Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling

English PDF Next section Workbook home

Quick tips for reducing harm. Buy less so you use less. Buying large amounts of a drug may be cheaper, but you could end up using more than you want to simply because it’s there. Set a time limit before you start. If you choose, say, to stop drinking at 10:00 p.m., watch the time, remind yourself of your time plan, and stick to it. Gambling- related harm; majority wishes vs individual freedom). An optimal strategy will be comprehensive and collaborative between government, industry and service providers, taking account of the needs and interests of all three but never subordinating.

In this section:

Lower-risk drinking guidelines

To reduce long-term health risks, never exceed weekly limits: 15 units for men and 10 units for women.

To reduce injury and other harms, never exceed daily limits and adjust your drinking according to the setting: 4 units for men and 3 units for women.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling

Do not drink when:

  • operating vehicles or tools
  • taking medicine or other drugs
  • dealing with health problems
  • making important decisions
  • providing care to others
  • before breastfeeding

The safest option during pregnancy or when planning to become pregnant is to not drink alcohol at all.

Alcohol can harm physical and mental development in young people. Delay drinking until late teens and with parental guidance.

Young people are encouraged to adopt lower daily limits: 3 units for men and 2 units for women.

Harm reduction tips
  • drink in safe environments
  • no more than 2 units of alcohol in any 3-hour period
  • eat before or while drinking and alternate with non-alcoholic drinks

What is a unit of alcohol?

Quick tips for reducing harm

  • Buy less so you use less. Buying large amounts of a drug may be cheaper, but you could end up using more than you want to simply because it’s there.

  • Set a time limit before you start. If you choose, say, to stop drinking at 10:00 p.m., watch the time, remind yourself of your time plan, and stick to it. Have some juice ready.

  • Eat a meal before you start, and avoid snacking on salty foods, especially if you’re drinking. You may drink more out of thirst.

  • Lower your dosage and frequency. In other words, drink, smoke or inject in smaller amounts—and less often—than you do now. When it comes to alcohol, this could mean choosing light beer or other low-alcohol drinks, or alternating drinks with water or pop.

  • Choose the least harmful method of use. Injecting a drug carries more risk than smoking, snorting or swallowing it. (If you do inject drugs, avoid the neck area.) When it comes to cannabis, using a vaporizer or smoking a joint (with a rolled up cardboard filter) is safer than using a bong and some pipes.

  • Plan out some drug-free days. The fewer days in a row you use a drug, the better. If you use the drug every day, try cutting back your use to every other day, and try not using it at all for two to three days. (Make sure you have in mind other ways to spend your time and energy so you don’t end up sitting around and thinking about how you miss getting buzzed.

  • Use at your own speed and don’t feel pressured from others to pick up the pace.

  • Find someone caring and understanding to talk to when you’re struggling to stick to your reduced use plan.

  • Read self-help books that feature stories about people who have successfully cut down on or quit using a drug.

  • Put condoms in your pocket before you start using a drug, even if you’re not planning to have sex. You might change your mind.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Problems

Where to next?

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Use

Take me to the next section Take me to Tips and Tools Take me to the workbook home

Responsible gaming programs are intended to prevent or reduce potential gambling-related harms (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004). Examples of such programs range from brochures about disordered gambling to helping gamblers keep track of money wagered through “smart cards.” But are these programs effective? A recently published study by Drs. Lia Nower and Alex Blaszczynski, “Gambling Motivations, Money-Limiting Strategies, and Pre-commitment Preferences of Problem Versus Non-Problem Gamblers,” demonstrates that rigorous scientific research is vital to determining the effectiveness of a responsible gaming strategy. This study also shows that such investigations have to consider the motivations of gamblers who get into trouble and the viability of the program—in this case, the use of smart cards—in real-life gambling situations.

Attempts to identify the specific “addictive” features of electronic gaming machines have yielded largely inconclusive results, suggesting that the interaction between a gambler’s motivation-related thought process and the machine, rather than the machine itself, fuels excessive play (Blaszczynski et al., 2005).

