Is Poker Machine an Issue of Common Good or Evil - Case Study Example

Common Good: Poker Machine Name Institution Common Good: Poker Machine Introducing the Issue This is an academic report about Poker Machines. Almost every individual in this country has an idea of what machines are. The influence that such games have had on the population is evident. Frequently, issues affecting the society as caused by such games have been aired on TVs. Indeed this is a real hot issue during such periods in the phase of the nation. Gambling games have affected not only the men, but all genders in the society. There is nothing wrong with the government taxing such business entities to exploit all revenue sources. The main concern is how gambling is affecting the society. A government that cares about the welfare of its citizens will not only have the financial interest at hand, but the common good of the society. Statistics points to the reality that poker machines have increased so much in number in the recent decade. Why it is an Issue of Common Good It has been recognized that poker machines contribute a lot of revenue to the federal government, clubs and hotels. By all means, the entities that benefit from such games do not contribute representativeness in the society (Schweigert,1999). The reality is that few entities could be gaining at the expense of the society. The element of addiction that is associated with gambling games ruins the whole society. Members of the family have been reported to have absconded family responsibilities as a result of addiction to gambling. At the end of it, children in families suffer distress related to lack of proper attention from parents. In addition, many people have been reported for having ended up in crime after all their money was wasted through gambling. Addressing such an issue is indeed a common good (Schweigert, 1999). The society at large benefits from proper use of such machines. This could be through some form of restriction or putting in place policies that will limit its exploitation. Stakeholders and their Perspectives The debate on poker machines has been advanced by several stakeholders. As expected, each stakeholder has its interests to defend. Such issues therefore surround mainly individual interest of those involved in one way or the other. The focus on poker machines has been shifting away from family-related issues to tax implications. In this report, the concern is upon three main stakeholders. These stakeholders include the government, the machine operators and participants. These are affected in some way by the issue of poker machines. Government As pointed out, indeed this is an entity that is interested in poker machines. The government is divided between helping the society and exploiting means of revenue. The government has recognized that there is a problem with gambling. On annual basis, people are losing over $5 billion in a year to poker machines. The government recognizes that when the people lose such kind of money, families are the ones that suffer (Delfabbro& King, 2012). This is because the participants in such games are parents. As a result, the government has tried several options possible to put under control this issue. The government has been working on means of reducing the number of such machines as much as possible. In recent, the government has worked on a number of national reforms whose main focus is to address this issue. Some of the contents include warning signals embedded on poker machines. These are meant to warn the participant of the impending danger of taking part in such games. At the same time, the government is also working on possibilities of putting the maximum withdrawal amount from ATMs in gaming venues (Young, Lamb & Doran 2009, p. 253). In addition, the government is also working on possibilities of establishing financial counseling services for people used to gambling. All these means that are being put in place are working to show how the government is dedicated to handling the harm that is caused by these poker machines. On the other hand, the government gets a lot of revenue from these games (Young, Lamb & Doran, 2009). Seemingly, increasing taxes on these games is not discouraging the players. Some parties on the side of the government still have a feeling that the game does not need to be discouraged based on their contribution to the country’s GDP. Players The other stakeholder in relation to poker machines is the person involved in playing. As already pointed out, the number of individuals gambling has greatly increased. While these people start with a clear mind, often stopping proves a hurdle because of addiction (Ruthven, 2010). Many people are motivated by quick money and they feel they can be lucky enough to scoop such amounts in order to fix their lives. So many people participate in gambling expecting to win a lot of money (Borrell, 2011). Therefore, many are motivated by the feeling that indeed they have a chance of winning the money. At the same time, there are those who take part as a means of entertainment. Many believe that they can drive away boredom by gambling. Moreover, many people go for gambling hoping to run away from their troubles. Such troubles are quite varied, but are most likely associated with family issues and sustainable living (Colman, 2000). People take such entertainment forums to make new friends. This means that poker machines are viewed by many as social avenues. Regardless of the perspective taken by people playing poker machines, the issue of addiction still hurts. Families continue to live in misery as a result of gambling. Operators of Poker Machines There are several entities that operate poker machines in this country. Their revenues have been growing over time. This is because these operators are motivated by earnings alone. This is why many of its customers get psychologically ill yet these operators have nothing to do with them. While some of these operators have been banned in some states, they are still many other operational in most regions (Young, Lamb & Doran, 2009). The operators hung on the unmatchable fun that is usually associated with playing poker machines. They claim poker machines provide some sort of social status and fun that many distressed people dearly need. Just like people go to clubs for entertainment, operators believe poker machines provide better alternatives for entertainment. With time, it has been found that the proximity of casinos from hotels matters so much. Tourists and many other people prefer booking hotels that are next to such casinos in order to gain access any time. This has been one of the reasons hotels are being established near casinos (Ruthven, 2010). Moreover, the operators of poker machine view such games as a source of employment to many young people. Many people are hired to operate such machines and therefore, this has been seen as an employment opportunity to many young people. The Common Good & Human Flourishing Principles The above section has discussed so much about the perspectives held by the three main stakeholders of poker machines. The various perspectives