Do problem gamblers need more protection?

Ashton, a 4 0-yea r-old, lived in Leicester, died in April 2021 with huge debt in online gambling.

The Ivan Cartritor Prosecutor, in the conclusion of a Thursday, has no meaningful intervention when Betfair, which was used by Ashton for betting, increased his gambling a few weeks before his death. He said he was worried about it.

According to his betting analysis, he was gambling more frequently and higher.

He often bet on sports such as Austria's Gray Hound Race and women's netball in the early morning and late night.

Ashton had previously confessed to his wife Annie that he was gambling addiction in 2019, and the couple sold their homes to settle 18, 000 pounds borrowed to develop addiction.

He closed himself for six months from the bet fair exchange, which was almost all betting.

However, it recurred, but returned to gambling during the blockade of the pandemic (global epidemic).

Image source: Annie Ashton Image caption

Mrs. Ashton stated that the prosecutor's conclusion was justified the lon g-standing position that gambling had caused her husband's death.

The enrolled person stated that the algorithms adopted by the betting fair to evaluate customer risk did not determine Ashton as a problem gambler, but as "low risk". 。

He missed the opportunity to pause, suppress, and stop Ashton's gambling, and said that betting was more effortless.

Betfair said that he had met all the regulatory standards that were implemented at the time, but should have worked more to help Ashton.

Ashton's death has once again highlighted that it is difficult to balance between the commercial ambitions of Betting companies and the need to protect gamblers from danger.

Psychology of problem gamblers

Professor Mark Griffith, Professor of Notingham Trent University, has been studying the gambling for 37 years, and financial loss has made gambling more destructive than other addiction.

Professor Griffith told the BBC that he often continued to bet even after losing, as a psychology of gambling addicted patients, and continues to bet even if his households are exceeding their limits.

"I feel that gambling addictive people are not going to lose in their hearts, but actually wins a little more.

If that reel was one step further, I got that money ... " This is what is called the psychology of the hiyari hat. "

Image source, Getty Image Image caption

According to the government, the UK has an estimated 300, 000 gambling addicted patients.

The great thing about gambling now is that the company knows what you did online and each one clicked.

"They know how much you use, what games you are playing, and how long you are playing.

"All major gambling companies have predicted and discovered online gambling problems using artificial intelligence."

A new Safe guard introduced by the Gambling Committee last September is AI technology.

The committee promises strict measures to businesses who do not take sufficient measures to prevent gambling.

Image caption

Annie Ashton said he wanted to have a change in the gambling industry.

The Gambling Committee spokesman said to the BBC: "For the past two years (after April 2021), the committee has been forced to execute 42, and the business operators paid more than 90 million pounds due to deficiencies in regulation. There is.

"This is an unprecedented measure against gambling companies, but now there are signs of improvement.

"We are in the process of carrying out the recent white paper of the government.

"As part of this, we have discussed bonus offers and safety measures to prevent the incentives from being overly or harmful to gamble, set further product management for more secure online games, and business operators economically vulnerable. We will identify some consumers and take measures to take measures, and work on gambling that is unacceptable through unusual friction.

Do the new gambling safeguards go far enough?

Professor Griffith said that Britain is currently having the strictest regulations in the world and most people are gambling without any problems.

However, Professor Griffith believes that the "free bonus bet", which is recognized under new regulations, should be restricted or canceled.

"For a problematic gambler, this is an urge and a chance to get started," he says.

We also believe that sel f-regulation should be obliged.

"By mandatory playive lakes, if you play for one hour, you want your account to be shut down for a certain period of time.

"When you enter the site, you have to enter how much you can lose, and you can set the time limit.

How many are affected by problem gambling?

According to the government, the UK has an estimated 300, 000 gambler, which is the highest in online casino games.

The campaign organization "Gambling with Lives" supports more than 80 families who "lost people with suicide by gambling."

Strategic Director Will Prochaska said that the issues raised in Ashton's case were too familiar.

"When we think we should intervene, it is shocking that the operator does not intervene.

"The gambling committee imposes a fine is a business operator who has failed in the same way as this case, and it seems sad, the fine of the Gambling Committee does not seem to change the business of the business.

"The most shocking is that the industry is continuing to play a scenario that there are only a few individuals who are in danger of gambling, and that is not a fact.

Image source: SVETIKD

"Every product designed to be addicted and sold to people can be addicted.

Ian Brown, Chief Executive Officer of Fratter UKI, the parent company of Betfair, said: "Flutter UKI does the right thing and creates an environment where customers can enjoy our products in a safe and sustainable way. I'm doing my best.

"Flutter UKI is doing the right thing and working hard to create an environment where customers can enjoy products in a safe and sustainable way.

"Of course, I will incorporate the new lessons from this tragic case into our system and process."

