According to the Beeb (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425)) there is a plan in place on the political front to make shirt advertising by betting companies illegal.
Interesting issue, keeping politics out of it, I do hate to see betting adverts on shirts, then again, I hate to see ANY advertising on shirts. Surely the clubs can find as good a revenue elsewhere than keep our players looking like walking, running, jumping and diving billboards?
The story ........
Labour says it would ban gambling firms from advertising on football shirts if it came to power.
The party's deputy leader Tom Watson said football had to "play its part in tackling Britain's hidden epidemic of gambling addiction".
Nine English Premier League clubs - and three in Scotland's top flight - have kits sponsored by betting companies.
Gambling on football was worth a record £1.4bn to bookmakers over a 12-month period, figures revealed in May.
Mr Watson, who is also Labour's shadow culture secretary, said the shirt sponsorship deals gave gambling companies "massive exposure".
"Shirt sponsorship sends out a message that football clubs don't take problem gambling among their own fans seriously enough," he said.
"It puts gambling brands in front of fans of all ages, not just at matches but on broadcasts and highlights packages on both commercial television and the BBC."
Labour said rules banning gambling adverts on under-18s teams' shirts should be extended to all sides under the Football Association's remit.
It said it would work with the FA to achieve this before considering legislation.
Gambling law is devolved in Northern Ireland but controlled by Westminster for the rest of the UK.
A government review into betting machines - also looking at the impact of gambling advertising on children and vulnerable people - is under way.
Clive Hawkswood, of the Remote Gambling Association, said the industry was waiting for the government's proposals after the publication of this review.
He said the association was "mindful" of the issues around advertising and young people but questioned what a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship would achieve.
Would be nice but we don't live in a world that would agree to it!
Well, tobacco advertising has been banned so this is the next prime candidate. The fact that they can afford to sponsor shows the kind of money they have to spare/which can be made.
Gambling companies are a simple means of transferring money from the poor to the rich. You can say its people's choice whether or not to gamble, but these companies target the susceptible and the vulnerable with a barrage of advertising. Gambling addiction is as bad if not worse than drug addiction. In fact gambling is a drug
The news piece said 9 out of 20 teams carried gambling sponsorship. It's 11 if you include the new sleeve sponsors with WBA (12bet) and Watford (bet138)
There are an estimated two million people in the UK who are either addicted to gambling or in danger of becoming addicted and none of the companies concerned have any regard for the damage that can be caused to individuals and their families beyond the message 'Please gamble responsibly'. Gambling ads have increased ten fold since the law was changed. Via Match of the Day these companies get free advertising on the BBC regardless of whether logos are on shirts on not. We should all consider how we feel about young kids being exposed to this kind of coverage because they may become tomorrow's problem gamblers..
Why not ban fast food, holiday destinations,toy adverts, drink adverts, banks. In fact anything that is aimed at taking our money in case we are put under pressure to spend money we don't have. Lets just have Union and Labour party adverts as frankly we are all so weak we need to be led around by our noses by those who are far superior to us and know how we should behave.
Why not take down statues of people we don't agree with anymore. Let's not even allow people to debate in schools or Universities. Let's face it these people are better than us know how we should behave.
Or they could actually leave us alone and start sorting out their own deep problems.
Or we could simply exercise a bit of common sense, Lighthouse, and mitigate the problem by tightening the way these companies operate, as we have done with tobacco, alcohol and sugar water drinks, etc. Addiction is always the responsibility of the addicted person but at least we could try to keep the numbers likely to be influenced down.
Lighthouse, is there anything that should be banned or should people have full freedom of choice? In other words, where would you draw the line, if at all? Hard drugs?
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 05:29:38 PM
Why not ban fast food, holiday destinations,toy adverts, drink adverts, banks. In fact anything that is aimed at taking our money in case we are put under pressure to spend money we don't have. Lets just have Union and Labour party adverts as frankly we are all so weak we need to be led around by our noses by those who are far superior to us and know how we should behave.
Why not take down statues of people we don't agree with anymore. Let's not even allow people to debate in schools or Universities. Let's face it these people are better than us know how we should behave.
Or they could actually leave us alone and start sorting out their own deep problems.
0001.jpeg
Quote from: Logicalman on September 06, 2017, 04:13:51 PM
According to the Beeb (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425)) there is a plan in place on the political front to make shirt advertising by betting companies illegal.
