Self-exclusion in a Public Health Environment: An Effective Treatment Option in New Zealand

Article

Abstract

New Zealand law provides a banning and self-banning system for gambling venues with Video Gaming Machines(VGMs) that reflects the public health emphasis within the New Zealand Gambling Act 2003. The act defines problem gambling as a public health issue. Amongst its provisions is a simple process for self and venue initiated self-exclusion and substantial penalties for venues that allow excluded persons into gambling areas. When combined with defined host responsibilities this places the onus for providing safe gambling on the gambling venues.

This paper contrasts NZ self-exclusion legislation with comparable legislation in some similar jurisdictions. It also pursues a small sample of problem gamblers who have self banned and examines their follow up for up to two years. Measures include the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGs) and the number of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSMIV) criteria of pathological gambling before and after self-banning.

The findings suggest that self-exclusion is an effective treatment tool for the group of clients who have the extreme difficulty controlling their gambling in other ways, and may be more effective in the public health gambling environment.

Keywords

Self-exclusion Treatment Problem gambling Public health environment 

References

  1. Australia’s Gambling Industries (1999). Australian Productivity Commission Public Enquiry. Online URL: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/gambling/finalreport/index.html January 2007.
  2. British Columbia Lotteries Corporation (2002). Voluntary self-exclusion programs. Online URL: http://www.bclc.com/cm/playresponsibly/ourprograms/selfexclusioninformation.htm Accessed 10/10/06.
  3. Department of Internal Affairs (2006). Gambits. Newsletter of Gambling Compliance June. Online URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/GambitsJune06.pdf/$file/GambitsJune06.pdf Accessed 10/10/06.
  4. Gambling Act 2003 (2003). Wellington: NZ Government. On line URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/act0351/$file/act0351.pdf Assessed 10/10/06.
  5. Gambling Harm Prevention and Minimisation Regulations 2004. (2004). Wellington: NZ Government. On line URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Reg2004276/$file/Reg2004276.pdf#search=%22Gambling%20%202004%22 Accessed 10/10/06.
  6. Illinois Administrative Code. (2005). Title 86: Revenue. Chapter IV: Illinois Gaming Board Part 3000 Riverboat gambling Subpart G. Exclusion of persons Title 86 3000 Section 770. Duties of Owner Licensees. Online URL http://www.igb.state.il.us/whatsnew/750thru793june02.pdf Accessed 10/10/06.
  7. Ladoucer, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, F. F., & Leblond, J. (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(4), 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 14(9), 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  9. McCullough, L. B., Chervenack, F. A., & Coverdale, J. H. (1996). Ethically justified guidelines for defining sexual boundaries between obstetrician-gynaecologists and their patients. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 496–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ministry of Health (2005). Problem Gambling Intervention Services Statistics. 2004. Wellington: MOH.Google Scholar
  11. Missouri Gambling Commission, Department of Public Safety (2003). Voluntary exclusion programme for problem gamblers. Application for placement on the list of disassociated persons. Online URL: http://www.mgc.dps.mo.gov/frameset.html Assessed 10/10/06.
  12. Napolitano, F. (2003). The self-exclusion program: Legal and clinical considerations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(3), 303–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Council on Problem Gambling. (2003). NCPG Task Force on self-exclusion. Current voluntary exclusion practices. Online URL: http://www.ncpgambling.org/about_problem/self_exclusion_report.asp Accessed 10/10/06.
  14. Norwatzki, N., & Williams, R. (2002). Casinos self-exclusion programmes. A review of issues. International Journal of Gambling Studies, 2, 3–25. July.Google Scholar
  15. South Australia Centre for Economic Studies. (2003). The evaluation of self-exclusion programs and harm minimisation measures. Report A. Prepared for the Gambling Research Panel, Victoria. On line URL: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/publications/consultancy/CompleteReportSelfExclusionA.pdf Assessed 10//10/06.
  16. Stewart, R. M., & Brown, R. I. (1988). An outcome study of Gamblers Anonymous. British Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 284–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations