Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

 

Those with gambling addictions are more prone to cortisol toxicity, which of course affects the heart and other vital organs in the body, which can lead to an early death.

 

Correlation does not equate to causation champ. 

Quote

You can highlight the chemical difference of course with drugs, because you’re injecting foreign chemicals into the body. The dopamine-reward system is still kicking in though, regardless of what the individual is addicted to. Physical and Mental addictions share the same pathway in the brain; it’s irrefutable.

Just because two substances activate the same pathway does not make them equally addictive. Thanks for playing anyway. 

[19QOS19]

https://www.algamus.org/blog/gambling-withdrawal

Cheers. One guy's opinion doesn't do it for me though. It said he'd worked in the field for 20 years but I never read of an actual study he carried out.

I still maintain going a week cold turkey from gambling wouldn't result in any nasty physical side effects unlike substance misuse.

[vikingTON]

14 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

GAScotland don't do psuedo-scientific bullshit, they tend to concentrate on how to stop and how to stay stopped.

Erm yes they do, because they are an organisation set up specifically to stop problem gambling. In the same way that Alcoholics' Anonymous are not in the business of giving their clients a balanced cost-benefit analysis of having a pint. 

Such organisations serve a social purpose but it is not that of independent scholarly research. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by vikingTON

[SweeperDee]

Just because two substances activate the same pathway does not make them equally addictive. Thanks for playing anyway. 

Well, obviously not; but the added stress in life caused by a gambling addiction has clear physical effects, contrary to what you implied.

And you’re simply wrong tbh; unless you’re privy to the statistics of addiction to different substances and behaviours.

[Co.Down Hibee]

46 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

I would think quite a few of the moderate and severe symptoms(the mental ones) will have been suffered by gamblers in the early days of stopping.

Mild withdrawal symptoms:

• Nausea
• Abdominal cramps
• Tearing
• Runny nose
• Sweats
• Chills
• Yawning a lot
• Muscle and bone aches

Moderate withdrawal symptoms:

• Vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Agitation
• Restlessness
• Tremors
• Trouble concentrating
• Goose bumps
• Fatigue

Severe withdrawal symptoms:

• Anxiety
• Insomnia
• Depression
• Hypertension
• Rapid heart rate
• Muscle spasms
• Impaired respiration
• Difficulty feeling pleasure
• Drug cravings

I was different, I suffered quite a few of them while I was in the throws of gambling, a weight lifted from my shoulders as soon as I went through the door at GA, in my experience long term cessation is dependant on what you do after the initial few weeks.

 

Whilst I'm in no way trying to belittle your viewpoint as you have much more experience of all this than myself but wouldn't these symptoms come from the fact they've fucked all their money away as opposed to the actual act of gambling? Basically depression due to having no money?

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Some amount of hyperbole on here now.

'Like coming off heroin' FFS

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

 

Well, obviously not; but the added stress in life caused by a gambling addiction has clear physical effects, contrary to what you implied.

 

Erm no champ. 

1) You simply talked of 'being more prone to' said physical effects. That's correlation, not causation. 

2) The physical effects that we were actually discussing before you threw your straw man onto the bonfire was the comedown. Something that is not recognised as a credible feature of gambling addiction in the way that it shapes the lives of heroin users. Because one form of addiction is the result of a chemical that directly manipulates the brain and the other is the outcome of behaviour. Physical dependence to heroin therefore exists; physical dependence to a FOBT does not. 

Quote

And you’re simply wrong tbh; unless you’re privy to the statistics of addiction to different substances and behaviours.

Given that heroin received the maximum mean score and was ranked top of twenty chemically addictive substances for substance dependence in the Nutt et. al. study of 2007, it is absolutely certain that it is more addictive than playing a FOBT. Not least because the study included a separate score for physical addiction as well as the weepy psychological addiction that you wish to focus on; as gambling adds no chemically active and dependable substance to the body, it can only register a big fat zero score in that category. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by vikingTON

[SweeperDee]

Whilst I'm in no way trying to belittle your viewpoint as you have much more experience of all this than myself but wouldn't these symptoms come from the fact they've fucked all their money away as opposed to the actual act of gambling? Basically depression due to having no money?

This is a key distinction that needs to be made; obviously drugs can induce physical symptoms of withdrawal almost immediately if the habit isn’t fed. However, the mental strain - associated with gambling addiction - that’s placed on the mind will ultimately lead to physical symptoms due to stress. It’s a two-edged sword with gambling; yeah, the withdrawal won’t kill you in the short term like drugs would, but in the long run you’ll have the mental and physical ailments eventually.

[SweeperDee]

Given that heroin received the maximum mean score and was ranked top of twenty chemically addictive substances for substance dependence in the Nutt et. al. study of 2007, it is absolutely certain that it is more addictive than playing a FOBT. Not least because the study included a separate score for physical addiction as well as the weepy psychological addiction that you wish to focus on; as gambling adds no chemically active and dependable substance to the body, it can only register a big fat zero score in that category. 