Interesting issue, keeping politics out of it, I do hate to see betting adverts on shirts, then again, I hate to see ANY advertising on shirts. Surely the clubs can find as good a revenue elsewhere than keep our players looking like walking, running, jumping and diving billboards?
The story ........
Labour says it would ban gambling firms from advertising on football shirts if it came to power.
The party's deputy leader Tom Watson said football had to "play its part in tackling Britain's hidden epidemic of gambling addiction".
Nine English Premier League clubs - and three in Scotland's top flight - have kits sponsored by betting companies.
Gambling on football was worth a record £1.4bn to bookmakers over a 12-month period, figures revealed in May.
Mr Watson, who is also Labour's shadow culture secretary, said the shirt sponsorship deals gave gambling companies "massive exposure".
"Shirt sponsorship sends out a message that football clubs don't take problem gambling among their own fans seriously enough," he said.
"It puts gambling brands in front of fans of all ages, not just at matches but on broadcasts and highlights packages on both commercial television and the BBC."
Labour said rules banning gambling adverts on under-18s teams' shirts should be extended to all sides under the Football Association's remit.
It said it would work with the FA to achieve this before considering legislation.
Gambling law is devolved in Northern Ireland but controlled by Westminster for the rest of the UK.
A government review into betting machines - also looking at the impact of gambling advertising on children and vulnerable people - is under way.
Clive Hawkswood, of the Remote Gambling Association, said the industry was waiting for the government's proposals after the publication of this review.
He said the association was "mindful" of the issues around advertising and young people but questioned what a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship would achieve.
What are the odds on this happening?
Quote from: Barrett487 on September 06, 2017, 05:40:01 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 06, 2017, 04:13:51 PM
According to the Beeb (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425)) there is a plan in place on the political front to make shirt advertising by betting companies illegal.
Interesting issue, keeping politics out of it, I do hate to see betting adverts on shirts, then again, I hate to see ANY advertising on shirts. Surely the clubs can find as good a revenue elsewhere than keep our players looking like walking, running, jumping and diving billboards?
The story ........
Labour says it would ban gambling firms from advertising on football shirts if it came to power.
The party's deputy leader Tom Watson said football had to "play its part in tackling Britain's hidden epidemic of gambling addiction".
Nine English Premier League clubs - and three in Scotland's top flight - have kits sponsored by betting companies.
Gambling on football was worth a record £1.4bn to bookmakers over a 12-month period, figures revealed in May.
Mr Watson, who is also Labour's shadow culture secretary, said the shirt sponsorship deals gave gambling companies "massive exposure".
"Shirt sponsorship sends out a message that football clubs don't take problem gambling among their own fans seriously enough," he said.
"It puts gambling brands in front of fans of all ages, not just at matches but on broadcasts and highlights packages on both commercial television and the BBC."
Labour said rules banning gambling adverts on under-18s teams' shirts should be extended to all sides under the Football Association's remit.
It said it would work with the FA to achieve this before considering legislation.
Gambling law is devolved in Northern Ireland but controlled by Westminster for the rest of the UK.
A government review into betting machines - also looking at the impact of gambling advertising on children and vulnerable people - is under way.
Clive Hawkswood, of the Remote Gambling Association, said the industry was waiting for the government's proposals after the publication of this review.
He said the association was "mindful" of the issues around advertising and young people but questioned what a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship would achieve.
What are the odds on this happening?
I wouldn't bet my shirt on it.
Trouble is, the less 'morally acceptable' businesses seem to have the most money and pay the best sponsorship rates.
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: Barrett487 on September 06, 2017, 05:40:01 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 06, 2017, 04:13:51 PM
According to the Beeb (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41172425)) there is a plan in place on the political front to make shirt advertising by betting companies illegal.
Interesting issue, keeping politics out of it, I do hate to see betting adverts on shirts, then again, I hate to see ANY advertising on shirts. Surely the clubs can find as good a revenue elsewhere than keep our players looking like walking, running, jumping and diving billboards?
The story ........
Labour says it would ban gambling firms from advertising on football shirts if it came to power.
The party's deputy leader Tom Watson said football had to "play its part in tackling Britain's hidden epidemic of gambling addiction".
