I would like to preface this presentation by stating Viva Consulting's objectives and our position on gambling. Viva Consulting Family Life Inc. neither opposes nor endorses social gambling. Our organization has chosen to assume a responsibility towards ensuring that adequate systems are in place to provide care for those adversely affected by gambling. Our primary focus is to work pro-actively to minimize the risks associated with expanded gambling. We offer our services to governments and to the gaming industry in an attempt to develop harm-reduction strategies. In the private sector, we also offer seminars on recognizing the signs of problem gambling in the workplace, as well as seminars to at-risk groups including, but not limited to, adolescents and seniors.

 

In the 1980s, Harrah's Entertainment was the casino-entertainment industry's pioneer in implementing “responsible gaming”. Recognizing the potential harm that could result from legalized gambling, Harrah’s took a giant first step by assigning a group of employees as a task force to study the issue of problem gambling. The mandate resulting from this initial project was to design and implement harm-reduction strategies. After months of research, the task force developed the industry's first initiative to help employees, guests, and the public understand the importance of responsible gaming and the prevention of underage gambling. “Operation Bet Smart^®: Know When To Stop Before You Start^®” was the course ultimately designed to formally train employees about the importance of responsible gaming, and the policies and procedures of responsible gaming programs. While Harrah’s recognized that their employees were not social service counsellors, they felt that encouraging employee awareness of the problems provided  a comfort level, helped them understand the company's position on the issue, and supplied them with valuable information and direction to potentially help others.

 

The American Gaming Association (AGA, established 1995) built on Harrah’s efforts, developing industry-wide responsible gaming programs. It created the Responsible Gaming National Education Campaign (1999), an industry-wide umbrella program to educate casino employees and the public about responsible gaming.

 

Subsequently, the AGA developed the Code of Conduct for Responsible Gaming (Sept. 2003), a complete set of guidelines governing employee and customer education, underage gambling, alcohol service, advertising, and research. Enacted by the AGA board of directors, the code is a commitment to employees, patrons, and the public to make responsible gaming an integral part of daily operations.

It focused on protecting the casino employees (who have demonstrated that they are more vulnerable than the general population to develop gambling problems) and providing harm-reduction strategies for the public at large. These strategies included prominently displaying help-line phone numbers, managing effective self-exclusion programs, and honouring requests from patrons for no promotional mailings as well as revocation of their privileges for specific casino services (such as player-club card privileges and on-site cheque-cashing).

 

In Saskatchewan, stakeholders created a module entitled "Problem Gambling Customer Assistance Training Manual" (1996-97). In my capacity as founder and Executive Director of the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling (Sask.), I was asked to act as facilitator for the four-hour presentations that resulted. I trained more than 500 casino staff to recognize problem gamblers and how to do interventions when necessary. The success of this program led to a similar program being presented to field workers, and to the executives of Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority. During this same time period, CFCG in Toronto (under the leadership of Tibor Barsony) was doing casino staff training in Ontario.

So far, it sounds like I am a proponent of responsible gambling. So the question, then, is where do I believe it went wrong?

 

In 1996, the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) was founded in Washington, DC, as the first national organization devoted exclusively to funding independent, peer-reviewed scientific research on pathological and youth gambling. Its stated mission was to help individuals and families affected by gambling disorders: by supporting the finest peer-reviewed research, by encouraging the application of new research findings to improve prevention, diagnostic intervention and treatment strategies; and by enhancing public awareness. Its funding was provided by the American Gaming Association. Significant amounts of money were funnelled into this research, much of which was conducted by universities.

 

Many of these institutions, however, were cash-strapped, and soon began to produce biased research that favoured the gambling industry. Peer-reviewed  research began to mean:  “You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”.

 

Slowly the responsibility in "responsible gaming" was shifted from the industry  . . . . .  to the victim.  "Know your limit, stay within it" and "Gamble responsibly, so the game remains a game" became industry catch phrases. For a few well-placed millions of industry dollars, some prominent researchers were now saying what the industry operators couldn't.