If you are affected by the issues in this article, you can ask for help with BBC Action Line.

Follow the BBC East Midruns on Facebook, External, Twitter, External, or Instagram, to EastMidsnews@bbbc. co. uk.

Protecting the public from being harmed or exploited by gambling and the gambling industry

All members of society have the right to live in unnecessary and preventive risks in the practice of gambling products and gambling industries, regardless of whether they are lan d-based or online. Society should not be influenced by the gambling industry marketing strategy. Gambling people should be safe from preventive harm, regardless of the ability to protect themselves.

Ahead of the publication of the Gambling Act Review, Greg Fell, Vice President of the Association of Public Health Directors, and Maggie Lai, Professor at the School of Public Health, have written the following recommendations to Chris Philp, Under Secretary of State for Technology and the Digital Economy, to protect the public from harm and exploitation by gambling and the gambling industry:

Background

All members of society have the right to live in unnecessary and preventive risks in the practice of gambling products and gambling industries, regardless of whether they are lan d-based or online. Society should not be influenced by the gambling industry marketing strategy. Gambling people should be safe from preventive harm, regardless of the ability to protect themselves.

It is difficult to overstate how advances have been made in the design, marketing and accessibility of gambling products in recent decades. These developments have transformed gambling into a commercialised industry based on rapid and intense consumption. 1 The UK has experienced the impact of these changes firsthand. The gambling industry is now a highly profitable, powerful, multinational industry with access to sophisticated technologies that optimise the profitability of marketing techniques and products that have a significant impact on people's lives, health and public policy making. Notably, children and young people are being exposed to gambling marketing and products on an unprecedented scale, creating the next generation of consumers.

The gambling industry has a primary objective to maximize profits. Gambling industry actors, like other private sector actors, are obligated to act in the interest of the company and its shareholders, not consumers. Their primary objective is therefore to ensure that the profits of the company are maintained or increased, whose only source of income is customer losses. Moreover, those harmed by gambling pay a disproportionate share of those profits, and they are often in the most disadvantaged and marginalized communities. 5 The industry’s profits are therefore built on the further impoverishment of already-struggling communities, creating an insurmountable conflict of interest between harm and efforts to reduce inequity. 6, 7

While some people may enjoy certain gambling products, the risks of harm are generally not well known to the public, and many experience a range of harms, including those who are harmed by others’ gambling involvement. Some of these harms, including those with mental health, economic and social impacts5, 8, 9, are not documented or quantified, but are nevertheless experienced by the general public. From a public health perspective, the gambling industry’s business model presents an inherent conflict of interest; the more money it obtains from the general public, the greater the profits for the industry, while at the same time increasing the risk of harm to gamblers, their families and communities. Furthermore, funds raised from gambling activities are a precarious form of funding that often comes from those who can least afford it or who have experienced harm, which directly contradicts the government’s commitment to strengthening resilience and “levelling up” the UK post-COVID-19.

The gambling industry is well-positioned to downplay the scale of risks and harms posed by its products and practices, and it benefits from the lack of independent and robust research into the impacts of the gambling industry and gambling policies. This practice and other strategies employed by the gambling industry are well known in other industries, such as tobacco, fossil fuels, alcohol, lead and pharmaceuticals, and have been employed for decades to protect corporate profits at the expense of public health. 10, 11

Sustainable funding of public health approach to gambling

Sustainable funding of public health measures to address gambling harms is clearly critical. The current situation in which gambling research, education and treatment are funded primarily through voluntary contributions from the industry and regulatory fines is deeply problematic and not commensurate with the burden of harm. It goes without saying that the introduction of any funding mechanism should be directly linked to regulatory interventions to reduce harm. If benefits are not reduced, they may not be considered to be reducing harm.

Recommendations

A sustainable funding model needs to meet several criteria:

• First, we need sufficient funding to address the level and breadth of harm that the industry's practices and the nature of its products cause to society. There should be an agreed and transparent commitment on the proportion of funding allocated directly to preventing and reducing gambling harm.
• Second, we need absolute transparency on how funding will be managed, the governance framework and the industry's direct or indirect influence in this area. There should also be a stronger role for the DHSC.
• Third, we need clear and publicized objectives of the levy, i. e. to change individual and/or industry behavior or simply to fund public health-related activities, on which any prescribed form of levy or tax is based. Robust mechanisms should be established to mitigate the potential negative effects of any new funding system.
• Fourth, while the current public clarification around funding focused on treatment and research is welcome and necessary, these activities themselves have limited impact on population-level harm and regulatory measures are still needed, and prevention activities at local, regional and national levels also require funding and associated policy measures to be effective.
• Finally, there needs to be a clear and transparent process for the ongoing monitoring and review of the levy itself and the activities funded by it. There should be regular checkpoints to assess this. Firstly, there needs to be sufficient funding to address the level and breadth of harm to society caused by the industry's practices and the nature of the product. There needs to be an agreed and transparent commitment on the proportion of funding allocated directly to preventing and reducing gambling harm.

