan did with drugs, "just say no," just won't work.

What will work is individual and/or group counseling with people who recognize and want to deal with a problem.

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?
Yes, America has glamorized gambling too much for too long. Too much of America's finances are handled in a casinolike manner. Does Government lack money for road construction? No problem, just sell more lottery tickets and open more video slot machines. Then of course, there are the speculation bubbles on Wall Street and in Real Estate. Instead of getting dividends from the sale of products, investors these days continue to bid up the price of stocks and try to make a quick buck by selling high. In the past 5 years in Real Estate, speculators built houses in bad locations and bid up the price of those houses to ridiculuous levels. Gambling is all around in America's economy and its glamourized by the media.

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling?
Education is part of the solution. The next step is to restore the real economy. Instead of relying on casinos or fancy investment schemes, America needs to bring back its factories and start making things again. Without a real economy in place, all America has is a "service" economy where people shuffle around the existing wealth.

I would like to point out that, to a great extent, poker is a game of skill. Sure, if I keep getting a bunch of flushes and full houses, I'll win; but in the real world, the better player is going to take my money.

My only point here is that we have to make some distinction between games like poker and blackjack, and games of pure luck, like lotteries. It is inevitable that games which involve skill are going to be glamorized to some extent. There is much less excuse to glamorize games of luck.

Education is always a good thing. A little basic understanding of the odds (nothing requiring any advanced mathematical knowledge) would be helpful. If somebody has a grasp of why the odds are stacked heavily in favor of the house in Las Vegas, or how astronomical the odds against winning big in the lottery are, they will be a little less likely to throw away money.

Education isn't a cure-all, of course; there will still be people who will destroy their lives through gambling. For these unfortunates, some form of therapy may be necessary. It will always be impossible to prevent some people from self-destructive behavior.

I agree to an extent that it is skill. But I would argue that the skill angle is over-exagerrated. Back in the day when there were few pro poker players it was understandable that certain players would constantly win. But now the pool of "pros" is booming and the actual "luck" part of the equation looms MUCH, MUCH larger. Games are more like blackjack than say....pro basketball.

I compare it to any game, say euchre. Sure, skilled players are always going to beat unskilled players, but as people become more skilled the game simply becomes a matter of what cards are dealt.

Again, look at Jennifer Harmin. She admitted to losing all her money....and she has won nearly $2 million.

I think the scariest part of this all is giving people the impression that they can work hard and get the skills to win at games of LUCK.

Those tournaments cost $10,000 to get into!

It's not like Michael Jordan who is competing, but getting paid either way. These people REALLY lose when they lose at the table.

I think they are glamorizing these people far too much. THey don't show the down side. They don't show when these people lose. They're not Michael Jordan, otherwise they would be on top ALL the time.

I'm for people's freedom to do what they want. But I really worry with how far we have strayed from our puritan, protestant-ethical background. Hopefully people will just get bored with these Casinos and get tired of losing their money....

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?

I would say yes with the caveat being: in the last few years. It seem like only recently has gambling become so popular (on TV and internet sites) and the coverage of the players who make good money has increased too. So I think it's become much more mainstream and it's seen as cool to play poker or gamble. As with anything, as it becomes more mainstream it gets more popular and more people take it up. On college campuses alone there are tons of people who have regular poker nights with a $5 (or more) buy in.

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling?

I think there could be more done to educate people, but who's purgative is it? Should the casinos have big cigarette-style warning labels on the front doors saying "Gambling may be addictive, play at your own risk"? Should the state provide information packets? Should casinos tell you to gamble responsibly? Education is good, but where should it come from?

I agree with leder for once in that people should know the risks and understand that they're playing with their own money. But I'm not sure how this "addiction" forms, or if it should even be called an addiction. When I think addiction I always imagine some sort of physiological or biological component, like nicotine, causing one to become dependent.

People need to start dealing with the results of the choices they have made.
No more "It isn't really their fault" garbage.
Lose all your money gambling then you deserve to be out on the street.
Same for drugs and booze.

I agree to some extent. But it's not really that simple. If people were omnicient and in complete control of themselves, then this would be a great argument. Unfortunately that's no where near reality.

People can't control themselves? Of course they can. Gambling is like any other vice that can be controlled by an individual if they want to do it. People gamble because they believe they can win a lot of money and other have a good time doing it. They wouldn't do it if they didnt find some joy in the action. If they want to keep gambling, then we should let them. Hopefully they will eventually realize that its a bad path to go down. But nobody should forcibly stop them. Its an individual decision.

No, people can't always control themselves. People aren't robots. People who do heroin and methamphetamine have lost their physical ability to control themselves.

