I read this Article in Salon the other day, which related the story of Jean Brochu. Mr. Brochu, an attorney in Quebec, is a recovering gambling addict, and the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Loto-Quebec, the province’s gaming authority. His contention is that they bear culpability for his addiction because they employed increasingly addictive video lottery terminals that ultimately led him down the rabbit hole, which included stealing money from his union. This comes on the heels of a lawsuit brought against several Atlantic City and one Las Vegas casino by Arelia Margarita Taveras, (another attorney) after she lost a million bucks, including cash she skimmed from client escrow accounts. Whoops.
This is of great interest to us here at the Hypo, because we’re populated with degenerate craps players. Well, me and Mojo anyway. Now I’ve always been of the opinion that you know you’re on the business end of the equation once you set foot in a caino, which is what makes it feel so good when you beat the odds. Not everyone feels this way. But are you getting what Jack Binion once described as a “fair gamble”?
My questions from all this are as follows:
1. Does a casino bear some culpability for the losses of its patrons if they have implemented increasingly addictive methods of parting them from their money? Not unlike cigarette manufacturers for using nitrogen treatments to increase the effectiveness of nicotine delivery?
2. The Salon article offers in some detail the gaming industries attempts to prove that a) people aren’t really that predisposed to gambling addiction, and b) that if they are it’s not the casinos faults. This includes spending big cash to finance a research center at Harvard. Is this the same as the now defunct Tobacco Institute, and should it really be the basis for legislative decisions?
3. What the heck is up with all the lawyers becoming gaming addicts?
No related posts.
If the law has any role, it’s not to provide a cause of action against casinos for addictive gaming methods. Just as with smoking, the general rule ought to be that individuals need to take responsibility for their own behavior.
As far as the tobacco comparison, you can earn more money, you may not be able to recover from lung cancer or emphysema. When you lose at the craps table you know exactly what you’re losing. However, because the tobacco companies deliberately covered up the deadly effects of their products you didn’t always know what you were giving up with each puff. The gaming industry may be covering something up (assuming their studies aren’t kosher), but it hardly rises to the level of deadly impact.
Laywers need addictions. Whether it’s alcohol or drugs (schools provide access to ABA student counselors) or gambling. The fact is that the high stress lifestyle combined with the vitriol that gets spewed at the profession by the public (one of the least respected professions, it is socially acceptable to make derivative remarks about lawyers; can you imagine if you made the same remarks about another member of society, like a cop or a minority?) makes addiction not in the least bit surprising.
All of these pressures lead to many a lonely night where the practitioner needs “something” to take the edge off.
Lawyers are addicted to addictions.
I wonder if we could organize a class-action suit against the entertainment industry alleging that their increasingly entertaining programming is the proximate cause of our country’s stupidity.