Secondly, there needs to be absolute transparency on how the funds are managed, the governance framework and the industry's direct or indirect influence in this area. There should also be a stronger role for the DHSC.

Marketing and promotion

Thirdly, there needs to be a clear and publicised objective of the levy, i. e. to change individual and/or industry behaviour or simply to fund public health related activities, on which the adoption of a given form of levy or tax is based. Robust mechanisms should be established to mitigate the potential negative impacts of any new funding system.

Calls for a ‘public health approach’

Fourth, while the current public clarification around funding focused on treatment and research is welcome and necessary, these activities themselves have limited impact on population-level harm and regulatory measures are still needed, as well as prevention activities at local, regional and national levels, which require funding and associated policy instruments to be effective.

Finally, there needs to be a clear and transparent process for ongoing monitoring and review of the levy itself and the activities funded by it. There should be regular checkpoints to evaluate this. First of all, there needs to be sufficient funding to address the level and breadth of harm that the industry's practices and the nature of the product cause to society. There needs to be an agreed and transparent commitment on the proportion of funding allocated directly to preventing and reducing gambling harm.

Second, there needs to be absolute transparency on how the funding will be managed, the governance framework and the industry's direct or indirect influence in this area. There should also be a stronger role for the DHSC.

A ‘public health approach’ to gambling harms

Third, there needs to be a clear and publicized objective of the levy, i. e. to change individual and/or industry behavior, or simply to fund public health-related activities, on which a given form of levy or tax is based. Robust mechanisms should be established to mitigate the potential negative effects of the new funding system.

Fourth, while the current public clarification around funding focused on treatment and research is welcome and necessary, these activities themselves have limited impact on population-level harm and regulatory measures are still needed, and prevention activities at local, regional and national levels also require funding and associated policy instruments to be effective.

Finally, there is a need for a clear and transparent process for ongoing monitoring and review of the levy itself and the activities funded by it. Regular checkpoints should be established to evaluate this.

It should be recognized that the acceptance of gambling revenues also leads to a situation in which governments and other organizations become dependent on the gambling industry, creating conflicts of interest that impede policymaking and harm prevention actions, and that such actions threaten this source of funding. 12, 13 Such dependencies and conflicts of interest pose major, often invisible, challenges to public health. It is important to take these into account when weighing the merits and demerits of a sustainable funding model for public health prevention based directly on industry levies. Overall, the evidence on the relationship between consumer behavior and the price of gambling is inconclusive, and it is likely that the levy will be priced at the product or payout level (to protect profits) and this cost will be passed on to consumers. Gamblers will therefore pay the price of the levy, but will not experience a corresponding reduction in use. However, if taxes or fees are applied at a high and consistent rate, they are likely to influence the behavior of gambling operators. 7 Due to the nature of gambling, the possibility that a levy or tax may be regressive must be considered, especially during a cost-of-living crisis. There are significant moral dangers inherent in the use of gambling revenues that require detailed consideration. 14 It is clear that these and other considerations warrant a public debate.

