Jump to content

Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops


Gaz

Recommended Posts

I'll throw psychosomatic into the fire just for the thrills.

I think it's been done to death now but the physical side-effects are well documented for drug withdrawal, it's yet to be determined if that's the case for gambling withdrawal (It's not though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A broad spectrum of pathological gamblers (N = 222) were queried with regard to physical symptoms when attempting to slow down or stop gambling. Results were compared with a control group of substance‐dependent patients who gambled at least casually. Sixty‐five percent of the pathological gamblers (vs. only 2% of controls) experienced at least one of the following: insomnia (50%), headaches (36%), upset stomach or diarrhea (34%), loss of appetite (29%), physical weakness (27%), heart racing or palpitations (26%), shaking (19%), muscle aches or cramps (17%), difficulty breathing (13%), sweating (12%), and chills or fever (6.5%). In addition, 91% experienced “cravings'and 87% felt “restless and irritable'when attempting to cut down or stop gambling. Contrary to expectations, none of the symptoms correlated with gender, type of gambling, extent of alcohol or drug use while gambling, or self‐described alcoholism or drug addiction. Symptoms did correlate with number of hours spent gambling, severity of the problem as measured by proposed DSM‐IV criteria, and presence of dissociation.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1521-0391.1992.tb00020.x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we need to protect poor stupid folk from themselves are nationwide walled communes where folk are provided with a selection of clothing in three colours, and their two meals a day, all in return for a bit of riveting-song-driven labouring and farming.

#progressiveutopia

Edited by banana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that bookies are taxed up the arse, have the Government factored in the money they could lose as a result of this?

Not condoning the machines or anything, but will this be carried over to street arcades (where no employees monitor gambling habits)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SweeperDee said:

 


Aye, alright, chancer. emoji23.png

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

Have a little peruse of this literature review.

 

At no point in the literature review do the authors rank substance dependence, never mind consider gambling as being equal in those terms to heroin. Which I didn't even need to read the article to know, because the abstract makes that absolutely clear. So to confirm what has happened here, you Google searched for the title of a favourable article, were too thick to understand what the abstract said but supplied it anyway in the hope that it might support your gormless argument. Swing and indeed a miss. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

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

Pretty sure that both heroin and gambling haven't actually changed radically over the past eleven years actually: one is still a directly addictive substance with enormous physical and psychological consequences; the other is not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AyrshireTon said:

Given that bookies are taxed up the arse, have the Government factored in the money they could lose as a result of this?

Not condoning the machines or anything, but will this be carried over to street arcades (where no employees monitor gambling habits)?

Unlikely, since arcades have the same £2 limit on bets. 

There are some similarities between the way the bookmaking and fruit machine industries have pissed on their chips. 20 years ago, you'd have an arcade on every high street and the fruit machines were classed as AWPs (Amusement with Prizes). One day, operators and arcades decided to exploit a loophole in the law and the suddenly the jackpots leapt twenty-fold. I guess they thought the profits would as well. Unsurprisingly they didn't. Instead of earning, say, £20 per week from 200 players, they were trying to eke £200 from 20 players. They put short-time greed first and they're paying for it, much in the same way as the bookmakers will. 

Edited by Cardinal Richelieu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At no point in the literature review do the authors rank substance dependence, never mind consider gambling as being equal in those terms to heroin. Which I didn't even need to read the article to know, because the abstract makes that absolutely clear. So to confirm what has happened here, you Google searched for the title of a favourable article, were too thick to understand what the abstract said but supplied it anyway in the hope that it might support your gormless argument. Swing and indeed a miss. 


Well no, the article compares and legitimises the view that all ailments looked at share the same neurological pathways. ????‍♀️
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

What about mobile phone addiction?  Wasn't there a report a while back that stated people get withdrawal symptoms from their phones?  And kids with their computer consoles go mental if they can't play their computers?  A fobt is a computer that steals your money. 