Nine English Premier League clubs - and three in Scotland's top flight - have kits sponsored by betting companies.
Gambling on football was worth a record £1.4bn to bookmakers over a 12-month period, figures revealed in May.
Mr Watson, who is also Labour's shadow culture secretary, said the shirt sponsorship deals gave gambling companies "massive exposure".
"Shirt sponsorship sends out a message that football clubs don't take problem gambling among their own fans seriously enough," he said.
"It puts gambling brands in front of fans of all ages, not just at matches but on broadcasts and highlights packages on both commercial television and the BBC."
Labour said rules banning gambling adverts on under-18s teams' shirts should be extended to all sides under the Football Association's remit.
It said it would work with the FA to achieve this before considering legislation.
Gambling law is devolved in Northern Ireland but controlled by Westminster for the rest of the UK.
A government review into betting machines - also looking at the impact of gambling advertising on children and vulnerable people - is under way.
Clive Hawkswood, of the Remote Gambling Association, said the industry was waiting for the government's proposals after the publication of this review.
He said the association was "mindful" of the issues around advertising and young people but questioned what a blanket ban on shirt sponsorship would achieve.
What are the odds on this happening?
I wouldn't bet my shirt on it.
Ker-ching !! 😃
Quote from: Statto on September 06, 2017, 05:46:57 PM
I'm not surprised to see Tom Watson's name in the OP. Yet another cause well outside his own expertise that he can jump on to show everyone how virtuous he is.
The irony is the tobacco industry has shown that at least in the short term, the effect of an advertising ban is to make the industry impenetrable for new companies, which serves the major existing firms very well. The biggest winners would be SkyBet, William Hill et al., left free to screw punters in a much less competitive market.
In the longer term, yes maybe it does eradicate the "problem" but if that's the objective why don't we just cut to the chase and make it illegal now? Probably because it would leave a gaping whole in the economy. So no one will gamble anymore but 50,000 nurses will be sacked.
All in all I'm inclined to agree with Lighthouse.
Is there any point at which you'd draw the line or is it "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".
What about banning ALL shirt advertising, as the main thrust of the complaint isn't so much about the advertising, as opposed to the manner of advertising and the exposure it generates when a pic of the favorite footie hero is seen in a mag or online.
Quote from: Statto on September 06, 2017, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 05:51:21 PM
Is there any point at which you'd draw the line or is it "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".
I haven't expressed any feelings about the rights or wrongs of gambling. All I'm getting at is the logic and consistency of an advertising restriction. I can sympathise with those who are against gambling but I don't understand why you wouldn't just ban it outright rather than just restricting its advertising. And if you're going to ban gambling then you also need to ban tobacco, alcohol, McDonalds and so on, as Lighthouse says. Alternatively you take the view that as long as the risks are disclosed then people should be free to make their own choices. There's no logical justification for drawing the line half way in between.
I think the point is that tobacco advertising is banned, junk food advertising on TV banned before 9pm and there's a case for alcohol - but all are legal. I can see the argument for banning the promotion of gambling which can be so addictive and destructive for some, whilst not restricting their right to waste their money in that way if they really wish. There's no doubt that less people smoke now than used to be the case and more responsibility over the use of alcohol when driving so the message does slowly get through.
Me, I'm all for mugs gambling. The lottery has done a power of good and I've never wasted a penny on it.
Politicians appearin to be concerened about peoples welfare,pul the other one ,what next controls on alchohol re introducing the beer escalator tax.
these people anti anything enjoyment so put more tax on it all,thats what the last labour goverment did.big brother believing they know best.they should keep there nose out.
Quote from: hovewhite on September 06, 2017, 07:46:26 PM
Politicians appearin to be concerened about peoples welfare,pul the other one ,what next controls on alchohol re introducing the beer escalator tax.
these people anti anything enjoyment so put more tax on it all,thats what the last labour goverment did.big brother believing they know best.they should keep there nose out.
Exactly
Quote from: toshes mate on September 06, 2017, 05:37:36 PM
Or we could simply exercise a bit of common sense, Lighthouse, and mitigate the problem by tightening the way these companies operate, as we have done with tobacco, alcohol and sugar water drinks, etc. Addiction is always the responsibility of the addicted person but at least we could try to keep the numbers likely to be influenced down.
