A Pill for problem gamblers and problem gambling without gambling
An interesting article in the Kansas City Star brings to light news of a drug to treat problem gambling and a new account of Shaffer's research (mentioned in the previous post Problem Gambling - Its all in your brain . . . and your genes).
The article available here initially focuses on Californian company, Somaxon Pharmaceuticals Inc. licensing of the drug nalmefene hydrochloride for use in controlling impulse disorders, but the company is specifically focusing on gambling.
“Everybody knows that gambling in this country has undergone spectacular growth,” said Cohen. “Problem gambling is a significant illness and public health problem. There is no effective treatment for these people.
“We're reluctant to refer to anything as a magic bullet. But we think it has great promise. We know from phase two studies the drug had a significant effect compared to the placebo.”
The article then moves to discussing what Shaffer calls "my career's work".
The main point that got my interest in this discussion of the research was the following paragraph.
Shaffer expects to make waves among professional colleagues who believe addiction doesn't occur without a physical stimulant.
Is exposure to poker machines a physical stimulant or can you get 'addicted' to poker machines without ever going near one. I doubt this would be possible but others may know better than me (maybe Shaffer's professional colleagues?)
Maybe this is just an issue with the reporting, as some have suggested in the comments and in other forums. The problem is whilst I am sure that there is value in the research it is easy for this types of statements to be used by those willing to pursue an argument that nothing is wrong with gaming machines or their operation, it is just that some people are predisposed to developing problems.
If this was true what would we do about it? Genetically screen people and say they can't gamble? Hand out pills at the casinos and gaming venues? Its a slippery slope.
Its also the kind of argument that releases venues from duty of care as it suggests that the onus is on the individual to have known they were susceptible to the 'addiction', and to have done everything neccessary to prevent it developing.
Yes, I am a cynic when it comes to industry research, but I think with good reason. Too many times has material been presented which was flawed or constructed to present a particular point of view. (See ACIL research and presentation to the Australian Productivity Commission as an example.)
I personally don't think you can be addicted to a product that doesn't exist or isn't available, although you may be more likely to become addicted to substances or behaviours than others. I believe that governments and operators do have a duty to protect the community from substances, products and behaviours that are potentially harmful to the community - a role they fill in many cases, however not for gambling.
It is time that we all acknowledge that the product is harmful and something needs to be done. Why the harm occurs is due to the range of factors but the machines and their operation definitely plays a role, despite Shaffer's research and industry statements.
GG
