Some people are gambling addicts so we should ban pokies.
Some people are gambling addicts so we should ban the TAB.
Some people are gambling addicts so we should ban Lotto.
Some people are gambling addicts so we should ban scratchies.
Some people are alcoholics so we should ban booze.
Some people are drug addicts so we should ban drugs (including prescription?).
Some people are obese so we should ban sugar.
Some people have clogged arteries addicts so we should ban fats.
Some people go deaf so we should ban music.
Some people die on roads so we should ban roads.
Some people write silly posts so we should ban blogs.
Obviously this has some facetiousness. But it also has some serious intent. We can’t and shouldn’t ban everything that can cause a problem for some people.
Will a temporary increase in the total number of pokies at one location increase then number of gambling addicts? Or will it just give them alternative machines to gobble their money?
What’s the most important when it comes to aiding compulsive gamblers – number of pokies in one venue, or the number of venues? More pokies in more places would surely be a bigger problem. It’s easier to avoid going to downtown Auckland than going near numerous neighbourhood pokie dens.
I’m not a fan of pokies, I have hardly ever used them. To me they are boring way to almost inevitably lose money. But my father enjoyed playing the pokies at his local bar, usually with his spare change. He sometimes enjoyed a bit of a win – but he knew that he would gradually lose money on the deal. To him it was an occasional entertainment he could afford. So why should people like him be denied that?
The Sky City pokie numbers are a very minor issue, compared to the potential benefits of a major conference facility, compared to the overall number of pokies, and compared to how many people become gambling addicts.
The Sky City pokie numbers are yet another case of pinpricking political posturing clouding common sense.