Couldn't agree more. We could even ask the politicians to actually do some work on this. Instead of going to the easy option and banning things. Addiction is a terrible illness and I do not think enough is done. But banning shirt advertising is not going to help anybody.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 06, 2017, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: hovewhite on September 06, 2017, 07:46:26 PM
Politicians appearin to be concerened about peoples welfare,pul the other one ,what next controls on alchohol re introducing the beer escalator tax.
these people anti anything enjoyment so put more tax on it all,thats what the last labour goverment did.big brother believing they know best.they should keep there nose out.
Exactly
Quite right - all that employment protection sh*t.
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
Lighthouse, is there anything that should be banned or should people have full freedom of choice? In other words, where would you draw the line, if at all? Hard drugs?
It is difficuilt isn't it? I object to censorship but clearly some parts of society have to be protected. I don't think shirt advertising is going to pull kids and vulnerable people into habits they can't control. We need Governments and Political Parties to help control certain 'vices'. It would help by stopping fixed odds machines in betting shops. Even stopping all night betting being on main stream tv. Hard drugs are already illegal so clearly one can't advertise those on shirts. But then people can become easily addicted to legal prescription drugs. I think making a point about advertising is a cheap, no nothing way of trying to prove that a political party is trying to do something while in fact they are doing nothing.
Personally I think most advertising on shirts looks cheap and does nothing to enhance the visual aspect of them. I went to the shop and asked if I could have a plain shirt with no advertising which is what I got. Most people probably don't mind the adverts but I run and play football in mine and it is the one thing that dates the shirts. I like people to see the badge of the team I support but not the adverts for products I care nothing about.
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
Lighthouse, is there anything that should be banned or should people have full freedom of choice? In other words, where would you draw the line, if at all? Hard drugs?
It is difficuilt isn't it? I object to censorship but clearly some parts of society have to be protected. I don't think shirt advertising is going to pull kids and vulnerable people into habits they can't control. We need Governments and Political Parties to help control certain 'vices'. It would help by stopping fixed odds machines in betting shops. Even stopping all night betting being on main stream tv. Hard drugs are already illegal so clearly one can't advertise those on shirts. But then people can become easily addicted to legal prescription drugs. I think making a point about advertising is a cheap, no nothing way of trying to prove that a political party is trying to do something while in fact they are doing nothing.
I'm not one for over-prescriptiveness either, I just think that gambling is another vice like smoking and drinking and it might be a small start - it would show that it's not quite mainstream and wouldn't be there to perhaps encourage people, in however minor a way. There's no doubt that attitudes to smoking and drinking have changed drastically in my lifetime and particularly since the restrictions and campaigns started.
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
Lighthouse, is there anything that should be banned or should people have full freedom of choice? In other words, where would you draw the line, if at all? Hard drugs?
It is difficuilt isn't it? I object to censorship but clearly some parts of society have to be protected. I don't think shirt advertising is going to pull kids and vulnerable people into habits they can't control. We need Governments and Political Parties to help control certain 'vices'. It would help by stopping fixed odds machines in betting shops. Even stopping all night betting being on main stream tv. Hard drugs are already illegal so clearly one can't advertise those on shirts. But then people can become easily addicted to legal prescription drugs. I think making a point about advertising is a cheap, no nothing way of trying to prove that a political party is trying to do something while in fact they are doing nothing.
I'm not one for over-prescriptiveness either, I just think that gambling is another vice like smoking and drinking and it might be a small start - it would show that it's not quite mainstream and wouldn't be there to perhaps encourage people, in however minor a way. There's no doubt that attitudes to smoking and drinking have changed drastically in my lifetime and particularly since the restrictions and campaigns started.
Banning smoking in pubs and public places has I would suggest done more. Banning sugar amounts in drinks etc. If you want to ban fixed odd machines or public gambling on tv. Then go for it but sport shirts is not a place to start. Please don't let them ever ban cake though. Let me go from a cake overdose.
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: Holders on September 06, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
Lighthouse, is there anything that should be banned or should people have full freedom of choice? In other words, where would you draw the line, if at all? Hard drugs?
