Gambling and Personal Responsibility: My Response to Panorama.

This is more of an opinion piece inspired by Panorama; I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to be able to judge the situation in a purely objective light. I do however feel that there is something to be said about this episode:

Panorama: Gambling Nation.

The premise seems to be that those companies that market gambling are responsible for problem gamblers in the UK. Gambling can be an addiction, although it doesn't have to be, and I understand that addictions can be dangerous, but there's a worrying trend throughout the programme that blames anybody (but those people participating in the gambling) for the problem.

It strikes me that is quite telling of the attitude of society to addictions and habits of all kinds. I would certainly never argue that funding research into such problems is a bad idea. I would however suggest to those people who tell Panorama (with a certain amount of pathos) that 'nobody did anything about their problem' are missing the point somewhat. 

I believe that bringing to light the addictive qualities of the gaming machines provided by gambling companies, as well as the risks that online (and thus perpetually-available) gambling poses to people, is a valuable and worthwhile cause. Raising awareness of these things will put people on their guard, and allow them to recognise and seek help from friends, family or professionals for their addiction. What concerns me is that, if the program's point were followed to an inevitable conclusion, the only real solution would be a total surveillance society. If people are complaining that the government, gambling companies, medical professionals, regulating bodies and in-store staff should have acted upon the hypothetical knowledge that the gamblers had a problem, and taken the initiative to help them, the logical conclusion is that they feel the ought to be constantly monitored in their daily lives. Now I may have missed the news bulletin on this, but since when did personal responsibility mean nothing in these situations?

Most people have gambled. When I was a child, I would play the 2pence sliding shelves in the vain hope of managing to get the right angle and velocity to knock the coins into my cup. Did I succeed? Rarely. Even as a child, the conclusions that I came to were twofold:

1. I would never win as much money back as I inserted into the machine. 
2. I have a tendency to want  to continue to play, in the hope of winning (or, in other words, a susceptibility to addiction).

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is purely people's excessive optimism, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is their downfall; all I know is that from a young age I became aware that the activity was ultimately profitless. Gambling is ultimately profitless for the gambler, aside from the thrill; this is why the companies that sell it make such a huge amount of money. 

Every time I see yet another of these programmes setting up the argument for a surveillance society I get a touch more worried. It is a fundamental fault to look at the world as a place where one ought to be protected by other people to such an extent; I don't fancy giving up my privacy and live in a doubtful utopia in order to protect other people from their weaknesses. It is damaging to people's self esteem, and that of our society, to represent such things as someone else's fault.

There is always a point when a person has the choice to walk away from a thing that is harmful to them. Sometimes the decision is forced upon people (as in the cases of forced addiction to drugs by some dealers) but gamblers are almost never in this position. The gambling companies do not lock their doors and refuse to allow them to leave until they're addicted - the choice to continue is with the gambler.

Some people will fail the challenge, and become addicted, but this does not mean it is other people's fault. They deserve help, because that is what they need. However, at some point they had the choice to stop or continue. This is the fundamental point; personal responsibility is the basis of self-respect. How can they truly recover if no one will say it was their fault to begin with?