What we need is state-imposed time limits on phone usage, video games, and TV .

People simply must be told what's good for them and protected from all personal challenge via absolved responsibility.

#progressivebosom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Pretty sure that both heroin and gambling haven't actually changed radically over the past eleven years actually: one is still a directly addictive substance with enormous physical and psychological consequences; the other is not. 

I know you think you're smart but that's just nonsense.

Your understanding is stuck in the same era as that article you used.

Gambling has twice the suicide rate of any other addiction, they must just be doing it for the laughs n giggles.

Edited by ayrmad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SweeperDee said:

 


Well no, the article compares and legitimises the view that all ailments looked at share the same neurological pathways. 

Which is absolutely meaningless because sharing the same pathway doesn't determine how addictive a substance is or whether it brings about medically significant symptoms of withdrawal. Swing and a miss. 

It's been a bad few days for the reputation of whichever clown college sent you off with such a childlike grasp of science, logical argument and basic fucking comprehension skills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, virginton said:

Which is absolutely meaningless because sharing the same pathway doesn't determine how addictive a substance is or whether it brings about medically significant symptoms of withdrawal. Swing and a miss. 

It's been a bad few days for the reputation of whichever clown college sent you off with such a childlike grasp of science, logical argument and basic fucking comprehension skills. 

Nah, anyone who's interested can find plenty of sites that  show you're talking shite, you'd have been burning those against a flat earth in an earlier life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ayrmad said:

I know you think you're smart but that's just nonsense.

Your understanding is stuck in the same era as that article you used.

Gambling has twice the suicide rate of any other addiction, they must just be doing it for the laughs n giggles.

No-one has suggested that gambling isn't an addictive behaviour or that problem gamblers experience no psychological problems, so your suicide straw man is redundant. But seeing as you clearly can't read a sentence in its context before going off on another rambling tangent, I'll break up the paragraph that you were responding to but clearly didn't really grasp into its distinct parts.

- We are still somehow discussing the relative addictiveness/dependency of the behaviour of gambling versus the physical consumption of heroin, - largely because GA or some other psuedo-scientific group has fooled its followers into genuinely believing that gambling 'is as addictive' or 'is as hard to quit' as heroin.  Actual heroin

- While dependency isn't a hard, empirical topic, scientists who are experts in the field of drug policy are still able to compare the addictive power of different substances.

- Despite some wild attempts at deflection in recent pages, a 2007 publication date does not make this research outdated in this field or the vast majority of others. A work of solid academic standing holds its validity until it is refuted and ten years is not a long time in that publishing sector.

- Heroin came top of the 2007 study because of the clear and severe combination of physical and psychological effects of that drug on the user. 

- The addictive behaviour of gambling cannot possibly match or beat heroin if the study were ever expanded to considerbehavioural addicitions, because gambling has absolutely no physical  effects on the user. It only has psychological effects.

- It is logically obvious that a substance that combines both extreme levels of physical dependency and extreme levels pf psychological dependency is more addictive than a behaviour that creates one type of dependency alone. 

- So heroin use is by far the more difficult addiction and pattern of behaviour for an addict to tackle. It's not even close.