Recommendations

• Marketing and promotional strategies, not just sponsorships, should be subject to review of gambling laws. The assertion that there is no “proof of causation” of a direct link between such activities and harm is a blinding factor and undermines productive debate, especially in light of evidence from other industries. Such a framework overlooks the complex interplay between the various marketing exposures and normalization processes that influence gambling activity. The industry is increasingly investing huge amounts of money, hundreds of millions of pounds, in developing marketing strategies that leverage rapidly advancing technology. They would not do so if there was no evidence that marketing leads to greater consumption or a wider consumer base. Given that we know that greater consumption leads to greater harm at both individual and population levels, it is crucial for governments to act in the interest of public health to regulate marketing and promotion. Furthermore, industry-funded and driven research on the impacts of gambling marketing should be subject to independent peer review and reanalysis before being used in policymaking in this area, given the existence of conflicts of interest.
• Recently, the understanding of the damage and spread of gambling in the UK has progressed, causing important and serious changes to public opinion and policy controversy on gambling. Along with this, the adoption of a "public hygienic approach" for gambling harm has been required, and the British government, in particular, recognizes the harm of the current gambling system as a public health problem. The government's obligations that protect and promote the health of the British people for so long, despite the fact that the gambling law was enacted in 2005, was a gambling industry society. It has been left to the responsibilities (CSR) activities. 10, 15 Promotion and protection of the health and other human rights are the core functions and obligations of the government and its public institutions. Furthermore, the current regulatory authorities are dependent on licensing fees from the industry, and recent reports by Public Affairs Commitment and National Auditors (National Audit Office) to protect the interests of the people. Important abilities and lack of data have been revealed. 16, 17 Some policies have been made in response to the growing concerns regarding harmful power, but many of them have a positive progress, but many of them are led by industry, cooperation with the industry, and / or gradually. It is a problem that it was reluctant. The transparency of policy planning is a minimum, and there is no solid independent policy plan. < SPAN> Recently, the understanding of the damage and spread of gambling in the UK has progressed, causing important and serious changes to public opinion and policy controversy on gambling. Along with this, the adoption of a "public hygienic approach" for gambling harm has been required, and the British government, in particular, recognizes the harm of the current gambling system as a public health problem. The government's obligations that protect and promote the health of the British people for so long, despite the fact that the gambling law was enacted in 2005, was a gambling industry society. It has been left to the responsibilities (CSR) activities. 10, 15 Promotion and protection of the health and other human rights are the core functions and obligations of the government and its public institutions. Furthermore, the current regulatory authorities are dependent on licensing fees from the industry, and recent reports by Public Affairs Commitment and National Auditors (National Audit Office) to protect the interests of the people. Important abilities and lack of data have been revealed. 16, 17 Some policies have been made in response to the growing concerns regarding harmful power, but many of them have a positive progress, but many of them are led by industry, cooperation with the industry, and / or gradually. It is a problem that it was reluctant. The transparency of policy planning is a minimum, and there is no solid independent policy plan. Recently, the understanding of the damage and spread of gambling in the UK has progressed, causing important and serious changes to public opinion and policy controversy on gambling. Along with this, the adoption of a "public hygienic approach" for gambling harm has been required, and the British government, in particular, recognizes the harm of the current gambling system as a public health problem. The government's obligations that protect and promote the health of the British people for so long, despite the fact that the gambling law was enacted in 2005, was a gambling industry society. It has been left to the responsibilities (CSR) activities. 10, 15 Promotion and protection of the health and other human rights are the core functions and obligations of the government and its public institutions. Furthermore, the current regulatory authorities are dependent on licensing fees from the industry, and recent reports by Public Affairs Commitment and National Auditors (National Audit Office) to protect the interests of the people. Important abilities and lack of data have been revealed. 16, 17 Some policies have been made in response to the growing concerns regarding harmful power, but many of them have a positive progress, but many of them are led by industry, cooperation with the industry, and / or gradually. It is a problem that it was reluctant. The transparency of policy planning is a minimum, and there is no solid independent policy plan.

• The scale of the problem has been assessed by Public Health England, which concluded that 0. 5% of the population engages in problem gambling and that 7% of the UK population is adversely affected by gambling. 5 This equates to over 4 million people in England and over 5 million people across the UK, meaning that 1 in 12 people are directly or indirectly affected by gambling-related harm. The distribution of these adverse effects is unequal and unfair, with the greatest burden and risk of harmful gambling experienced by socio-economically disadvantaged, underprivileged and minority groups. These adverse effects can affect a wide range of factors essential to health, including mental and physical health, social relationships, finances, access to housing and energy, employment and education. Problem gambling prevalence surveys alone are insufficient to measure all problem gambling, its lifetime prevalence and trends over time. 7 The scale of funding needs to be commensurate with the scale of harm. Currently, the total cost of harm, which is disproportionately incurred by marginalized and disadvantaged groups, far exceeds the amounts recovered from the industry, much of which goes to poorly-founded industry-preferred measures that do not threaten industry profits. Gambling harm is thus a problem of injustice, injustice and unfairness.
• A public health approach to gambling harm is clearly justified. Unfortunately, however, this has not yet translated into coherent public health strategies or effective actions. If we are to prioritize the public’s health, we need to transform the way we understand gambling and regulate the industry. Such transformation is possible and supported by the public. Here we present key policy objectives that explain a) what a public health approach to gambling harm means and b) how this should be implemented.
• A public health approach is one that is guided by a vision that prioritizes public health and is based on core values ​​and principles, such as human rights, fairness and collective responsibility. 10, 11
• The harm of gambling already reflects social and healthy inequality and can affect everyone, but vulnerable in mental hygiene, shortage of income, age, gender, races, ethnic groups, etc. The greater the gender, the greater the harm. Anyone may be more susceptible to gambling harm somewhere in life. Currently, there are gambling policy systems and industries that create, worsen, and abuse vulnerabilities, contrary to the government's duty of protecting the health and welfare of everyone. The opportunity to intervene to reduce risks, harm, and future harm occurs before someone reaches the level of gambling, and many individuals and families are in a crisis, 5, 18, 19; Therefore, fair and effective solutions do not focus on clinical or personal interventions, but cannot focus on the structural, context, and commercial factors of harm.