Can you imagine if a company were undetered and unopposed in marketing heroin or meth? Are you telling me our society would not crumble?

I believe in freedom of the individual, the only caveat is that I believe in a strong educational system and a safety net for people who ask or need help.

I am for legalizing drugs, but I think success would really depend on how people are informed and think of drug use that would ease the problems. It's the same with gambling, when you market it and show "Poker Stars" on TV as if these gambling addicts are really someone to aspire to, it leads to problem gambling.

I am confused. In one breath you say that the marketing of heroin and meth would cause our society to crumble and in the next you say you are for legalizing drugs. Which is it? People are not robots. They have free will. The free will to gamble, take drugs, have sex or go to school and get an education. That's an individual choice that people make.

I do not believe in the safety net you propose because it only leads to people not taking responsibility for their actions. If someone was always there to pick them up when they fall, they will never learn to pick themself up. It's the whole "give a man a fish" story. People should educate themselves and know the consequences of their actions. If they enter into something unaware of the risks and dangers that the situation may contain, its nobody's fault but their own.

He said we should legalize all drugs with the caveat of a strong educational system. It's right here:



This makes sense to me. The idea that I could do heroine and also, if I wanted, educate myself on the effects of heroine.



What you're both arguing here isn't that different. You say people should educate themselves about risks of actions and RedCeder says there should be an educational system "for people who ask or need help." Obviously education is important and without it we couldn't make informed decisions. But where is this education going to come from if it is not provided by someone? Also, with the whole "teach a man to fish" thing. He's got to learn from someone how to fish before he can feed himself for a lifetime; so therefore, it would seem you're arguing for the same system; at least, as far as I can tell.



If people don't/can't learn how to pick themselves up how are they supposed to change? If you don't teach a man to fish how is he supposed to stop begging?

As far as free will goes, people who get addicted to gambling or heroin usually have free will as far as trying the drug for the first time. Once a person gets hooked to the drug, either intervention is necessary or the addict has to hit rock bottom to seek help. Hopefully though, intervention should be done by family and friends rather than the government.

DA, i see what you're saying. I suppose i should have been made more clear on the exact thing you pointed out...where the information should come from and how people can educate themselves. I have no problem with there being places where one can attain information on drug and alcohol abuse. What I do have a problem with is people being coddled and not having to take responsibility for their poor decisions.

Yeah, but your assumption is that everyone is omnicient which is really, really flawed. In other words, when a child takes meth for the first time you assume they know the risks before hand.

Here, let me give you an example. How many people understand the implications of having a credit card? Sure, you could argue they are handed the disclosures....but those are in millimeter print with a lot of lawyer mumbo jumbo. So even when the company is required to disclose information, people are not TRULY informed.

Or let's say you go to a doctor and he decides to make some money off of you with an unnecessary procedure. Sound impossible? Not really, it happens all the time. So are you saying that you need to become a physician to know if you're being hood-winked? I mean, how can you really make an informed decision unless there are professionals ON YOUR side?

If you are uneducated, then I think that's when the gov't feels it's necessary to tell you what you can and can't do. So IMHO, the gov't either provides education or they do the thinking for people.

A good example is a friend of mine from India said their gov't would not allow the release of an Indiana Jones movie because it depicted certain Indian culture in a bad light. And there would be bound to be riots. It's a perfect case of where uneducated masses could not be trusted to have individual liberty because of the threat to civility.

You can't just say "individual freedom" without an informed and educated citizenry, it would be equivalent to mayhem.

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?

Yes but mostly over the past six years or so. I grew up in Las Vegas and there is an aspect of the scene that is undeniably tantalizing. It is the whole "high roller" mentality that sweeps people in. Many people I went to school with are addicted
and lose insane amounts of money. When you win big you are swept away into an exclusive suite with comps all over the place. You are treated like royalty. T What a lot of people don't know is that you usually have to lose big first and the suite and the comps are to keep you there to take back the win. That is what is being glamorized as if it is the norm.

Now let me take you to the local grocery store or casino and it isn't pretty.

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling?

Darn near everyone knows someone who lost it all...career, family, money because of gambling. Just look at some past lottery winners and where they are now. What else could we possibly do or say? Another program educating so and so on the dangers of gambling just wouldn't work anyways. Turn on TV late at night and you're guaranteed to find some show with some celebrity partying and gambling in Las Vegas. It all looks so glamorous; doesn't it?

It's not flawed and you haven't shown any evidence otherwise. If a person takes meth for the first time without knowing the risks beforehand, who's fault is that? Not mine, definately not the government's especially since it is illegal. Nobody to blame for the consequences but themselves.


And whose fault is that again? Oh the print is too small, i guess it doesn't have to be read.