I think I'm just about done tearing this line in self-moping bullshit to shreds then. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one has suggested that gambling isn't an addictive behaviour or that problem gamblers experience no psychological problems, so your suicide straw man is redundant. But seeing as you clearly can't read a sentence in its context before going off on another rambling tangent, I'll break up the paragraph that you were responding to but clearly didn't really grasp into its distinct parts.
- We are still somehow discussing the relative addictiveness/dependency of the behaviour of gambling versus the physical consumption of heroin, - largely because GA or some other psuedo-scientific group has fooled its followers into genuinely believing that gambling 'is as addictive' or 'is as hard to quit' as heroin.  Actual heroin
- While dependency isn't a hard, empirical topic, scientists who are experts in the field of drug policy are still able to compare the addictive power of different substances.
- Despite some wild attempts at deflection in recent pages, a 2007 publication date does not make this research outdated in this field or the vast majority of others. A work of solid academic standing holds its validity until it is refuted and ten years is not a long time in that publishing sector.
- Heroin came top of the 2007 study because of the clear and severe combination of physical and psychological effects of that drug on the user. 
- The addictive behaviour of gambling cannot possibly match or beat heroin if the study were ever expanded to considerbehavioural addicitions, because gambling has absolutely no physical  effects on the user. It only has psychological effects.
- It is logically obvious that a substance that combines both extreme levels of physical dependency and extreme levels pf psychological dependency is more addictive than a behaviour that creates one type of dependency alone. 
- So heroin use is by far the more difficult addiction and pattern of behaviour for an addict to tackle. It's not even close.
I think I'm just about done tearing this line in self-moping bullshit to shreds then. 
 
 


The metric used in that study hasn’t been adopted for any other major, peer reviewed study, has it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Nah, anyone who's interested can find plenty of sites that  show you're talking shite, you'd have been burning those against a flat earth in an earlier life.

Hate to break it to you champ, but 'plenty of sites' written by no-marks on the Internet don't actually amount to anything  at all against a measurement of dependency made by experts in the field of drug use and published in a peer-reviewed and prestigious journal like The Lancet. That's not how informed scientific debate on the topic of addiction or any other subject actually works, so consider their and your weepy anecdotes filed in the bin where they belong. 

Thanks for playing anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Hate to break it to you champ, but 'plenty of sites' written by no-marks on the Internet don't actually amount to anything  at all against a measurement of dependency made by experts in the field of drug use and published in a peer-reviewed and prestigious journal like The Lancet. That's not how informed scientific debate on the topic of addiction or any other subject actually works, so consider their and your weepy anecdotes filed in the bin where they belong. 

Thanks for playing anyway. 

I'll shred all your bullshit after my day out, 2007 is an eternity ago in terms of the scientific communities understanding of gambling addiction, it's no surprise that someone with a penchant for history gets stuck in the past, thank f**k you didn't study something that required you to think for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article in press to be published July 2018 (I challenge anybody to find anything more recent than the future): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030646031830114X

 

 

An important limitation of the aforementioned literature is that most studies have focused on either substance or behavioral addictions, or otherwise compared a single substance to behavioral addiction, limiting potential generalizations across different types of addictions. The present study aimed to compare the personality profiles of several types of addictive behaviors, representing both substance and behavioral addictions.

 

Conclusions:

 

The present study suggests that, although different addictions may have certain behavioral tendencies in common, they largely reflect a unique constellation of personality traits and demographic variables...

 

... Future studies that expand study populations to include several addiction types using the same experimental design, may help to further our understanding of the similarities and differences among addictions, and can potentially elucidate the mechanisms responsible for the development of different types of addictive behaviors.

 

Basically, even in a post-2007 world, there evidently hasn't been very much (if any) work conducted that would happily contradict vT's link that 520 peer-reviewed articles have cited. The general gist of most (albeit limited) papers I've seen is that more work needs to be carried out before comparisons can be made.

 

In an academic world where institutions and researchers are increasingly pressured into churning out papers for recognition / career progression etc, it is highly unlikely that any credible evidence exists that hasn't yet been studied and put into press. Therefore the whole suggestion that a decade old paper should be rubbished by more recent Ill-founded opinions being passed off a 'fact' is laughable at best, particularly when recent published papers are largely built around citations that originate from the Naughties era that ayrmad seems happy to rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Hate to break it to you champ, but 'plenty of sites' written by no-marks on the Internet don't actually amount to anything  at all against a measurement of dependency made by experts in the field of drug use and published in a peer-reviewed and prestigious journal like The Lancet. That's not how informed scientific debate on the topic of addiction or any other subject actually works, so consider their and your weepy anecdotes filed in the bin where they belong. 

Thanks for playing anyway. 

The actual fucking irony of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...