It is difficuilt isn't it? I object to censorship but clearly some parts of society have to be protected. I don't think shirt advertising is going to pull kids and vulnerable people into habits they can't control. We need Governments and Political Parties to help control certain 'vices'. It would help by stopping fixed odds machines in betting shops. Even stopping all night betting being on main stream tv. Hard drugs are already illegal so clearly one can't advertise those on shirts. But then people can become easily addicted to legal prescription drugs. I think making a point about advertising is a cheap, no nothing way of trying to prove that a political party is trying to do something while in fact they are doing nothing.
I'm not one for over-prescriptiveness either, I just think that gambling is another vice like smoking and drinking and it might be a small start - it would show that it's not quite mainstream and wouldn't be there to perhaps encourage people, in however minor a way. There's no doubt that attitudes to smoking and drinking have changed drastically in my lifetime and particularly since the restrictions and campaigns started.
Banning smoking in pubs and public places has I would suggest done more. Banning sugar amounts in drinks etc. If you want to ban fixed odd machines or public gambling on tv. Then go for it but sport shirts is not a place to start. Please don't let them ever ban cake though. Let me go from a cake overdose.
I'm a non-smoker and wasn't that enthusiastic about banning smoking in pubs - if I didn't like the smell I could use my free will to take my business elsewhere. However, there's no doubt that it's been a great success. I didn't interpret banning gambling adverts on football shirts as a political point, it just seemed a fair point that anyone might make and maybe a small step in the right direction - in that impressionable kids wouldn't associate the vice, even subconsciously, with their heroes.
So you're not in favour of banning Bake-off?
It just shows people making decisions that we elect ,none of em live in the world that we all exist in.
A friend of mine is an alcoholic, he does not need any advertising, he knows it's here and where to get it.
I am addicted to Football, can anybody help, and what advice would you give me.
Betting is a huge problem and addiction has destroyed countless lives. I am not anti but I certainly recognise the problems. I recently took Sky and have been shocked how much gambling advertising there is during day time on the sports channels when lots of kids are viewing. For me that is where controls are needed as a far higher priority than shirt advertising.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 06, 2017, 09:13:15 PM
I am addicted to Football, can anybody help, and what advice would you give me.
Thats the perscription its your fix enjoyment so keep taking the mdicine and its a expensive perscription.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 06, 2017, 09:13:15 PM
I am addicted to Football, can anybody help, and what advice would you give me.
Start following Reading. You'll never want to watch another game of football again.
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 05:29:38 PM
Why not ban fast food, holiday destinations,toy adverts, drink adverts, banks. In fact anything that is aimed at taking our money in case we are put under pressure to spend money we don't have. Lets just have Union and Labour party adverts as frankly we are all so weak we need to be led around by our noses by those who are far superior to us and know how we should behave.
Why not take down statues of people we don't agree with anymore. Let's not even allow people to debate in schools or Universities. Let's face it these people are better than us know how we should behave.
Or they could actually leave us alone and start sorting out their own deep problems.
EDIT: I feel I should perhaps just say, after reading and realising how long my post is. Just because I agreed with Lighthouse and went on a ramble, it doesn't mean he agrees with me
Lighthouse, I could not agree with you further.
Before I type this, and whilst I am aware perhaps a disclaimer is not needed as there is the possbility that no one will care about this post, I want to say I have not read past Lighthouses post on the first page, so apologies if I have missed anything.
However as hyperbolic as your post may seem, it rings very true. We are currently living within a logical fallacy, or so it would seem. It seems we al constantly living in illogical thoughts, me included, momentary emotional projection reign supreme. The current logical fallacy that was once deemed by dare I say 'the right', is the slippery slope; the slippery slope argument was once deemed as right wing fallacy. But at what point will you say 'hey, you can't tell us what to do'?.
There are people in this thread advocating for this. 'It was cigarettes first, we should continue', 'gambling destroyes lives!' etc etc. Well tell you what, the west is experiencing an obesity crisis. Every local pub has its alcoholics. Diebetes is on the rise. Yet I still see those go down to the stands at half time for a pint of lager, a pie, and a bottle of coke for the little one.
I am in danger of making this political, espeically with mention of the ever ambiguous terms of 'the left' and 'the right'. As such I will state that I am libertarian in many senses. I don't think libertarianism makes sense as a political viewpoint as it assumes everyone will do right and act right, I believe in my own ability to act and do right (unfortunately I can't expect others to do the same, the issue of libertarianism). As such I only believe it right for others to do the same, but as said, you can't epect them to. If they can not resist gambling away their life because of advertisements glamourising it, then I believe perhaps they will not be particularly succesfull anyway.
