Australia

3433 readers

107 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone

dalekerrigan@aussie.zone

Fluid@aussie.zone

bestusername@aussie.zone

eatham@aussie.zone

Trial finds cashless gaming makes little difference to gambling behaviour on pokies (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 3 months ago by zero_gravitas@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In short: One of the first cashless gaming trials in NSW found the technology made little difference to the behaviour of gamblers.

The Wests New Lambton trial has received criticism from gambling reform advocates, who say it did not include a card with binding and default limits.

What's next?: The Independent Panel on Gaming Reform will provide findings from an expanded statewide cashless gaming trial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah we probably agree more than disagree. I just see taxing sin being a cop out that leaves all the harm of privatisation, all the harm of regressive taxation and corruption of peverse incentives, and then cops out on the social responsibility by going "we're already beating you poors with the stick, what more could you want from us!?"

Defs if it was government run as harm minimisation (which incidentally is what I'd like to see done for alcohol and other drugs) it should be done in a way which does not promote or glorify it but also doesn't shame people for wanting to do it. Just try not to get people hooked (or perhaps: not try to get people hooked) and offer non judgemental and non patronising assistance for those who want to stop or limit themselves.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

taxing sin being a cop out that leaves all the harm of privatisation, all the harm of regressive taxation and corruption of peverse incentives

All that is true, and unfortunate. Personally I just see it as doing more good than harm, especially if the revenue raised were to go to harm minimisation services, like if the alcohol excise were used to fund alcohol addiction treatment services.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

I'd prefer it to what we have for sure. I just think we can do better and should hold our government to actually governing and using power to build systems to provide the needs of society (of which vice is many!) in a pro-social fashion.