RSSThe Curious Case of Gambler Mike Lee
Jul 28
Politics and Nation Comments Off
In British Columbia, an intervention for problem gamblers called the Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program is under fire for allowing its participants to gamble. The program is designed to ban self-identified problem gamblers from playing in B.C. casinos by removing them from the premises before they can play. All it takes to ban yourself from casinos is to complete the VSE agreement, indicate the amount of time the ban should last (from 6 months to 3 years), and it will be put into effect.
But what in theory sounds like a simple idea -- the casino identifies your name as being on the VSE list and escorts you off the property -- is harder to put into practice. Putting yourself on the list doesn’t prevent you from going into the casinos, but instead puts the burden on the casino employees to identify you before you can play. Several participants, including Vancouver Island resident Mike Lee, claim they were allowed to gamble on multiple occasions without being barred from the casino -- that is, until they won substantial jackpots.
Lee filed a grievance with the B.C. Supreme Court in June claiming that the B.C. Lottery Corp (BCLC) failed their part of the agreement to keep him out of the casino. Only at the point where he won a $42,500 jackpot did the BCLC step in by refusing to pay out the winnings of his jackpot, claiming that he should have not been able to win in the first place under the VSE agreement. Lee is basing his claim on the fact that casino did not have the appropriate systems in place to enforce the program as described.
If the B.C. Supreme Court holds to the letter of the BCLC policy, Lee is going to lose. Specifically stated in the agreement is a clause that states that any jackpot winnings won while under the agreement will be forfeited and donated to gambling research. Furthermore, the policy clearly states Lee is responsible for his own behavior, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, and that he could be fined $5,000 for violating the agreement himself.
The greater issue is whether this kind of voluntary self-exclusion works as a preventative measure at all. The United States has similar programs, but as is true in both countries, the agreements are largely regional in nature. In Canada, there are separate voluntary self-exclusion agreements in each province. (Voluntary self-exclusion in Nova Scotia, for instance, is for an indefinite amount of time. Gamblers have to reapply to be taken off the list). So depending where the gambler initially goes to request voluntary self-exclusion, it may only apply to participating gambling properties.
Then the very nature of a gambling addict is that they will compulsively seek out opportunities to gamble, making the burden on policing themselves all that more important and in many cases, equally unlikely. The programs, in large part, rely on the individual to also receive counseling in order to restrain the compulsive behavior. But like the program itself, counseling is a voluntary component. In most cases, the gambler isn’t required to agree to counseling in order to participate in the program.
It’s unlikely Lee will prevail to get his jackpot winnings back since, in British Columbia, the agreement is clear that all winnings are forfeit. That only leaves the question of how the BCLC can improve their controls to do a better job of monitoring participants on the VSE list. For its part, the BCLC is going to emphasize in its defense the individual’s responsibility to make the voluntary self-exclusion program work. And they would be right, even if the lack of self-discipline is what drives the individual to agree to the program in the first place.
Andrew Marx is the author of On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack, available from amazon.com and other retailers.