With that said, and to devils advocate against myself, it will be interesting to see how the cigarette packet change and lack of advertisement availability effects sales. We are still waiting to see sugar demonised unfortunately as big sugar such as coca-cola convinced the world its fat making us have diabetes. And god knows the socially acceptable alcohol is a socially acceptable strain as much as we all love it.
I'm ready to be shown wrong. But I believe in personal responsibility, I don't believe gambling advertisements are doing anything but showing those pre-disposed another place to gamble - third world countries don't need Bet365, they just need a pair of dices.
and with this highly self-righteous post, I will add that I drink too much and smoke too much. Vices are vices, control your own, lets stop trying to control the vices of others. Society needs to create better mothers and fathers, it shouldn't try and replace them with the state.
I just wish we could have the option to pay more for a shirt with no sponsor.
Pressure from the majority of the public is the only thing that will get gambling, drinking, smoking, sugar etc banned from view. If you have seen close friends and family die or suffer from anything related to any of these things it may change your mind on the issue of advertising, But I feel most people don't really care about advertising as they think it doesn't affect them directly. It would take a very brave government to deal with the issue of advertising products that have problems associated with them as they rely on the revenue created from these industries. Look how many years it has taken to deal with some of the aspects around smoking, we have know for 60 years that smoking kills.
You only need one terrible disaster like Grenfell to change the way we deal with the causes surrounding it yet every day thousands of people are suffering because of smoking, gambling, drinking and obesity. How can this happen in a country mad on health and safety? The answer is quite simple, Money. Things will change and the governments of the future will gradually find other ways to get the money needed to run the country but until then it's Gamble .com on the front of our football shirts.
Quote from: Jurassic Parker on September 07, 2017, 01:31:58 AM
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 06, 2017, 05:29:38 PM
Why not ban fast food, holiday destinations,toy adverts, drink adverts, banks. In fact anything that is aimed at taking our money in case we are put under pressure to spend money we don't have. Lets just have Union and Labour party adverts as frankly we are all so weak we need to be led around by our noses by those who are far superior to us and know how we should behave.
Why not take down statues of people we don't agree with anymore. Let's not even allow people to debate in schools or Universities. Let's face it these people are better than us know how we should behave.
Or they could actually leave us alone and start sorting out their own deep problems.
EDIT: I feel I should perhaps just say, after reading and realising how long my post is. Just because I agreed with Lighthouse and went on a ramble, it doesn't mean he agrees with me
Lighthouse, I could not agree with you further.
Before I type this, and whilst I am aware perhaps a disclaimer is not needed as there is the possbility that no one will care about this post, I want to say I have not read past Lighthouses post on the first page, so apologies if I have missed anything.
However as hyperbolic as your post may seem, it rings very true. We are currently living within a logical fallacy, or so it would seem. It seems we al constantly living in illogical thoughts, me included, momentary emotional projection reign supreme. The current logical fallacy that was once deemed by dare I say 'the right', is the slippery slope; the slippery slope argument was once deemed as right wing fallacy. But at what point will you say 'hey, you can't tell us what to do'?.
There are people in this thread advocating for this. 'It was cigarettes first, we should continue', 'gambling destroyes lives!' etc etc. Well tell you what, the west is experiencing an obesity crisis. Every local pub has its alcoholics. Diebetes is on the rise. Yet I still see those go down to the stands at half time for a pint of lager, a pie, and a bottle of coke for the little one.
I am in danger of making this political, espeically with mention of the ever ambiguous terms of 'the left' and 'the right'. As such I will state that I am libertarian in many senses. I don't think libertarianism makes sense as a political viewpoint as it assumes everyone will do right and act right, I believe in my own ability to act and do right (unfortunately I can't expect others to do the same, the issue of libertarianism). As such I only believe it right for others to do the same, but as said, you can't epect them to. If they can not resist gambling away their life because of advertisements glamourising it, then I believe perhaps they will not be particularly succesfull anyway.