Shifting understanding and framing gambling harms informed by public health evidence

Actions to prevent harm are not only for the most risky or the weakest person, but in all population. Gambling harm is complicated, so a comprehensive and evidenc e-based policy framework is needed. Such an approach is to prevent harm by dealing with the driving force of gambling on both online and land. For example, restrict the possibility (including location, business hours, age restrictions) and marketing (including advertising, sponsors, product design, arrangement, price, and other promotions), easy to understand and effective. Providing information that covers gambling and providing independent treatmen t-based services based on evidence. This allows you to support various harms experienced by being involved in gambling in all forms, while avoiding stigma to those who experience harm.

This view is supported by no n-commercial and personal stakeholders 5 and 20, including people with gambling real experiences. Such an approach requires cros s-sectional cooperation, and from evidence and experience gained when dealing with harm associated with other harmful industries and products, to the industrial and its products. It is necessary to focus and limit advertising, ease of use, ease of use, and ease of purchase. < SPAN> Gambling harm has already reflected social and healthy inequality and may affect everyone, but mental hygiene, shortage of income, age, gender, race, ethnic groups, etc. The more vulnerable, the greater the harm. Anyone may be more susceptible to gambling harm somewhere in life. Currently, there are gambling policy systems and industries that create, worsen, and abuse vulnerabilities, contrary to the government's duty of protecting the health and welfare of everyone. The opportunity to intervene to reduce risks, harm, and future harm occurs before someone reaches the level of gambling, and many individuals and families are in a crisis, 5, 18, 19; Therefore, fair and effective solutions do not focus on clinical or personal interventions, but cannot focus on the structural, context, and commercial factors of harm.

Actions to prevent harm are not only for the most risky or the weakest person, but in all population. Gambling harm is complicated, so a comprehensive and evidenc e-based policy framework is needed. Such an approach is to prevent harm by dealing with the driving force of gambling on both online and land. For example, restrict the possibility (including location, business hours, age restrictions) and marketing (including advertising, sponsors, product design, arrangement, price, and other promotions), easy to understand and effective. Providing information that covers gambling and providing independent treatmen t-based services based on evidence. This allows you to support various harms experienced by being involved in gambling in all forms, while avoiding stigma to those who experience harm.

Recommendations

• This view is supported by no n-commercial and personal stakeholders 5 and 20, including people with gambling real experiences. Such an approach requires cros s-sectional cooperation, and from evidence and experience gained when dealing with harm associated with other harmful industries and products, to the industrial and its products. It is necessary to focus and limit advertising, ease of use, ease of use, and ease of purchase. The harm of gambling already reflects social and healthy inequality and can affect everyone, but vulnerable in mental hygiene, shortage of income, age, gender, races, ethnic groups, etc. The greater the gender, the greater the harm. Anyone may be more susceptible to gambling harm somewhere in life. Currently, there are gambling policy systems and industries that create, worsen, and abuse vulnerabilities, contrary to the government's duty of protecting the health and welfare of everyone. The opportunity to intervene to reduce risks, harm, and future harm occurs before someone reaches the level of gambling, and many individuals and families are in a crisis, 5, 18, 19; Therefore, fair and effective solutions do not focus on clinical or personal interventions, but cannot focus on the structural, context, and commercial factors of harm.
• Actions to prevent harm are not only for the most risky or the weakest person, but in all population. Gambling harm is complicated, so a comprehensive and evidenc e-based policy framework is needed. Such an approach is to prevent harm by dealing with the driving force of gambling on both online and land. For example, restrict the possibility (including location, business hours, age restrictions) and marketing (including advertising, sponsors, product design, arrangement, price, and other promotions), easy to understand and effective. Providing information that covers gambling and providing independent treatmen t-based services based on evidence. This allows you to support various harms experienced by being involved in gambling in all forms, while avoiding stigma to those who experience harm.
• This view is supported by no n-commercial and personal stakeholders 5 and 20, including people with gambling real experiences. Such an approach requires cros s-sectional cooperation, and from evidence and experience gained when dealing with harm associated with other harmful industries and products, to the industrial and its products. It is necessary to focus and limit advertising, ease of use, ease of use, and ease of purchase.

Protecting policymaking, regulation, research, education and treatment from industry influence

Adopt a public health framework for gambling that (i) recognises the harmful nature of the gambling industry and the threat that conflicts of interest pose to research, education, treatment and policy-making, and (ii) prioritises the prevention of harm to people who gamble online and land-based gamblers and harm to others. Consider other proven framework approaches, such as tobacco, and adopt a similar comprehensive approach to improve the public health impact of gambling policies.

Develop and mandate an agreed approach to transparency, declaration of interests and identification of trusted partners in the field of gambling harm prevention, and build alliances (e. g. the Obesity Health Alliance) that can work together to further define and support the public health approach.

