FOBT's

[redlinesman]

Can't agree with some members points that are saying its down to individual choice and self control as it is a well known fact that an environment a person is in will determine many things. On another note I'd also say drugs, gambling, alcohol etc are very different things and shouldn't really come under the one label - they have a range of social issues surrounding them but are in fact quite different entities.

The government may view softening the legalisation as a way to bring in extra revenue but it could return to bite them and their intention is probably a good example of limited thinking. A big problem with human beings is when they are under pressure and face adversity their judgement is often impaired and they make the wrong decisions. It's no surprise that those most affected by an extension of the FOBT estate would be the working class.

Hope you are all well,

Sir Linesman

[mr lugsy]

It's interesting to hear people defending the government for not protecting members of the public from gambling addiction. It's interesting also to hear self confessed addicts blaming themselves, not the environment. But what is really interesting is when you contrast this anarchistic approach with the governments hard line on drugs, and hear the same public praising the government for their over zealous legislation. If you're gonna let people make a mess of their lives, at least have the decency to let them choose their poison. Drugs, gambling, drink, prostitution...they're all long established elements of a society, promoted or demoted for political gain. To make an arbitrary distinction that one is worse or more damaging than the other is just shooting in the dark: you're never going to get any unbiased research here.

The fact that we've heard that "gambling is more socially acceptable" is the definition of a problem, not the queue for relaxation of what safety we already have.

nail on the head