With that said, and to devils advocate against myself, it will be interesting to see how the cigarette packet change and lack of advertisement availability effects sales. We are still waiting to see sugar demonised unfortunately as big sugar such as coca-cola convinced the world its fat making us have diabetes. And god knows the socially acceptable alcohol is a socially acceptable strain as much as we all love it.
I'm ready to be shown wrong. But I believe in personal responsibility, I don't believe gambling advertisements are doing anything but showing those pre-disposed another place to gamble - third world countries don't need Bet365, they just need a pair of dices.
and with this highly self-righteous post, I will add that I drink too much and smoke too much. Vices are vices, control your own, lets stop trying to control the vices of others. Society needs to create better mothers and fathers, it shouldn't try and replace them with the state.
I have to agree with most of what you say, especially the last paragraph.
If the state ever got its way completely, we would be in a right state.
All the above brings to mind that recently the bloke who advocated birth-control for chavs got forced to withdraw that statement.
Perhaps addiction isn't really about advertising at all.
In the 1970's with drug use running high in the USA, an experiment with a solitary rat in a cage with two bottles of water, one pure and one laced with cocaine and heroin. The rat returns to the laced bottle of choice for its drink and continuously does so until it dies from its addiction. This experiment was used in an advertisement to illustrate the perils of hard drug addiction. However another interested Canadian scientist, Professor Bruce Alexander, wondered what would happen if the experiment was repeated with several rats in an environment with lots of things to do and the freedom to choose what they did. Water was provided from two sources, a pure bottle and a laced bottle with cocaine and heroin. The result was that less than a quarter of the laced water was consumed over the same time scale with rats preferring the pure bottle out of choice. The experiment was repeated several times with the same result. Not one rat died from addiction.
The Professor then decided to take isolated and addicted rats (from fifty seven days consuming laced water) and introduce them to the 'adventure' park. Astonishingly the rats weaned themselves off the laced water and ceased to be addicted but entirely capable of consuming the laced water out of choice if they wanted to. The experiments raised all manner of conflicting messages about society and addiction even allowing for the big difference between rats and humans in anatomy if not character. The debates about addiction and its causes continue but the facts of these experiments remain. Does this indicate that when we are happy and free we tend not to hook ourselves to something that will eventually harm us and know when to stop?
They take enough tax revenue from these companies so it all strikes a tad hollow with me. They don't give a hoot about addiction of susceptible people.
i understand people's resistance to gambling sponsorship, but where will it end. Banning supermarkets / shops / food companies sponsoring due to obesity, banning gaming companies for the same reasons as kids just sit there not exercising, banning drinks companies due to alcoholism (same as gambling right now as in not on kids shorts, banning coke from advertising as too much sugar etc.
Do one then doo them all, there all a kind of addiction.
Basically, lets ban all on short advertising and go back to how the game was in the 70's. What makes me laugh is that everyone who wants these things banned probably does one or other of them, a sweepstake on the national, a rum and coke, a burger etc, it becomes hypocritical to a degree
Have to thank everybody for a fascinating thread that has developed from advertising into the control of addictions.
I will just say while we can't legislate for everybody. Those who are addicted should be able to find help far quicker than they do. But I don't want my cake addiction taken away from me. I will turn into a much nastier and violent person without it. Does it need to be controlled? Yes but it isn't my fault. A mistake with an over prescribed drug when I was very young made me this way. Yes I know we all have an excuse. People always do. But has advertising made me want more cake? Would banning it for shop windows help? May do but I doubt it. As others have said let's wait and see the evidence.
I loathe the hypocritical political class that want to be seen to do the right thing while doing nothing to really help. Help me save the World by using greener fuel. Why make it so expensive? Why have subsidies that encourages money making and cheating. We would all be less addicted if we had less politicians.
Whilst I agree with the freedom of the individual, I do see a role for society in attempting to dissuade people from doing what would harm them and, in turn, society. Society can't just write off people who venture into the depths of an addiction just because they were too weak gullible, vulnerable or whatever because they had freedom of choice. All societies have had rules, norms, mores or laws from the earliest of time to regulate anti-social behaviour. Even animal societies don't have politicians but they still have rules.
As for the irredeemably lost - "let them eat cake".
Society may have a role to play but does that really mean banning advertisements / sponsorship? if it does then it also means you have to ban them for everythingthat could harm people. and then you go to far and into a nanny state.
There has to be some shaping and direction or there's anarchy.