Through this alliance, build local, regional and national evidence on gambling harm, linking it to other agendas such as the NHS and social care, and incorporate broader measures of gambling harm. Align and ensure coherence with relevant government strategies, such as tobacco control, alcohol and online harms. Test and strengthen this evidence base to inform and prioritise policy recommendations, highlight them to the public where appropriate, and build existing public support for such measures.

Recommendations

• Adopt robust and dynamic regulation of both the industry and the product: Strengthen the independence of the regulator from industry influence and set the primary objective of the regulator and local licensing teams as “aiming to protect the public” rather than “aiming to permit gambling”. Commit the regulator to hold sufficient evidence and capacity to monitor and act in collaboration with local licensing authorities to prevent and reduce harm. Such actions include preventing the co-location of gambling outlets in vulnerable communities, and prohibiting high-risk gambling products, alongside consideration of co-location with other forms of outlets/services where adverse health effects are of concern. Integrating public health considerations into local regulatory processes (e. g. licensing laws that include consideration of cumulative effects) would also demonstrate a clear commitment to reducing harm and acting in the interest of public health. The design of the regulatory structure should be based on evidence of what promotes or hinders acting in the public interest, drawing on the international literature on other regulatory bodies. To take a public health approach, it is essential that people with sufficient public health expertise and experience form part of the regulator, at board level and within staff teams. Develop and improve national policies based on successful practices in other countries on issues related to public health, such as banning advertising and mandatory use of government-issued warnings. Encourage and support similar applications in local policy approaches.
• Recognize the added complexity of the scale and diversity of gambling products and other factors that influence gambling activity, and conduct independent and robust evaluations of implemented gambling policies, including assessment of unintended consequences, use of research to inform policy design, and modeling the potential impact of future policy changes.

• Adopt robust and dynamic regulation of both the industry and products: Strengthen the independence of regulators from industry influence and set the primary objective of regulators and local licensing teams to “seek to protect the public” rather than “seek to permit gambling”. Ensure regulators hold sufficient evidence and capacity, and work with local licensing authorities, to monitor and act to prevent and reduce harm. Such actions include preventing the co-location of gambling outlets in vulnerable communities, and banning high-risk gambling products, alongside consideration of co-location with other forms of outlets/services where adverse health effects are of concern. Incorporating public health considerations into local regulatory processes (e. g., licensing laws that include consideration of cumulative effects) also demonstrates a clear commitment to reducing harm and acting in the interest of public health. The design of regulatory structures should be based on evidence about what promotes or hinders acting in the public interest, drawing on international literature on other regulatory bodies. To take a public health approach, it is essential that people with sufficient public health expertise and experience are part of the regulator, at board level and within staff teams.
• Develop and improve national policies based on successful examples in other countries on issues related to public health, such as banning advertising and mandating the use of government-issued warnings. Encourage and support similar applications in local policy approaches.
• Conduct independent and robust evaluations of gambling policies to be implemented, including assessment of unintended consequences, using research to inform policy design, and modeling the potential impacts of future policy changes, recognizing the added complexity created by the scale and diversity of gambling products and other factors that affect gambling activity. Adopt robust and dynamic regulation of both the industry and the product: Strengthen the independence of the regulator from industry influence and set the primary objective of the regulator and local licensing teams as “aiming to protect the public” rather than “aiming to permit gambling”. Commit the regulator to hold sufficient evidence and capacity to monitor and act in collaboration with local licensing authorities to prevent and reduce harm. Such actions include preventing the co-location of gambling outlets in vulnerable communities, and prohibiting high-risk gambling products, alongside consideration of co-location with other forms of outlets/services where adverse health effects are of concern. Integrating public health considerations into local regulatory processes (e. g. licensing laws that include consideration of cumulative effects) would also demonstrate a clear commitment to reducing harm and acting in the interest of public health. The design of the regulatory structure should be based on evidence of what promotes or hinders acting in the public interest, drawing on the international literature on other regulatory bodies. To take a public health approach, it is essential that people with sufficient public health expertise and experience form part of the regulator, at board level and within staff teams. Develop and improve national policies based on successes in other countries on issues related to public health, such as banning advertising and mandatory use of government-issued warnings. Encourage and support the application of similar approaches to local policy approaches.

Conduct independent and robust evaluations of implemented gambling policies, including assessing unintended consequences, using research to inform policy design, and modeling the potential impacts of future policy changes, recognizing the added complexities created by the scale and diversity of gambling products and other factors that influence gambling activity.

