Katie plans to shift pokies to vulnerable greenfields mortgage belt locations ...

That addiction definition is from H. Clarke, S. Danilkina Economic Models of Addiction: A Survey Melbourne, LaTrobe Univerity School of Business, (2006).

(It also gets called “”Talking Rationally About Rational Addiction” in case anyone is curious.)

Feel free to leave a copy on Katy’s desk.

housebound said :

I thought Katy was better than that.

Katy is scum and she has no spine.
Also she claimed that ACT Labor were not addicted to pokies income, they could give it up any time they want to.

Handy hints for Katy:
You’re the Health Minister, you should be familiar with recognising addiction.

A behaviour or substance is deemed addictive if, as the duration and intensity of consumption or dependance on the behaviour increases:
(i) users become more tolerant to the substance or behaviour so they progressively want more of it;
(ii) users find it increasingly difficult to cease consumption or committing the behaviour;
(iii) if users do quit, they suffer withdrawal disutility, and perhaps long-term cravings for the experiences historically supported by the substance or behaviour;
Finally, (iv), if use is interrupted or ceases, users experience unpleasant outcomes which impede their ability to function.

“I can quit” is a denial of the reality of addiction, “any time we want” is a rationalisation of that denial, on the grounds that the truth is that you don’t want to go into withdrawal.
ACT Labor’s addiction to pokies is currently satisfying a lot of currently-dependant functions (as in keeping a lot of Federal and ACT Labor systems running or keeping staff paid who may have originally been supported by other revenue streams), giving it up would involve changing the way you live, and that change would be so unpleasant in the short-term that you are unwilling to brave the crucible.

Never forget the mantra “Katy is scum and she has no spine”, and you can deal with her just fine.

Why are we surprised that the Government is continuing to do what it can to increase revenue?

Get with the times…….

This is really disappointing. I was kinda hoping the Labor Club sale would see the beginning of the end of the pokies (perhaps to balance the 25+ million election purse windfall).

I thought Katy was better than that.

What I-filed may be getting at is the open-market licnse sharing proposal (as the number of pokies in the ACT is capped), whereby licensees can sell off their licenses or allow multi-location clubs to move licenses between premises.

This would mean you could open up a club on a new site, and either shift some of your own pokie licenses out there, or poach them off a competitor.
Part of me is screaming “Bad thing!” but another bit of me wants to see what else gets introduced as part of that policy decision\change.

The decision is due out in October, which should be just after FY08-09 returns and contributions disclosures are returned.
By the Editor’s leave (whoever it is at the time) I’ll do some kind of numbercrunching at that time.

do you have a source i-filed?

By contributing double the minimum, she means ‘everyone but Labor’.

It’s a market thing isn’t it? For pokies to be profitable they need a constant fresh supply of dumb people with money – it’s as simple as that. I doubt that any geographic part of Canberra has a franchise on stupidity but if people aren’t prepared to travel into town to give their money away, maybe moving the pokies to somewhere more convenient is the answer.

We were consulted by ACTPLA reps a few months back about whether we felt there should be more “clubs” in Gungahlin and told them absolutely no. Enough pokies here already.

Seems the ALP folk didn’t listen though, as there seems to be a push on to release land right near the Raiders Club for another club (read: Labor Club?).