Fixed Odds Betting Terminal limits should be raised instead

Having a lower limit will mean punters playing longer, more likely to become addicted. Raising the limit or indeed minimum bets say 5 fold will mean people will lose their money much faster and hit rock bottom.

Not much fun in that. And all addicts have to hit rock bottom before they can be helped, indeed before they will accept help. Raising the limit / floor will accelerate that process and be actually better in the long run. Make them learn very quickly that it's won't bring rhem joy.

That simply isn't true, gambling addicts often rack up tons and tons of debt, often taking advantage of short-term loan schemes (or rather, being taken advantage of by them). Raising the betting limit would only serve to increase the profits of the gambling industry, it would not help gambling addicts at all.

You speak as though having limits on how much of their own money citizens are allowed to bet is the natural state of things, and also as though all users of betting machines (and short-term loan services) are somehow duped into using them.

I'm sorry, but, as far as people misusing betting and loan services is concerned, their problems are not a good enough reason for the state to interfere so heavily with the rest of us as is presently proposed.

These machines are literally designed to get people addicted to gambling. Their entire purpose is to take punters for all they're worth and then some.



Gambling addiction ruins lives, tears families apart and causes a lot of societal issues (like crime, for example, plus economic imbalance) as a result.

If you are of the opinion that the state should not intervene to make society better then I doubt I can say anything that will persuade you otherwise. Yet still, allowing these machines free reign is not going to help anybody except Ladbrokes shareholders. TBH, I don't see why the country should be forced to suffer just to line the pockets of a few executives.

It's personal weakness, they need to take responsibility for their own actions. Prohibition on gambling doesn't really work in places that have tried it. It seems to be in some part of the human psyche.

It is not the State's duty to not let you bankrupt yourself gambling or ruin your life, only that once you do so, you will commit no crimes that will impact the rest of society. And heavily punish those that do.

So actually you're not interested in helping gambling addicts at all, I see.

So actually you're not interested in helping gambling addicts at all, I see.

You cannot 'gamble responsibly' on a machine with £100 spins.

It's like the state has no interest in looking after Amy Winehouse, she was a rich celebrity that could fund her addiction without costing the rest of society. Her money, her body, her choice.

The state should crack down heavily of course on homeless drug addicts that affects the rest of society negatively.

I understand if you think that's cold hearted. But as I grow older and I see the world, I increasingly feel less emotion and empathy. We do what we must all do, no more, no less.

So as I understand it then, you reckon the best way to deal with the problems of addiction is essentially wait until it gets out of hand and then "crack down", instead of working on preventionist measures? Even from a cold, utilitarian standpoint that's a pretty foolish idea, gambling addicts negatively impact the economy and they are more prone to cause other societal issues if there is no-one to help them or to intervene.

The cost of such measures are far less than the cost of dealing with the outcome, or to put it simply, prevention is better than cure. Coming back to the FOBTs in particular, lowering the maximum bet is an incredibly easy, cheap bit of regulation the government could implement, which in turn would almost certainly benefit the UK as a whole.

These machines are literally designed to get people addicted to gambling. Their entire purpose is to take punters for all they're worth and then some.

Gambling addiction ruins lives, tears families apart and causes a lot of societal issues (like crime, for example, plus economic imbalance) as a result.

If you are of the opinion that the state should not intervene to make society better then I doubt I can say anything that will persuade you otherwise. Yet still, allowing these machines free reign is not going to help anybody except Ladbrokes shareholders. TBH, I don't see why the country should be forced to suffer just to line the pockets of a few executives.

Individuals betting sums of money they can't afford to lose indeed causes a lot of problems for those around them, but it is not the state's function to protect people from the consequences of their own actions or to get involved in their private financial or social arrangements. In addition to which the law interferes even with those who gamble sensibly.

Giving these machines free reign benefits the majority of punters who are quite capable of making sensible decisions about how much they can afford to bet, but who are nonetheless finding themselves being told what they may or may not do with their own money.