Putin's Executive Order: Casinos to be shut-down in Russia

[Mise]

Actually, there is a difference in perceptions between Europe and America over gambling. It's largely to do with the massively successful PR campaigns and lobbying that gambling institutions in America conduct, which have successfully turned public opinion around on the issue in America. Tactics such as 'rebranding' "gambling" to "gaming" and marketing it as a fun-filled family holiday made casinos seem less like shady dens of criminality, debt and broken homes, and more like Disneyland. It's actually incredibly interesting, and recommended reading for anyone intent on careers in marketing or politics, and for anyone interested in the creative use of language to persuade and sway people's opinions.

 

[Camikaze]

If such statements were only applied to Russia, perhaps.

Well, sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but the rule still stands.

 

[Dachs]

Well, sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but the rule still stands.

If there are exceptions to the rule, how does it stand? Wouldn't that at least call for perhaps a revision of the rule, or at the very least a simple qualifying "can"?

 

[RedRalph]

If there are exceptions to the rule, how does it stand? Wouldn't that at least call for perhaps a revision of the rule, or at the very least a simple qualifying "can"?

I dont want to get into semantics here, but what he said is undeniable gramatically correct, and adding 'can' would make no difference. Neither sentance says anything about the extent.

 

[Camikaze]

If there are exceptions to the rule, how does it stand? Wouldn't that at least call for perhaps a revision of the rule, or at the very least a simple qualifying "can"?

99% ≑ 100%

Or something like that. Sure, it's still open to some debate, I suppose, but if you were to argue that gambling wasn't societally damaging, you'd be on the losing side.

And by societally damaging, I meant as a whole, whereas when I said that there are exceptions to the rule, I was meaning of individual circumstances. Which means the rule that it is societally damaging still holds.

 

[aelf]

Yeah, just like firewater was more important than gunpowder to the Russian conquest of Siberia. Making blanket statements about either alcohol's or gambling's societal effect - whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anyway - based on limited applications seems to be manifestly unhelpful, though.

But in those cases it is true. Russians are traditionally known to be susceptible to gambling addiction, so I guess this is very relevant to Russian society. Likewise, talking about the ill societal effects of alcohol is very relevant when we're talking about, say, the Aboriginals of Australia.

PS: I would also err on the side of caution in general, since I can't see any real potential benefit to gambling. Only potential ill effects.

 

[Dragonlord]

If you are a gambler and want to have any chance of actually winning, it makes all the difference in the world.

For instance, the house advantage in blackjack when the players knows how to bet is miniscule under most regulated environments. If you are skilled, e.g. smart enough to read and understand a fairly simple book about playing blackjack, you can play for hours while typically losing a very small amount. That turns it into entertainment instead of willful robbery.

Furthermore, if you have a run of good hands you can even will a sizeable amount on those occasions when luck is on your side. And if you are smart enough to set a realistic limit when the odds are in the other direction, you can even enjoy a modicum of success if you are savvy enough to know when to walk away. And the casinos will even teach you how to play all their house games to maximize those odds.

Unfortunately, moet people don't take that time to learn the proper strategies, or they even delude themselves into thinking they have some unbeatable scheme that can beat the house odds. These are the sort of people that the casinos really like. They are the ones who consistently lose large amounts.

But nobody can do well when the house odds are sufficiently stacked against them. it is literally a license to steal.

Gambling is like any other vice. It is not inherently evil. It only becomes so when the person has no self-control. Should we penalize everybody for the addictions of the few?

QFT. True and relevant.

Well, yeah, I agree to an extent, but you cannot deny that gambling does do significant damage to communities, and should be discouraged. Perhaps an outright ban is not what is required, but then again, it isn't an outright ban on gambling. It is an outright ban on places that are to an excess in this regard. You could say it is a large scale decentralisation of the gambling industry. It will not stop people from gambling, but it will definitely limit the social problems associated with gambling addiction, which are to a large extent caused by the mass congregation of gambling activities, and the relative ease of accessing them.

It isn't totally banning anything. It isn't even banning casinos. It is just forcing their relocation if they wish to remain open.