That study is on the feasibility of a new (well, new in 2007) ranking system. From what I can see, it’s not been adopted by anyone of any significant standing.

You got any meaningful studies to point out? Or are you just going to throw feasibility reports at me?

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, SweeperDee said:

 

This is a key distinction that needs to be made; obviously drugs can induce physical symptoms of withdrawal almost immediately if the habit isn’t fed. However, the mental strain - associated with gambling addiction - that’s placed on the mind will ultimately lead to physical symptoms due to stress. It’s a two-edged sword with gambling; yeah, the withdrawal won’t kill you in the short term like drugs would, but in the long run you’ll have the mental and physical ailments eventually.

 

Except that it won't do so either 'ultimately' or 'eventually', because no such causation (never mind a 100% rate of progression) has been established between having a gambling addiction and suffering the physical and mental symptoms of withdrawal. 

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

 

That study is on the feasibility of a new (well, new in 2007) ranking system. From what I can see, it’s not been adopted by anyone of any significant standing.

You got any meaningful studies to point out? Or are you just going to throw feasibility reports at me?

 

I'm quite happy using a leading set of scholars on the topic of comparative drug harms as my source, thanks anyway. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by vikingTON

[ayrmad]

20 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm yes they do, because they are an organisation set up specifically to stop problem gambling. In the same way that Alcoholics' Anonymous are not in the business of giving their clients a balanced cost-benefit analysis of having a pint. 

Such organisations serve a social purpose but it is not that of independent scholarly research. 

In all the literature I came across I can't honestly remember reading GA literature along those lines, might have changed in recent years but I was fairly prominent and can't remember it,most people aren't that interested in finding out why and a large chunk just think it's excuses if you think you've solved your own conundrum, as an organisation they don't need to produce scientific data as they are beholding to nobody and receive no funds from anyewhere apart from their members,this is the part of their non-political policy that wholeheartedly agree with.

During my time there, there was only one professor or similar that worked regularly with GA.

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, ayrmad said:

In all the literature I came across I can't honestly remember reading GA literature along those lines, might have changed in recent years but I was fairly prominent and can't remember it,most people aren't that interested in finding out why and a large chunk just think it's excuses if you think you've solved your own conundrum, as an organisation they don't need to produce scientific data as they are beholding to nobody and receive no funds from anyewhere apart from their members,this is the part of their non-political policy that wholeheartedly agree with.

During my time there, there was only one professor or similar that worked regularly with GA.

They also don't need to consume, understand or share the findings of scientific data, because that's not their purpose. Which is fine for dealing with gambling addicts, but not when their approach is then used to draw any sort of credible comparison between using a FOBT and using heroin, because none exist. 

[SweeperDee]

I'm quite happy using a leading set of scholars on the topic of comparative drug harms as my source, thanks anyway. 

Aye, alright, chancer. [emoji23]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006295207005072

Have a little peruse of this literature review.

[ayrmad]

14 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm no champ. 

1) You simply talked of 'being more prone to' said physical effects. That's correlation, not causation. 

2) The physical effects that we were actually discussing before you threw your straw man onto the bonfire was the comedown. Something that is not recognised as a credible feature of gambling addiction in the way that it shapes the lives of heroin users. Because one form of addiction is the result of a chemical that directly manipulates the brain and the other is the outcome of behaviour. Physical dependence to heroin therefore exists; physical dependence to a FOBT does not. 

Given that heroin received the maximum mean score and was ranked top of twenty chemically addictive substances for substance dependence in the Nutt et. al. study of 2007, it is absolutely certain that it is more addictive than playing a FOBT. Not least because the study included a separate score for physical addiction as well as the weepy psychological addiction that you wish to focus on; as gambling adds no chemically active and dependable substance to the body, it can only register a big fat zero score in that category. 

No harm but in terms of gambling and it's causes etc, 2007 is an eternity away.

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

They also don't need to consume, understand or share the findings of scientific data, because that's not their purpose. Which is fine for dealing with gambling addicts, but not when their approach is then used to draw any sort of credible comparison between using a FOBT and using heroin, because none exist. 

I've no idea what you're talking about, GAScotland wouldn't say a word about FBOT's when I was there, to many oldies that had no concept of what it was or the havoc it would cause.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

Is this you're opinion or evidence-based research?

 

 

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

No, it's based on listening to thousands of people at GA meetings.

 

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

Your opinion then.

 

 

No, it's not his opinion, it's the experience of (some) of the thousands of gamblers he's heard at GA meetings

[19QOS19]

No, it's not his opinion, it's the experience of (some) of the thousands of gamblers he's heard at GA meetings

Their opinion then.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

Their opinion then.

 

Their description of their own experiences.

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

Their opinion then.

 

I don't want to labour the point, but it's not their opinion, it's what happened to them.

Unless they are liars, of course, which is a fair probability that some of them will be, based on some of the tales I heard at AA meetings.