Gamble Aware(formally the responsible gambling trust) 5 year strategy

.

The report should make for good reading for most on here as it seems the core objective is too throw the money at effective harm minimization stratagies.

The gambling addicts fantasy!. To carry on using without consequence.

Has anybody from GamAware ever actually read the posts on here. Or ever actually experienced addiction outside of a book. Harm minimization does not work. There isnt one successful story of anybody doing this for any length of time on this site. But you see it as the way forward?? And they say addicts are insane!

Personally I love made up statistics and I would announce world peace had been declared for 8 million even if I knew it to be false.

5 minutes on Google tells me this

11 percent of the UK gamble online in any 4 week period
That's almost 7 million people?

Fobt machines make an average of 1022 pounds profit thats after tax, wages, outgoings
So according to "statistics" (made up of course) each average is say average as I'm laughing spends 6 pound and 90 pence per session. Thus meaning for there to be an average there needs to be 500 plus different punters per shop 9000 shops equals over 6 million people who gamble on the fobt per week? Here's where the statistics is flawed the average player would spend 6.90 but lose 8 pound according to profits I'm no mathematician but you can't lose 8 if you only had six lol

So let's be a bit more reasonable and say a shop sees a. Footfall of 50 fobt players a week average
With profits of over 4000 per shop that means problem gambalers make up north of 80 percent of people who play the fobt machine in any given week

You can't cover up statistics if you can cross reference against facts

Sorry dan I went to quote and realised I had written in your's
I may of deleted a little to much of post 2

Haha brilliant Deano. Didnt know we could do that. This has huge potential for mischief making!

Possibly going off topic, but I just wanted to pick up on this a bit with you Dan

"the core objective is too throw the money at effective harm minimization stratagies..... Harm minimization does not work"

I'll start by saying I absolutely would want the gold standard of treatment for everyone. It's what I'm striving for myself. But, in the wider context of addiction (not just gambling) a part of me does wonder if it has a place. When my sister went for outpatient detox (following an A&E admission) I sat in on a consult. They asked her if her goal was total abstention or controlled drinking (harm minimisation). I was livid. Appalled...what the f were they thinking even suggesting that? But for those that can't or won't do the work necessary to go for total abstinence and full recovery, maybe this is better than nothing. The thought of no booze ever scared her so much that she absolutely couldn't go for it. I think she tried, but she just couldn't do the work that was necessary to slay her demons. She refused counselling, groups and all "that ****". Instead she continues to drink daily but at a much reduced level. She hasn't repaired relationships or become at peace with herself. She isn't living her best life. But she is living a life that was much better than it was when she was downing 4 bottles of vino blotto a day. Drinking a small amount every day takes the edge off and she can function knowing that she's not got to fight the urge. It means she's kept her flat, her job, and has a few friends. It means that her liver isn't under such a constant assault and her health has improved. I'm fairly certain that the next big crisis will push her back into unmanageability but who knows when that will be (it's been close to 5 years now).

It's far from ideal. As a family we'd all like her to stop drinking completely. I'm sure her life would be so much better. But isn't there a place for control/harm reduction strategies for those people who without it would just carry on as before. Some people just can't/won't stop. So what do we do for those people if abstinence and therapy is the only alternative?

Brilliant point Life Begins!!

Sometimes those of us in recovery can be come blinded or judgmental of others attempts or ideas of recovery. For me total abstinence did not work initially and it took three months of reduced gambling to get to no more gamlbling. Does this mean I deserve to be in recovery less than someone else who bravely was able to abstain straight way? I do not think so. No one organisation or strategy is going to end gambling addiction and that is a reality we all have to accept. However a collabiration of ideas strategies and awareness might be able to reduce the figures and give people more options. If people are educated not only on the dangers of becomeing addicted to gambling but on the wide circle of people that are affected by the addiction, then this will help people to perhaps be more open about thier gambiling addiction and this may enable them to seek help earlier. Therefore reducing harm to themselves and others.

At least Gamble Aware have a five year strategy and are working towards helping people, we are all entitled to opinions and are passionate about recovery, which is why we post on forums to encourage ourselves and others. Harm reduction is not a new concept, heroin addicts are given methadone to reduce heoin intake and withdrawl symtoms, other heroin addicts go into detox and engage in abstinance recovery from the outset. We or others can debate which is the more productive route and there may even be statistics to show one method has a higher relapse rate than the other. However for some one engaging in either treatment it is the support from others that will help the addict alongside a genuine desire to quit that will eventually determine the outcome, some work is better than no work.

Take care,

One question to the above post. Why was harm minimization introduced initially in regards to heroin use?

day@atime wrote: One question to the above post. Why was harm minimization introduced initially in regards to heroin use?

It was a false flag used by the pharmaceutical companies to profit
From other's misfortune.
They couldn't legally sell heroine
But they could offer a drug methadone
Also they could sell needles in huge amounts.
On one hand looking like there trying to solve the problem.
But making vast profits in the other

Gold star to Deano!
It was also set up to reduce the Hep C & AIDS epidemic of the late 80s. The results of which were ongoing, unsustainable costs to every health service in the world in caring for those contracting the viruses.
This was never a program to help addicts.

Harm Minimization or Harm Continuation as i like to call it, is a ridiculous act of self defeatism. It prolongs the agony of both the addict & all those even remotely associated with them.

Do they not think every addict has attempted to control their use, to use on their terms & in a safe way?

A more cynical person than myself may even think by promoting such a program that it will keep the cash flowing in rather than the huge outpouring of cash that the setting up of treatment centres would incur.

Another cynical person, but not me, may even believe Gamcares funding may be compromised if they were to go down the total abstinence route rather than Harm Continuation, I mean Harm Minimization route.

What's frightening is the method in question. Relating to drug addicts. Is responsible for 50 percent of drug related death's in the UK alone. So you have to question the method entirely.
So if this was somehow introduced as an alternative to quitting gambaling completely
Surley the relapse rate would be through the roof?

I'm basing this on the fact I've tried it myself multiple times
Gambaling not heroine lol
And it's never worked for me

I'm pretty sure the so called harm minimization is the system that gets us all addicted in the first place.

So in a nutshell there going to advocate a system that's a catalyst for the problem itself?

Hi all

This is a really interesting debate everyone. I just want to remind people that it is likely to be more constructive if it is clear when you are expressing your opinions and when you are stating facts. If you're stating something as fact it would be helpful if you could back it up with some reference or evidence. Dean0, I'm a bit confused about what you said about drug deaths - are you saying that harm minimisation is responsible for 50% of drug related deaths in the UK? Can you add a reference to that please?

Thanks

Forum Admin

The conversation generally went to how harm minimization was first introduced was introduced to heroin addicts. That was introduced with and end game ie weaning off. So like the topic. Gamble aware are looking into harm minimization. What is the end game for this strategy? Or is it OK to gamble just within our means? That way we're not addicts were That person we dream of who gambles for fun again. A few newspapers did an article On methadone programmes a few year's back and how it equated to 50 percent of mortality rates in Ayrshire I believe. And overall rates where climbing in the UK as a whole The question is can I state them as fact?

PR exercise on behalf of those who fund them. How likely is it they will really rock the boat?

Very telling that they point breathlessly to the risible amount of £6 million donated by the industry to 'protect and help problem gamblers'. Put that next to the billions in profit the industry trousers for context.