The understanding of the serious nature of gambling and the harm of gambling is that "gambling is fun and safe if you do it for the appropriate reasons in a responsible way." It has been damaged by the story. Like smoking, the general public tends to believe that addiction is due to individual choices, individual negligence, and lack of management. Such a way of thinking about the harm of 15, 21 gambling is in line with the business profits of the gambling industry, and there is little consideration for life and health. Such a framework puts a stigma to the victims and passes responsibility to individuals, including 22, 23 children and young people. 24 As a result, shame loses the willingness to seek support and limits the scope and effects of support and treatment. The gambling industry uses great resources and expertise to form a norm and environment through the sophisticated design and marketing of products that promote inevitable addiction to gambling. I am. Gambling can harm and should not be considered exceptional as other harmful industries. If the limited understanding is given priority over a more comprehensive and fai r-focused viewpoint, you can label all industries that are fun or useful.

References

1. The British people have the right to provide information sources for legal and independent health advice on the importance of gambling, gamblin g-related risks and conflicts of interest. The gambling industry and those who have been funded by it are at risk of conflicts of interest and priority in harm prevention. A considerable proportion of the gambling industry is obtained by people who are experienced in harm and those who may be harmful to others. The gambling industry does not prioritize harm to this day, fines and settlements by regulatory authorities do not suppress harmful corporate behavior, and industries have no public health. < SPAN> Gambling's serious nature and the people's understanding of the harm of gambling is that it has been promoted by successive governments and industries, saying, "If gambling is a responsible method, for the right reason, it is fun and safe. There is "there is" the story. Like smoking, the general public tends to believe that addiction is due to individual choices, individual negligence, and lack of management. Such a way of thinking about the harm of 15, 21 gambling is in line with the business profits of the gambling industry, and there is little consideration for life and health. Such a framework puts a stigma to the victims and passes responsibility to individuals, including 22, 23 children and young people. 24 As a result, shame loses the willingness to seek support and limits the scope and effects of support and treatment. The gambling industry uses great resources and expertise to form a norm and environment through the sophisticated design and marketing of products that promote inevitable addiction to gambling. I am. Gambling can harm and should not be considered exceptional as other harmful industries. If the limited understanding is given priority over a more comprehensive and fai r-focused viewpoint, you can label all industries that are fun or useful.

1. The British people have the right to provide information sources for legal and independent health advice on the importance of gambling, gamblin g-related risks and conflicts of interest. The gambling industry and those who have been funded by it are at risk of conflicts of interest and priority in harm prevention. A considerable proportion of the gambling industry is obtained by people who are experienced in harm and those who may be harmful to others. The gambling industry does not prioritize harm to this day, fines and settlements by regulatory authorities do not suppress harmful corporate behavior, and industries have no public health. The understanding of the serious nature of gambling and the harm of gambling is that "gambling is fun and safe if you do it for the appropriate reasons in a responsible way." It has been damaged by the story. Like smoking, the general public tends to believe that addiction is due to individual choices, individual negligence, and lack of management. Such a way of thinking about the harm of 15, 21 gambling is in line with the business profits of the gambling industry, and there is little consideration for life and health. Such a framework puts a stigma to the victims and passes responsibility to individuals, including 22, 23 children and young people. 24 As a result, shame loses the willingness to seek support and limits the scope and effects of support and treatment. The gambling industry uses great resources and expertise to form a norm and environment through the sophisticated design and marketing of products that promote inevitable addiction to gambling. I am. Gambling can harm and should not be considered exceptional as other harmful industries. If the limited understanding is given priority over a more comprehensive and fai r-focused viewpoint, you can label all industries that are fun or useful.

1. The British people have the right to provide information sources for legal and independent health advice on the importance of gambling, gamblin g-related risks and conflicts of interest. The gambling industry and those who have been funded by it are at risk of conflicts of interest and priority in harm prevention. A considerable proportion of the gambling industry is obtained by people who are experienced in harm and those who may be harmful to others. The gambling industry does not prioritize harm to this day, fines and settlements by regulatory authorities do not suppress harmful corporate behavior, and industries have no public health.

1. To prevent damage, you need a new way to understand and regulate gambling. This is to reconsider the harm of gambling as a group problem, focus on the essence of products and industry practices, avoid personal labels and stories that imply a lack of accusations, willingness, and unique weaknesses. Includes acts to reduce stigma. We should also openly disagree with the use of words and stories that are promoted by industry and other people. It should expose the tricks hired by the industry to draw people into gambling, and inform the general public about the practices and the impact of their actions. 25-28

1. It reflects the risk of gambling harm and adopts a story that tells you that gambling harm can affect anyone. Provides the public of gambling and industry practice to the public, and provides an independent public health message that explains the gap between current knowledge and the reasons. Public health information must remain appropriate, reflecting the progress of the industry, even if the product and marketing strategies change and are sophisticated.

1. Foreign organizations do not play a role in providing public health advice or youth education. OHID should play a leading role in providing public health advisors, warnings and education on gambling with the support of related clinical institutions and academic institutions without interest. The industry should be obliged to present this kind of warning and information issued by the government, led by an approach known as being effective in other harmful product industries.

