Prof,
You wrote: "In my opinion not all addictions are destructive. What is destructive about betting on horses providing you can afford your losses?
FOBT addiction for some people may be harmless enough."That is what I was referring to, also pointed out by Ginger.
Obviously, your interpretation of addiction is very different to mine. However, I can be as black and white as you – they’re either addicted or they aren’t.
How an addiction can be less stupid and destructive if controlled is a paradox – you cannot control addiction. However, you may be better placed to give differing opinion on this.
You also wrote: "If you can’t be trusted to walk past a FOBT without pumping your whole life’s savings into them then you can’t be trusted to do anything."
Well, that’s pretty damning. Do you have children? If you do and one of them did have an addiction to FOBTs would you ostracise them from your life…as they cannot be trusted to do anything?
Zip
OK, this boils down to one thing: your definition of addiction is the same as the addiction industry’s model: a raging destructive thing. My definition is that it *can* be, but it can also be something controlled.
A wise old doctor once said to me: ‘Everyone is addicted to something’. Acoss the land, all sorts of addictions, from heroin to chocolate hobnobs, are indulged. Some cases result in minor personal problems, some don’t. What are you gonna do, ban EVERYTHING that YOU think is bad? What a totalitarian outlook.
What generally happens with addictions is that they are modified as the addict grows older. One would not realise this from hysterical press reports (and I am a journalist on a national newspaper so I know whereof I speak), but most people achieve a modicum of wisdom as they age.
Which leds me to my overall view of addiction as opposed to yours: addictions are in the end the problem of the addicted. The ramifications of their addiction on their families may be problematic as well but in the matter of actually sorting it out then no-one but the addicted can sort that out. You want anything that may be dangerous to those who can’t control themselves removed. I see this as a long slow road to virtual enslavement by the State. You need to learn the difference between license and liberty ie everything is permitted unless expressly not permitted, as opposed to, nothing is permitted unless expressly permitted. Your attitude will take us towards the latter. You might as well go and live in North Korea.
Besides, if your priorities of banning things is destructiveness then why not call for cigarettes to be banned? They actually kill a lot of people every day.
Re my ‘can’t be trusted’ comment: Yes, I do have children and I would point out to them that if you are compelled to put every bit of money you possess into a slot machine if one happens to come into your line of vision, then you cannot be trusted to do anything until you have tackled this problem. No sensible or sane person could think or say anything else.
I hope this makes my position clear.