|
January 29, 1998 View from the WestGambling with moralityCANOE Columnist 
CALGARY -- Across the Prairies stories of lives ruined by gambling are, by now, almost common. If it's not the man who lost his business because of gambling debts, it's someone who stole money to feed their gambling addiction. The litany includes broken families, children going without food and people caught in a web of their own lies trying to hide their gambling problem.
Social problems associated with gambling are nothing new. As long as people have gambled -- whether it's bingo or playing the horses -- there have been those who could not control their compulsion. But evidence of the problem has grown dramatically in the 1990s across the Prairies because of the arrival of video lottery terminals, or VLTs. The electronic slot machines first made their appearance in Manitoba and quickly spread into Saskatchewan and then Alberta. They are now in virtually every bar and have become a major source of revenue for the provincial governments and the bar owners. In Alberta, the provincial government takes in more than $400 million a year in gambling revenues, while Saskatchewan and Manitoba come at at near $150 million. People who work in the gambling addictions field call VLTs the "crack cocaine" of gambling. They are cheap to play, provide instant gratification and are highly addictive. In other words, they're dynamite. Faced with increasing evidence of social problems, the debate is shifting to whether VLTs should remain. In Alberta there is a growing lobby to have the machines removed from bars and some smaller communities have voted to rid their towns of the machines. A similar debate is now under way in Calgary, where a coalition of anti-VLT groups is asking city council to hold a vote on whether to ban the machines when the civic election is held this October. The other day, opponents and supporters of VLTs showed up at city council to make their arguments. Consider the testimony of Doug Binkley, 41, a declared VLT addict. "My story is not any different than a lot of others. Through the addiction I went through a bankruptcy. My wife left with the three children and I lost my job," says Binkley. "I never gambled (before). I don't play the horses. I don't drink," added Binkley. But when he started to play VLTs he couldn't quit and didn't seek help until he had lost about $50,000. That's compelling stuff. But does it mean that because some people -- estimated at less than five per cent of those who have played VLTs -- develop an addiction to the machines that no one should be allowed to play them? Just because some people find a particular activity destructive does that mean it should be denied the vast majority of others who are not adversely affected by the same thing? At some point, people must be responsible for their actions. And just because certain individuals are harmed by VLTs does not mean no one should have access to them. The solution to the problem is not limiting the freedom of others because of the problems of a few. The solution is helping those who suffer from compulsive gambling to recognize their problem and learn how to deal with it. In that sense, Binkley is as much an example of the solution as the problem. He has quit playing VLTs. He knows that he has a gambling addiction and has not played them now for years. Ultimately, Binkley took responsibility for himself and his actions and did something about it. The sad part is that he didn't get help until a great deal of damage had been done to himself, his family and his life. There is no doubt that the spread of VLTs has brought with it social problems that cannot be ignored. But many things available in society -- alcohol, fast cars, prescription drugs -- create problems for individuals who abuse them. We don't rid ourselves of those things simply because they have the potential for damage if people don't use them responsibility. What we do is encourage people to be responsible because on balance the great majority of people are not harmed and receive some benefit or satisfaction from those products. The same attitude should apply to VLTs. There are those who ask what possible good can come from people playing VLT machines? The odds are stacked against people, which means they will lose money. Moreover, VLTs are merely a form of taxation that often tend to prey on those who can least afford to be gambling. As for the "benefits" that come with gambling, namely proceeds that go to public services such as health, education or sports organizations, people will argue we would be better to raise that money through a progressive tax system. But the real responsibility rests with individuals. The few who abuse VLTs should not dictate public morality. PAST COLUMNS
(Dale Eisler is a Calgary-based senior writer for Macleans Magazine. You can contact Dale at 103242.506@compuserve.com) 
|
||||||||||
