Gaming, or more accurately, gambling is on the rise. The NCPG or National Council on Problem Gambling tells us that around 6 million adults and about a half-million teens are what we might refer to as addicted gamblers.
The problem is getting worse, especially with college-age adults, where 23 percent of them gamble online, 1 in 20 are compulsive and their hard-core gambling rates are twice that of adults. Certainly, the advent of the internet and online gambling is somewhat to gain.
What happens when an inveterate gambler loses his life savings either online or in a casino? There aren’t too many studies, but perhaps it is time to address the situation from an ethical perspective.
Caesars Windsor, Ontario, Canada
To be sure, Tarwinder Shokar falls far from the model citizen mark. Indeed, he has criminal fraud convictions. He has been banned from most Ontario, Canada casinos for “disruptive behavior.”
Nevertheless, he is currently suing the casino.
What is a known fact about Shokar is that in 2013, he lost $260,000 over two visits to Caesars Windsor (very close to the U.S. border by the way). He is claiming he should have never been allowed to place wagers in the first place. The casino, he alleges should have known about his compulsive gambling and alcoholism.
In addition to suing the casino, he is also suing The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG). Shokar is for his $260,000 plus a half-million Canadian dollars in punitive damages.
Shokar’s lawyer has stated:
“Our position is he was a compulsive gambler and the casino and/or the OLG were either well-aware of his past background — or should have been.”
Far-Fetched? Not so Fast
On the first of his two 2013 visits, according to the lawsuit:
“Shokar arrived with a bank draft card loaded with thousands of dollars and was given special treatment…He was treated to a steak dinner and checked into the casino hotel, although he opted to spend the night at home instead. He lost $70,000 over several hours in the evening and morning.”
In other words, the gambler was well-known to the hotel. A few days later he returned to the casino and lost $190,000.”
The hotel allegedly paid for all his taxi rides. In addition, they provided him with a private table so he could gamble without interference from other gamblers.
“They did everything they could for him to gamble as much as possible,” said Shokar’s lawyer.
For their part, Caesars Windsor said:
“Each time he made a wager, he chose the amount of money he wanted to wager in full knowledge of the risks associated with that wager.”
If we view Shokar’s claim as frivolous, what then, will happen in the future when a college student gambles away a credit card credit limit? And, it will happen.
The case against Shokar is not as air-tight as it might appear at first. Shokar was a well-known gambler and alcoholic who was banned for disruptive behavior. I will grant that he is possibly a scam artist and he is trying to recoup his losses. Nevertheless, they allowed, make that, encouraged a known gambling addict and alcoholic to sit at the tables and lose a fortune.
While I grant it may not be equivalent, would a physician write a prescription for opioids to a known opioid abuser? I think not.
Unlimited Opportunities
There may be a truth here that needs to be more fully explored. If a known gambler and an alcoholic is addicted to gambling and alcohol, is there a point at which the casino is culpable? At what point might the casino be required to stop the action and advise the gambler of their concerns?
We do know that if a patron walks into a cocktail lounge and begins to consume copious amounts of alcohol, the bar is required to “cut off the patron,” and is potentially liable if the patron gets into a car and drives home under the influence.
As the number of gamblers in our society increases, and knowledge of those gambling at the casinos become more sophisticated, at what point is the casino more than a mere bystander and becomes an enabler?
Ethically, it is a question that deserves an answer.
Shokar’s case may very well get laughed out of court, or it could signal a new set of considerations for the known gambling addict who exceeds the limits of their compulsion.
Should enablers have a set of ethical expectations placed on them? A serious discussion is warranted.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