explain why such stakeholders are either opposed to or are in support of gambling. This section of the report is focused on providing an independent and selfless perspective of gambling and poker machines in general. In that line, the common good of such machines will be evaluated using every possible criterion. This is to ensure that actually stakeholders are informed on the contribution of the poker machines to the welfare of the entire country. This is very significant to the citizens of this country. One of the dimensions of common good is the aspect of meeting the needs of all people. That is to imply that the benefiting of one person is not affecting the other person from enjoying. In gambling, the relationship between the participants is that of a zero-sum game. In the situation where one party to the game loses, the other party is celebrating victory for winning the game. This is a complete contravention to the policy of common good. When a father plays poker, the more he loses, the more the poker machine operators win. At the end of it, the family of this father will have to endure financial distress especially if that family does not have another consistent source of income (Schweigert, 1999). This means that the more poker machines flourish, the more families suffer in the country. The operators of such machines seem to be ignorant over the matter. As a result, they have had their focus on the entertainment part alone. This is because the operators know that as long as the participants are triggered by the need for entertainment, the revenues will continue flowing into the business. Moreover, common good is supposed to go beyond the needs of any individual. This is not the case when it comes to poker machines. The focus does not allow any attention to other people. The operators of these machines are much aware that gambling has caused a lot of harm to the society. Young people who gamble all their money without winning finances end up in crime (Borrell, 2011). This has been reported on so many occasions. The government and other agencies have released several reports pointing to the extent of destruction being caused by gambling addictions. The operators of these machines have paid no attention to the plight of the society at all. This is a selfish trend and it is against the common good principle. The society has suffered crime at the expense of these poker machines (Borrell, 2011). There are many families that are suffering because the bread-winners are spending all their earnings in casinos. Some children have been forced to drop out of school as a result. Operators of poker machines are too money-oriented to remember the plight of such families. This is a clear demonstration of self-mindedness and self-centeredness on the side of operators of poker machines. Another dimension of common good is flourishing and fulfillment of people in various aspects of their life including the intellectual, spiritual and psychological aspects of all people. The poker machines have zero-concern for the said aspects of humanity. The psychologists in this country have decried the consequences of gambling with respect to the above aspects for a long period of time (Ruthven, 2010). Many gamblers suffer depression, distress and many anxiety-related disorders. In extreme situations, this has led to suicide. This is very unfortunate to the society and the country at large. The treatment of complications related to addictions to gambling has cost the country a lot of financial resources. In some cases, the government agencies have been compelled to send some addicts to rehabilitation centers (Delfabbro & King, 2012). This is indeed very costly to the government as well as families. With all this in public domain, the operators of such machines have continued expanding their businesses. It is evident that operators of these machines promote services whose consequences are against the common good of flourishing and fulfillment of people. It does not consider the health repercussions of those taking part in such games. As a result, the government has a role of intervening in order to deal with the situation. How Common Good Can Be Served With the information that has been gathered, measures ought to be undertaken to ensure that the situation is contained. In this case, the government ought to be on the forefront in advocating for measures aimed at curbing this situation. First, the government must put in place measures to ensure that the number of poker machines is reduced as much as possible. This can achieved through high taxation of these businesses in order to make them very difficult to be sustainable (Delfabbro & King, 2012). At the same time, the government ought to design a policy that will limit the maximum amount of money one can risk at poker machines. Moreover, the government also must put into place rules that will limit the time of operation for such businesses. This is because many addicts end up spending too much time at poker machines while neglecting their families. Such measures will help maintain family unity in the country. The government will be in a position to reduce the rate of crime in the country. Reducing the rate of crime in the country will surely benefit the entire nation. This will be considered common good for the society. Conclusion This document has provided a detailed coverage on poker machines. Various key aspects have been discussed with respect to how these machines are affecting the society. While businesses are concerned with making a lot of money from poker machines, their impact on the society has been very devastating. In real sense, these machines are not operating with the priority of providing common good to the society. The extent to which such machines can be harmful to the society has been widely discussed. At the same time, measures that need to be put into place to ensure that such businesses do not interfere with the common good of the society have been pointed. The entire discussion has been based upon the principles that govern common good. References Borrell, J.(2011). Taming the Pokies, Eureka Street, 21(14),34-35. Colman, A.(2000). Gambling, Youth Studies Australia, 19(3), 7. Delfabbro, P. & King, D.(2012).Gambling in Australia: experiences, problems, research and policy, Addiction, 107 (9), 1556-1561. McMillen, J. & Wright, J.F. (2008). Re-regulating the Gambling Industry: Regulatory Reform in Victoria and New South Wales, 1999-2006. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 277-300. Nettleton, J. & Huang, M. (2013). Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001: Implications for Internet Gambling in Australia. Gaming Law Review & Economics, 17 (2), 129-133. Ruthven, P. (2010). How Australians Love to Lose, BRW, 32(12), 19-19. Schweigert, F.J (1999).Learning the Common Good: principles of community-based moral education in restorative, Journal of Moral Education, 28 (2), 163. Young, M; Lamb, D. & Doran, B. (2009). Mountains and Molehills: a spatiotemporal analysis of poker machine expenditure in the Northern Territory of Australia, Australian Geographer, 40 (3), 249-269. Read More