|
Problem gamblers hit Ontario casinos with $3.5B lawsuit (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by magikb
You would think that having yourself banned from somewhere that one would not attempt to waste their time travelling to the casino to risk being denied.
Nothing like taking responsibility for your own actions. |
many people take the risk to smoke a cigarette inside the bar even though they know they might get kicked out....addiction is a hard thing to understand. |
|
|
| magikb |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
many people take the risk to smoke a cigarette inside the bar even though they know they might get kicked out....addiction is a hard thing to understand. |
true enough, but you wouldn't sue a club for kicking you out from smoking. (maybe these people would.. ha) |
|
|
| cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
addiction is a hard thing to understand. |
Spot on m8. |
|
|
| patpicos |
| quote: | Originally posted by magikb
You would think that having yourself banned from somewhere that one would not attempt to waste their time travelling to the casino to risk being denied.
Nothing like taking responsibility for your own actions. |
+1
i have no pity for those morons. I hope they lose the case |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quick reaction without reading more than the first post in thread - I tried to sign up my friend (who has a gambling problem with gambling at the horse races) for this self-exclusion program and apparently, since racetracks aren't operated by the OLG, they are not obliged to do this. :( Too bad... |
|
|
| Kamka |
Also, just to add to my point, it probably would be hard to prevent people from going to the racetrack and being present there physically, since it seems pretty much impossible to ID everyone that walks in through the door. But, I know that for the horse-race betting they use electronic accounts which are accessed by a plastic membership card (sort of like a bank-card). If they created a self-exclusion list of people who wish to be barred from there and subsequently never allowed them to open another account, it might help a little bit...
Of course, I am not denying the fact that it is first and foremost these gamblers' responsibility to be accountable for their own actions. I've learned from the experience with my friend that if the person affected doesn't really want to get help or change their bad self-destructive habit, you can't really do anything to help them in the long run. It does almost seem like a disease... I am lucky that I find absolutely no interest or excitement in gambling, I think that there are far better ways how to spend your free time or relieve stress. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
although I agree....what needs to be determined is what is reasonable and prudent for the OLG to do. Any casino I have gone to in Ontario has just let me walk in. If you look under age then they check your ID...none of them have checked to see if I was on the self banning list. I don't think the OLG will allow this to go to trial but if it does it could set an interesting precedent. |
absolutely.
I see the liquor-serving analogy as valid. If we expect bars and stores to check ID, not serve people who are wasted, etc., then there should be a minimum duty for casinos too. Check ID, monitor patrons for behaviour that might indicate a problem, etc.
this all-or-nothing of either turning a blind eye in the name of revenue or being slapped with frivolous (IMHO) "you didn't protect me from myself" lawsuit strikes me as ridiculous.
the 'self-banning' list is fine...but why is the onus on the OPG to implement some complex (re: expensive) system to check every patron against it?
There's no such mechanism in place to prevent a junkie from finding a dealer...though that illegal, so perhaps not the best comparison, but there's also nothing in place to prevent an alcoholic from purchasing booze (at least while sober), so why the hell should casinos owe patrons a higher duty of care by implementing some expensive and complex system to check every patron against a 'self-ban' list?
is it because a gambling addicition is less stigmatized that drugs and alchold, so we feel the need to protect people? people ruin their lives (and health) from drinking more often than they do from gambling, so...?
that. people need to take more responsibility for themselves and implement their own support structure instead of expecting it to be 100% provided for them. putting yourself on some 'self-ban' list is hardly taking extraordinary precautions, IMHO. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
I am lucky that I find absolutely no interest or excitement in gambling, I think that there are far better ways how to spend your free time or relieve stress. |
with ya 100% on 100% of what ya said! thank the universe. gambling jsut doesnt appeal to me AT ALL on ANY level. :)
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the 'self-banning' list is fine...but why is the onus on the OPG to implement some complex (re: expensive) system to check every patron against it?
|
honestly, they SHOULDNT have an onus to check every patron. which is why there never should have been this list self-exclusion list they sanctioned and agreed to follow though.
i guess when they agreed to this idea of the self-exclusion list they foolishly opened themselves up to actually HAVING an onus now to make sure these ppl keep away/out.
honestly, they should never have endorsed and actively supported this list. if they hadnt, they wouldnt be having this situation now. bc then theire be NO grounds IMO to be challenging them for failing to meet a duty of care.
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
that. people need to take more responsibility for themselves and implement their own support structure instead of expecting it to be 100% provided for them. |
Absolutely agreed. our population in general doesnt take enough responsibility of ourselves in general. its always someone else that needs to be blamed or needs to step up -- never us! :whip: |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the 'self-banning' list is fine...but why is the onus on the OPG to implement some complex (re: expensive) system to check every patron against it?
|
All the casinos need to show is that they have taken reasonable measures to prevent banned gamblers from entering the casino. I don't think facial recognition technology is reasonable and the lawyer is an idiot for even suggesting that. What the casino has going for them is all the cameras they have in the casinos. They can easily state that they review all the video and if they notice someone who is banned then they would ask them to leave. The downfall to that argument is that they have already allowed the person entry.
I don't see why they can't check the ID of every person that enters the casino and have the list of names of banned people there to check their ID against. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I don't see why they can't check the ID of every person that enters the casino and have the list of names of banned people there to check their ID against. |
Well, if its any kind of a long list, thats going to be a VERY time consuming, annoying task and is likely going to hurt business.
Can you imagine all customers waiing in a line up to get into a casino, like as if it was a club at 1am, while the check a list of 200 names to make sure EACH individual wasnt on that list.
I just dont see that being feasible and flying.
HOnestly, they simply should never have agreed to support/enforce this damn self-exclusive list.
Let the bloody ppl be f*cking responsible for themselves, as it should be. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I think what a lot of you are missing here is that it was OLG that created the duty of care for itself. The OLG offered the self-ban lists in order to help gambling addicts. Under this program the OLG agreed to prevent self-identified gambling addicts from gaming in their casinos. The allegation in this class action is that OLG breached this duty of care they established for themselves by not identifying these problem gamblers. It's more akin to a breach of contract suit then it is a simple negligence matter; however, if it were a negligence case Scott's liability assessment is sound. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
Well, if its any kind of a long list, thats going to be a VERY time consuming, annoying task and is likely going to hurt business.
|
It's also very time consuming and annoying to ensure that all the bottles of ketchup are free of glass shards or dead rodents; however, I don't think anyone is willing to let Heinz off the hook for that. |
|
|
|
|
