expert advice or just chat?

SOJ, You are correct gambling is a bad thing and I never said it wasn't. To be precise gambling is a dangerous activity. What I said is not everyone who gambles is an addict.

1wiserman wrote:SOJ, You are correct gambling is a bad thing and I never said it wasn't. To be precise gambling is a dangerous activity. What I said is not everyone who gambles is an addict.

With that I can agree - but these type of people are in huge risk for becoming addicts (in fact, many of the stories here and in general start with "I treated this as fun etc.")...

In that regards I know someone who buys exactly 2 lottery tickets every Saturday ... he goes into a bookmaker shop perhaps once every several months if at all ... is he addicted to gambling? no ... he has been doing it for many years ... however he is prone to become an addict if he will win a lot in the lottery (not necessarily the jackpot) - but what turned this addiction for him so far is the losing, not winning ... he is still in a way an "addict" because he buys the 2 tickets every week ... but he is not an addict in our perspective because we would probably deem his actions to be "normal" by comparing them to our actions.

Anyway I do agree with your statement but it is very subjective ... that is why I would never classify gambling to be something "in control" (you cannot control random outcomes) but your definition seems to be more correct - but it is still a very subjective definition (but the definition of control in my opinion has no validity whatsoever).

You asked earlier how doing something like gambling, could be considered a treatment for gambling addiction, and that's a valid question.

The people who do this research/treatment would know better than me of course, and if you want to know more I'd suggest reading the full papers. But, this would be my best estimate at an explanation.

The idea of controlled gambling as treatment, is that it avoids some of the negative effects of abstinence - withdrawal, craving, relapses. Because the activity (whichever addiction) isn't entirely removed then the idea that some of those rewards (brain and behavioural) are still present, so the person doesn't irrationally crave the activity as much.

That's my best stab at the explanation, so hope you see what it means/aims at in terms of treatment.

betterchange wrote:You asked earlier how doing something like gambling, could be considered a treatment for gambling addiction, and that's a valid question.

The people who do this research/treatment would know better than me of course, and if you want to know more I'd suggest reading the full papers. But, this would be my best estimate at an explanation.

The idea of controlled gambling as treatment, is that it avoids some of the negative effects of abstinence - withdrawal, craving, relapses. Because the activity (whichever addiction) isn't entirely removed then the idea that some of those rewards (brain and behavioural) are still present, so the person doesn't irrationally crave the activity as much.

That's my best stab at the explanation, so hope you see what it means/aims at in terms of treatment.

You don't give a cigarette to an addict and you don't allow an addict to gamble neither.
The whole idea of staying "in control" is wrong - you can't control random outcomes so betting today is not going to make your life better.

I personally don't know of anyone who tells a gambling addict to gamble in moderation ...

The craving is not coming from a good point in life ... it's not like the gambler really NEEDS it - he got sucked into it ... same way it came in - same way he needs to get rid of it .... gambling "in moderation" is not a solution.

You could say not all gamblers are addicts in extreme ways - but all gamblers whatsoever are in a risk to get hurt from it ... and gambling by itself is taking money from someone else who doesn't want to lose it neither.

I don't know why you keep on pushing for this ridiculous idea that gambling can take place "in moderation" - that's what the bookmakers say to people so they would keep on coming back!

StoppedOnJune2016 wrote:

betterchange wrote:You asked earlier how doing something like gambling, could be considered a treatment for gambling addiction, and that's a valid question.

The people who do this research/treatment would know better than me of course, and if you want to know more I'd suggest reading the full papers. But, this would be my best estimate at an explanation.

The idea of controlled gambling as treatment, is that it avoids some of the negative effects of abstinence - withdrawal, craving, relapses. Because the activity (whichever addiction) isn't entirely removed then the idea that some of those rewards (brain and behavioural) are still present, so the person doesn't irrationally crave the activity as much.

That's my best stab at the explanation, so hope you see what it means/aims at in terms of treatment.

You don't give a cigarette to an addict and you don't allow an addict to gamble neither.
The whole idea of staying "in control" is wrong - you can't control random outcomes so betting today is not going to make your life better.

I personally don't know of anyone who tells a gambling addict to gamble in moderation ...

The craving is not coming from a good point in life ... it's not like the gambler really NEEDS it - he got sucked into it ... same way it came in - same way he needs to get rid of it .... gambling "in moderation" is not a solution.

You could say not all gamblers are addicts in extreme ways - but all gamblers whatsoever are in a risk to get hurt from it ... and gambling by itself is taking money from someone else who doesn't want to lose it neither.

I don't know why you keep on pushing for this ridiculous idea that gambling can take place "in moderation" - that's what the bookmakers say to people so they would keep on coming back!

You asked for an explanation, which I've just outlined, but you've ignored everything I wrote.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree about this, as you don't wish to discuss any of the ideas. That's your choice of course, but please don't claim I haven't explained every point, as I think I've been pretty clear on several aspects that you have queried here.

My own choice is not to take a blanket approach, I prefer to consider different options, and to gain a better understanding that way. But each to their own, and you're entitled to your views.