The negative impact of gambling on society should not be underestimated. Having said that, I would surmise that the majority of gamblers are not addicted. But nothing is stopping them from continuing to gamble, just in a more limited way, and in other forms than pokies.

Please. Banning gambling and casinos from all but 4 as-yet-to-be-determined areas right on the edges of Russia is effectively a total ban for the majority of the population. Just how many people are going to travel thousands of miles to gamble? Effectively, that limits gambling to the wealthy.

As I said before, I'm not at all against regulation, but this is too extreme. What I would have done - not that Putin is likely to care : I would have restricted licenses, say one or two casinos to a city, banned slot-machine-only places maybe (while allowing slots in the casinos) and tried to make the casinos less attractive to poorer people: dress code, a cover charge, a ban on hard alcohol, things like that. Also, of course, strict regulation about minors and obvious gambling addicts.

There is no perfect solution, but there should always be a compromise between the rights of responsible individuals and protecting idiots from themselves.

 

[REDY]

What a valid point. I certainly can't see any difference between that and what I was saying.

I havent reacted on you. I am happy that you are once between the good guys

 

[Formaldehyde]

Las Vegas was built by the mafia you can't get any more unregulated than that.

Bugsy Siegel's casino in Las Vegas was indeed built with mafia money, but the Nevada gaming laws existed long before that happened. Gambling has always been regulated in Nevada, and the games were even fair for the most part. In fact, the mafia move into gaming was all part of their great effort to "go legit".

 

[amadeus]

It's largely to do with the massively successful PR campaigns and lobbying that gambling institutions in America conduct, which have successfully turned public opinion around on the issue in America. Tactics such as 'rebranding' "gambling" to "gaming"

I don't know about the U.S., but gaming appears in UK legal terminology.

 

[Mise]

I don't know about the U.S., but gaming appears in UK legal terminology.

I didn't realise that, but many things appear in legal terminology that don't appear in common parlance Bill used the term "gaming" earlier -- most people in the UK would think he was shooting pheasants.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why not just regulate the casinos more? You don't get rid of an industry completely when it has some issues, especially in an economic downturn. You enact policies to fix the issues.

Also, does bootleg gambling occur? I can see people playing cards with their friends, but do commercial, organized bootleg casinos exist?

 

[Bill3000]

PS: I would also err on the side of caution in general, since I can't see any real potential benefit to gambling. Only potential ill effects.

uh, fun, perhaps?

 

[aelf]

uh, fun, perhaps?

That's the only or even the best way to have fun? Really?

 

[Bill3000]

That's the only or even the best way to have fun? Really?

It's what some people really enjoy to do, yes. Very much so, otherwise gambling addiction wouldn't be a problem. It is possible to do it in moderation, you know. It's not something that's inherently unhealthy like smoking.

 

[mrt144]

That's the only or even the best way to have fun? Really?

If you're hustling Freshman university students, it can be.

 

[aelf]

It's what some people really enjoy to do, yes. Very much so, otherwise gambling addiction wouldn't be a problem. It is possible to do it in moderation, you know. It's not something that's inherently unhealthy like smoking.

Yes, for some people, of course. But it's not like it's somehow inherently superior to other pastimes. I'm not against gambling per se. I just think it's better that you don't do it, and if it's a huge problem I'm not going to feel outraged that it's banned.

 

[Formaldehyde]

and if it's a huge problem I'm not going to feel outraged that it's banned.

That's just it. It's not a huge problem and even helps balance the state budgets. Alcoholism is a much bigger problem. Would you want to ban that as well?

 

[mrt144]

That's just it. It's not a huge problem and even helps balance the state budgets. Alcoholism is a much bigger problem. Would you want to ban that as well?

Casinos also get around the smoking laws too...

They're like the most evil places on earth.

 

[aelf]

That's just it. It's not a huge problem and even helps balance the state budgets. Alcoholism is a much bigger problem. Would you want to ban that as well?

Do you know what you're talking about or is that just a guess? Or are you only thinking in terms of the US?

And when did you see me recommending banning stuff? I think it tends to be counterproductive, but I don't know enough to know whether it helps or not in this situation. I'm just not going to be outraged about a ban, sorry.