I missed this myself last week, but
Dan Lett writes that McPhillips Street Station is finally getting an ATM.
Good. 'Bout time.
Dan (and Tory leader Hugh McFadyen) suggests that it's another step towards taking advantage of problem gamblers, but honestly, this is more about convenience for the majority of patrons. Dan points out that every other casino in Canada has ATMs (hell, I remember sitting at a blackjack table in Halifax no more than fifteen feet from the nearest one there) and people who visit from outside of the province are often aghast at the notion that they have to cross to a beer vendor outside in January in order to access their money.
People don't carry cash like they used to and often people won't even have $40 in their pocket. They walk in, hand over their coats to the check staff, then ask where the ATM is so that they can reload.
Only to then ask for their coats back.
It's ridiculous. The point of a regulation like this is to achieve some purpose. After all, when it comes to the ATM ban, there is a price being paid by all to help some. So the question is, does it help anyone? Does the problem gambler who uses stepping outside as an excuse to leave really exist?
I would wager they must likely don't. Certainly not in sufficient numbers to justify the ban.
The prohibition on ATMs was as ridiculous as the one placed on serving and imbibing alcohol at the gaming tables. A casino is supposed to be about fun and gaming, but preventing people from having a beer while they play takes a lot of the fun out of an evening at the casino and basically guarantees that the only people spending any real time there are those that are serious gamblers only.
One Friday night a few summers ago, I was sitting at Club Regent playing blackjack and these four guys from South Africa joined me at the table. It was the night before their Winnipeg buddy's wedding and while the groom shut down around midnight, they still wanted to go out and have some fun.
They were shocked - literally shocked - when told by the waitress that they couldn't even bring their drinks over from the bar, least of all order one or worst of all, get comped a drink despite the pile of black chips in front of them.
"Well, that's a first in two dozen countries," noted one to the group shortly before they got up and left for someplace else where they could celebrate.
Doesn't that just sum it up best? When you put restrictions on casinos that take away from their ability to actually act like a casino, you pretty much ensure that the only people who regularly use the casino are the most hard core of gamblers who don't care about the social aspect of gaming. Isn't that kind of opposite of what we're going for with the regulations in the first place?
Look, I understand the desire to weed out problem gamblers and get them help if at all possible. I've known a couple of addicts myself. People who came thisclose to losing family and their homes. If I could figure out a way to deal with the inevitable closure of the small beverage rooms & bars that would result, I would be firmly in the camp to ban VLTs outside the casinos as their effect on people really scares me at times.
And if we want to have a debate about whether we should even have casinos, that's fine too. I'd be in the pro-casino camp, but at least we'd have the discussion.
But this half-assed approach to casino management is exactly why government shouldn't always be in control of operations. If you are going to run a casino, run it how a casino should be run. Make it an enjoyable place to be for those that enjoy casinos elsewhere. Both governments (Filmon PC/Doer NDP) have bungled their way along on the file. From the whole ATM & booze issue all to way back to the very beginning, when the locations picked for them were completely wrong in the first place. (How they both didn't end up downtown, close by to each other to create a "district", I'll never know.)
But lest you think I'm completely, "Get out of their way and damn the folks who can't help themselves," one aspect of Dan's story does register with me:
Unfortunately, these efforts are mostly a farce. Staff isn't allowed to eject a problem gambler, no matter how many red flags they raise. While you can be barred from a casino for taking a swing at someone, you cannot be barred for being an addict.
That's one area I would certainly support the government getting involved in. There should be no reason that staff cannot step in from time to time if they suspect a problem gamer and ask them to have a quick discussion. I'm sure there's a checklist of signs that would suggest trouble and asking the gamer to leave or to go speak with a councillor on-site wouldn't be too restrictive. Of course it would lead to the occasional confrontation and "How dare they!" accusations, but if I was the Minister in charge, I would back my staff in that situation.
Such an intervention wouldn't eliminate Manitoba's gaming problem, but it would certainly help far more people than banning alcohol and ATMs ever did.