 

Much attention is being paid to the fact that a growing number of college students are gambling on sports. Some of the athletes themselves admit to having played "at less than full potential" in order to pay gambling debts. More and more college and University students are playing Texas Hold-em Poker, emulating the “World Series of Poker” currently being shown on television. Seeing Hollywood stars participating and making significant wins, young people feel a greater temptation to play. There are increasing numbers of college students gambling on Internet casino sites. We also see that many college students from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont and Ontario show up at Montreal Casino on weekends, because in Quebec --- since one only has to be 18 years old to gamble here, and they want to gamble.

 

Why, then, did such a reputable researcher as Dr. Howard Shaffer of Harvard University release a study claiming “College gambling worries overblown” (March 2004)?  First of all, the 2001 study analyzed answers to questions on gambling that were only incidentally included in the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS). The emphasis on the original study focused on alcohol use.

 

It is important to note that in 2000 the National Center for Responsible Gambling provided most of the financing for the Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders, a program of the Division on Addictions (DOA) at Harvard Medical School. According to Raja Mishra (Globe Staff: Nov.6, 2004) this same Institute, between 2000 and 2004, received nearly $ 5 million in industry funds.

 

The situation in Canada is no different. At Laval University in Quebec, funded by Loto-Quebec, Dr. Robert Ladouceur produced research studies providing assurance that the prevalence of problem gambling had not increased. In 2004, Dr. Ladouceur et al released a study showing that the numbers of problem gamblers have remained stable over the recent years. Dr. Ladouceur speculates that the numbers have remained stable due to "media scrutiny on the dangers of problem gambling". This is a very interesting theory. It is especially interesting in view of the fact that in Quebec the media is inundated with gambling promotions, and yet there is a conspicuously noticeable void of preventative messages.

It is also interesting to note that according to Loto-Quebec’s annual report, Video Lottery revenues have increased every year. Yet in his most current study (released March 2005), Dr. Ladouceur maintains that  the number of severe and moderate problem gamblers combined equals only 1.7% of the total population, provincially the second lowest in Canada. His study would have us believe that in Quebec there are only 0.4% pathological gamblers and an additional 1.3% gamblers with moderate problems.

This is in a province with 14 000 readily-accessible VLT machines in bars, restaurants, pool halls, bowling alleys, and race tracks. That is 14 000 readily-accessible venues that siphon an average of $3 million a day every day of the year out of the pockets and purses of addicts.

 

This is in a province that boasts the highest suicide rate in Canada, one in which recorded statistics show a gambling-related suicide every two weeks.

(I will remain silent during the presentation of the next two slides, out of respect to the victims and their families).

 

 

A study carried out in 2001 (which, coincidentally, was not industry-funded) found that among VLT players on the island of Montreal alone, 9%  of the individuals surveyed were pathological gamblers, 21% were problem gamblers and an additional 42% of the 139 000 people who played VLTs were at great risk.

 

The tremendous amount of money being made available for research in North America is creating a sub-industry that originally was concerned with the health and safety of gamblers.  The information that is obtained from these studies influences decisions that are made regarding gambling expansion.

 

Most often the studies reflect data that is not damaging to the industry, and the researcher usually ends up concluding what? ---- that more research is required!

 

What is really needed is to put the responsibility back where it was in the beginning: ---  on the operator. The more opportunity the gaming industry gives people to gamble, the more the industry needs to provide safety features. People cannot be responsible to protect themselves if they are not given the tools. For many years, the automobile industry simply placed the responsibility on drivers not to drive in a manner that could kill them. It was only through the effort and tireless persistence of consumer advocate Ralph Nader that the automotive industry was ultimately legislated to install seat belts, padded dashboards, and air bags in all new vehicles.

 

This legislation was a result of the realization that the industry had a responsibility to provide the consumers with a safe product.

Why is the “gaming industry” not being required to do the same?

In conclusion, it is my opinion that some of the councils and university researchers need to step back and reconsider their priorities. They need to honestly assess whether their goal is to do research that may ultimately save lives, or to provide results that will guarantee funding for further research.

 

Responsible gaming is essential.

 

Responsible gambling is an oxymoron!