A number of studies have reported that problem gamblers are particularly motivated by the desire to win money (Ladouceur, Sylvain, Boutin, & Doucet, 2002; Neighbors, Lostutter, Cronce, & Larimer, 2002; Park, Griffiths, & Irwing, 2004; Wood, Gupta, Derevensky, & Griffiths, 2004). This is partly due to the misconception that gambling is an income-generating activity rather than a form of entertainment (Walker, 1992). Research has reported that machine players with gambling problems adopt a number of erroneous thought patterns regarding the probability of winning and the nature of randomness, leading to an over-inflated estimate of the likelihood of winning and, in turn, to excessive spending (Gaboury & Ladouceur, 1989; Manoso, Labrador, & Fernandez-Alba, 2004).

Some authors have suggested that requiring patrons to gamble with cards limited to pre-set amounts of money (i.e.,“smart” cards), similar to gift cards, will decrease the impulsive overspending characteristic of problem gamblers (see e.g., Dickerson & O’Connor, 2006). It is unknown, however, whether adopting “pre-session” (i.e., prior to gambling) spending limits will decrease the money spent gambling irrespective of distorted or erroneous thoughts during play. In this study, we explored whether problem gamblers differed from other groups in their motivations to gamble and their willingness to either set or adhere to pre-session spending limits.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Addiction

A total of 127 electronic gaming machine players in Brisbane, Australia were recruited from the gaming floor at one of four venues and asked to complete a questionnaire. We assessed reasons for gambling, demographics and preferred gambling activities. The questionnaire also measured gamblers’ perspectives on pre-commitment strategies, including: (a) their willingness to gamble with a pre-set amount of money; (b) the perceived effectiveness of pre-commitment on limiting gambling expenditures; (c) potential strategies to compensate for the limitations of pre-commitment; (d) funding preferences; and (e) overall perceptions of money-related harm reduction strategies.

About 71 percent of the participants in the study were men with an average age of 38 years. Women were considerably older, averaging 44 years of age. Participants were grouped according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (Ferris & Wynne, 2001): non-problem gamblers (48.4 percent), low-risk gamblers (19.7 percent), moderate-risk gamblers (15.7 percent), and problem gamblers (15.7 percent).

Consistent with prior research, we observed a fundamental distinction in the primary motivation for gambling between non-problem and problem gamblers in this study. Although a high proportion of all gambling groups indicated that gambling was fun and enjoyable, a significantly higher proportion of problem gamblers, as compared to non-problem gamblers, reported that playing machines was a way to earn income or to escape problems. In contrast, non-problem gamblers endorsed fun/enjoyment and socialization as the two primary motivations for gambling.

With respect to pre-commitment, problem gamblers expressed much more reluctance than other groups about using smart cards, though they admitted losing track of money while gambling and were rarely aware of whether they were winning or losing. They indicated they would only use a smart card if cards were refillable, or if they were either able to access additional funds as needed or allowed to purchase an additional card if they ran out of funds and wanted to “chase” a loss. These responses suggest that pre-commitment would have little effect on decreasing gambling expenditures among those who are intent on continued gambling, because they will likely find a means of obtaining additional cards or seek out venues where refills or other options were available. Nonetheless, future studies should investigate whether pre-commitment strategies might have a protective effect for non-problem or low-risk gamblers who might otherwise proceed to more serious levels of gambling.

Lia Nower, J.D., Ph.D., is associate professor and director of the Center for Gambling Studies at Rutgers University. Alex Blaszczynski, Ph.D., holds a chair in psychology at the University of Sydney.

References

Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H.J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301-317.

Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Shannon, K., & Coughlan, M.-J. (2005). Structural characteristics of electronic gaming machines and satisfaction of play among recreational and problem gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 5, 187–198.

Dickerson, M.G., & O’Connor, J. (2006). Gambling is an addictive disorder: Impaired control harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge: International Research Monographs in the Addictions.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Disorder

Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1989). Erroneous perceptions and gambling. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 411–420.

Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (2002). Understanding and treating pathological gamblers. London: Wiley.

Manoso, V., Labrador, F.J., & Fernandez-Alba, A. (2004). Differences on cognitive distortions during gambling in pathological gamblers and no-gamblers. Psicothema, 16, 576–581.

Reduction

Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T.W., Cronce, J.M., & Larimer, M.E. (2002). Exploring college student gambling. Motivation, 18, 361–370.

Park, A., Griffiths, M., & Irwing, P. (2004). Personality traits in pathological gambling: Sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competiveness as risk factor. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 201–212.

Walker, M.B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon.

Wood, R.T.A., Gupta, R., Derevensky, J.L., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Video game playing and gambling in adolescents: Common risk factors. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 14, 77–100.