Risky Business: A Few Provocations on the Regulation of Electronic Gaming Machines

Abstract

Electronic gambling machines (EGMs) proliferate in Australian club and hotel venues, generating revenues of billions of dollars annually and accounting for the majority of gambling expenditure. These revenues arguably rely on unsafe consumption practices, generating considerable harm. Clear evidence is available describing unsafe levels of EGM consumption by regular EGM consumers in hotels and clubs, and indicating modifications to EGM technology and systems to minimize harm. However, a comfortable orthodoxy, the discourse of 'business as usual', perpetuates current arrangements, sustaining in particular a model of the 'problem' gambler as an individualized flawed consumer. The article argues that the marketing and distribution of EGMs is neither accidental nor something for which the individual is responsible, and neither is the safeguarding of oneself from the harm produced by goods licensed by government. Pursuit of a goal of safe consumption for all EGM gamblers requires disruption of the discourse of business as usual.

An Exploratory Study of Problem Gambling on Casino Versus Non-casino Electronic Gaming Machines

“…To maximize income, it seems that the purveyors relocated the machines to neighborhoods with people who were demographically at risk for problem gambling (Abbott 2006). Similar ways of getting around regulations on non-casino EGMs were also found in other states of Australia (Delfabbro 2008;Livingstone and Woolley 2007). Hence, in addition to limiting the number of EGMs and sites in vulnerable communities (Ladouceur et al 2005;Marshall 2005; Ministry of Health 2008b), government policies might empower local communities to decide if they want EGMs in their areas.…”

“…Other factors that are typically related to EGM problem gambling such as gambling frequency, time spent on gambling, expenditure, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, impulsivity and cognitive belief systems (Abbott 2006;Currie et al 2006;Dickerson and O'Connor 2006;Griffiths 2008;Livingstone and Woolley 2007;Ministry of Health 2009;Vaughn Williams et al 2008) were not measured, but could be included in future models.…”

What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues?

“…In some cases this reflects the relative nascence of the field of gambling studies compared with analogous areas such as tobacco or alcohol. However, it may also reflect the complexity of conducting gambling research where researchers have been dependent upon government or industry funding or assistance to obtain access to gamblers (Cassidy et al 2013;Livingstone and Woolley 2007). In particular we are concerned by the lack of studies attempting to assess the harm minimisation effectiveness of many such interventions.…”

Funding of Gambling Research: Ethical Issues, Potential Benefit and Guidelines

“…Specifically, many researchers (e.g., Cassidy et al, 2013;Delfabbro, 2009;McDonald, 2009) have stated the field of gambling studies has focused on the concept of the ''problem gambler'' with correspondingly less focus on the socioeconomic impacts of legalized gambling. According to Livingstone (Livingstone & Adams, 2011;Livingstone & Woolley, 2007) focusing on the problem gambler allows for gambling industries to blame the harm caused by excessive gambling on the flawed individual (i.e., the gambler who cannot control his or her impulses) and deflects the blame from those governments that are responsible for increasing the availability and accessibility of gambling through legalized expansion. In other words, a focus on the problem gambler in turn allows the governments to argue for the expansion of gambling by stating that only a minority of flawed gamblers will be harmed by the expansion of gambling.…”