- In short: One of the first cashless gaming trials in NSW found the technology made little difference to the behaviour of gamblers.
- The Wests New Lambton trial has received criticism from gambling reform advocates, who say it did not include a card with binding and default limits.
- What’s next?: The Independent Panel on Gaming Reform will provide findings from an expanded statewide cashless gaming trial.
So it’s a bit cooked but basically humans do stuff that’s harmful, governments supplying it at least removes profit incentives.
You can’t ban gambling out of existence but a government body can be set up in such a way that odds are fairer, only less addicting games are offered (e.g. no pokies because flashing lights and sounds are satanic), the rooms have natural light and clocks etc. Any money made goes into gambling assistance programs or community improvement or whatever.
Would people still get hurt? yes. Would there be corruption? yes. But there’s no way it can be worse than private operations which still have all the same problems with less transparency and being harder to regulate, plus the profit incentive.
Think of it like injecting rooms, trust me it’s way safer and less glamorous to shoot up /get supplies at one of those than a house party.
Germany actually has a similar approach with the gambling agency.
It actually tries to set rules that protect gamblers (no loans, no advertising, no parallel games, regulated user accounts) and limits the kinds of games available.
https://www.gluecksspiel-behoerde.de/de/praeventionspielerschutz/massnahmenkatalog
Proceeds from gambling don’t have to be non-profit, though. So gambling is still lucrative for casinos with a license. Or the states with their state run lottery.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GKL_Gemeinsame_Klassenlotterie_der_L%C3%A4nder