Most people would seek a second or even third opinion on a costly and dangerous procedure to know that it is absolutely necessary. If a patient fails to do so then both the doctor and the patient are at fault.



So the "educated" few should think for the undeducated masses? Sounds like totalitarianism to me.



Yes, free speech, free press, the uneducated masses can't handle so let's do away with it altogether. Do you even understand what you are arguing?



Mayhem is preferable to authoritarianism if it means individual liberty. What you are advocating is the exact opposite of the ideals of freedom and justice.

I think that it is possible to provide accurate information about dangerous behavior without destroying personal freedom and responsibility. It may not be the fault of anybody in particular when people do not have the knowledge necessary to keep them out of trouble; however, I think you can say that there is something wrong with a society (even if you can't pin down the blame) if it does not provide the facts to its people. The fact that most kinds of activity which are risky but legal (drinking, smoking, gambling, and so on) are limited to adults shows that a certain level of experience and judgement are necessary to engage in these activities. To get back to the issue at hand, I see nothing wrong with trying to educate people about the facts concerning gambling. That may not eliminate all self-destructive gambling, but it may help.

There seems to be some question about whether gambling is an addiction in the usual sense of the word. Perhaps “pathological gambling” would be a better description.

Here’s Health Matters take:



http://www.mental-health-matters.com/disor...ls.php?disID=45

It seems there are a number of professional journal articles by organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and others. Seemingly these are articles someone has to pay a fee to view, so I’ve just provided a link to the abstracts.

http://www.springerlink.com/(eyciwf55fmadj...ults,1:105582,1
http://www.ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/co...tract/141/2/215

Gambling can become a psychological addiction. Pathological gambling is recognized as a mental illness by the APA and it can be found in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). The fact is that a person can become psychologically dependent on any number of things and there are support groups that address these problems. There is a Gamblers Anonymous organization designed to help compulsive and pathological gamblers.

Those who start to gamble do so at their own risk. Do we need the government to put giant signs outside casinos reading "Warning, you will most likely lose money gambling"? Let's exercise some common sense, please. A lot of information is freely available about the subject and those who do develop a problem can get help from family, friends, etc. to join a support group.

Wow, you denied it before....yet maybe you just don't understand.



http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA1.html

Sound familiar?

On second thought, you are for a sovereign power that maintains wealth distribution. So I guess you aren't an anarchist.

And what about Justice? Who's justice are you talking about? The justice of the rich and the advantaged to leverage the poor without ethical considerations?

Well as the great James Madison commented: What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

I have made clear to you that i am not an anarchist. I believe that government has a very small number of necessary jobs and that we should not give the state too much power over the individual. The comparison that you were making was between total security under totalitarianism and total freedom under mayhem...i chose the latter, you chose the former.


Ayn Rand once said The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. I don't particularly like her but this quote hits the nail on the head.

If you give government the power to do good, you give it the power to do evil. We must limit the power of government wherever reasonably possible. You are saying that the government should interfere in the transactions of private citizens and I am saying that is denying the individual of liberty.

Are we glamorizing gambling too much?

Are we doing enough to educate and help people with the problems with gambling?

Put this baldly, the answers to this questions have to be "yes" and "no" respectively.

After all, even though alcohol advertising uses slim, young-looking models rather than ruddy-faced people with beer bellies, it doesn't go to the lengths of televising knock-out drinking competitions, does it? (Maybe it does and I'm just not familiar enough with US cable TV.)

So on the glamorizing (I'm too British - I just want to put an 's' in there!) front, I think televised gambling is "too much".

And in terms of educating people about things that are possibly* harmful, how much is "enough" anyway?

* I think it's important to remember that, just like other addictive behaviours around foodstuffs, alcohol, narcotic drugs, sex etc., gambling is not automatically harmful.

Millions upon millions of people play poker in each other homes or in casinos, play slot machines, bet on sports, play lotteries and so on with no ill effects whatsoever, just as millions eat, drink, have sex, with not only no ill effects but with positively beneficial ones.

Indeed, I think many of the problems surrounding all kinds of 'frowned-upon' substances and behaviours happen because they are frowned upon.

Shame and outright criminalisation drives people to exercise such hobbies in the part of the social Venn diagram intersects with illegality, which cannot be a good thing - how much less of a problem would 'problem' gambling be if it was entirely legal in all its forms across the whole USA, so nobody would ever have to come into contact with the organised crime that runs so much of it?

Of course, that's not to diminish the problems faced by those who genuinely are addicted to gambling though, like many 'problem' drug users, I tend to think that self-descriptions of being a 'hopeless <insert vice here>-aholic' are all too often excuses that permit continued bad behaviour and abuse of loved ones with a clear conscience because, after all, "I can't help it!".