1. From the viewpoint of public health, it regulates gambling ads and sponsorship. This is a responsibility to prove that the industry and how to sell it is safe, prior to official approval by reformed regulators, mainly to protect the people. Includes to impose (as described above). < SPAN> To prevent damage, you need a new way to understand and regulate gambling. This is to reconsider the harm of gambling as a group problem, focus on the essence of products and industry practices, avoid personal labels and stories that imply a lack of accusations, willingness, and unique weaknesses. Includes acts to reduce stigma. We should also openly disagree with the use of words and stories that are promoted by industry and other people. It should expose the tricks hired by the industry to draw people into gambling, and inform the general public about the practices and the impact of their actions. 25-28

1. It reflects the risk of gambling harm and adopts a story that tells you that gambling harm can affect anyone. Provides the public of gambling and industry practice to the public, and provides an independent public health message that explains the gap between current knowledge and the reasons. Public health information must remain appropriate, reflecting the progress of the industry, even if the product and marketing strategies change and are sophisticated.

1. Foreign organizations do not play a role in providing public health advice or youth education. OHID should play a leading role in providing public health advisors, warnings and education on gambling with the support of related clinical institutions and academic institutions without interest. The industry should be obliged to present this kind of warning and information issued by the government, led by an approach known as being effective in other harmful product industries.

1. From the viewpoint of public health, it regulates gambling ads and sponsorship. This is a responsibility to prove that the industry and how to sell it is safe, prior to official approval by reformed regulators, mainly to protect the people. Includes to impose (as described above). To prevent damage, you need a new way to understand and regulate gambling. This is to reconsider the harm of gambling as a group problem, focus on the essence of products and industry practices, avoid personal labels and stories that imply a lack of accusations, willingness, and unique weaknesses. Includes acts to reduce stigma. We should also openly disagree with the use of words and stories that are promoted by industry and other people. It should expose the tricks hired by the industry to draw people into gambling, and inform the general public about the practices and the impact of their actions. 25-28

1. It reflects the risk of gambling harm and adopts a story that tells you that gambling harm can affect anyone. Provides the public of gambling and industry practice to the public, and provides an independent public health message that explains the gap between current knowledge and the reasons. Public health information must remain appropriate, reflecting the progress of the industry, even if the product and marketing strategies change and are sophisticated.

1. Foreign organizations do not play a role in providing public health advice or youth education. OHID should play a leading role in providing public health advisors, warnings and education on gambling with the support of related clinical institutions and academic institutions without interest. The industry should be obliged to present this kind of warning and information issued by the government, led by an approach known as being effective in other harmful product industries.

1. From the viewpoint of public health, it regulates gambling ads and sponsorship. This is a responsibility to prove that the industry and how to sell it is safe, prior to official approval by reformed regulators, mainly to protect the people. Includes to impose (as described above).

1. Policy drafts in areas that affect health should be protected from the unreasonable effects of the gambling industry, which uses a public health perspective and impairs the nature of harmful harmful and comparison with the product and practices. In order to promote corporate interests, abusing evidence, making false statements, and distorting scientific processes can affect policy decisio n-determining processes and regulations. To For example, the relationship with the industry in this context is justified only when it is regarded as indispensable to promote public interests, such as promoting the implementation of public health policy. Should be. The industry indicates that they do not act under social responsibilities or respect high standards for the use of evidence.

1. In order to be led by evidence, (1) having a vision and a series of values ​​and principles that can support the realization, (2) it is necessary to take an approach to collect this evidence. It is. The use of evidence in policy planning recognizes the value provided by various forms of evidence, and uses the best evidence at hand to protect life, promote health, and prevent harm and unfairness. That is included. We have gambling harm on individuals, groups, economics, and society, and how it affects other health problems such as mental health and violence. You need to show if you are. Programs other than gambling are also worth the benefits of this task. Measurement of harm to society should be performed based on various factors affected and influenced by gambling, not only in the evaluation of problematic gambling.

1. The current funding and providing system for gambling research, treatment, and education is lacking in governance and being dangerous due to conflicts of interest. Evidence is that a system that relys on the income of the industry as a funding source, and the system that includes harmful industries as a partner for dealing with product health damage by product, protecting public health while protecting public health. At the expense of intervention measures based on evidence that has an impact, policies in line with the interests of companies tend to be adopted.

1. This effect is a public health problem. The main focus of gambling policy is to promote public health, which also includes the protection of children and young people, and the right to live and grow in a safe and healthy environment.

1. Based on the established guidelines, we will adopt a clear principle about engagement with industry officials. Formulate and agree with strict processes to review all involved activities, including existing agreements.

1. It is limited to gambling policies from the influence of gambling industries and people who are conflicting interest, limiting opinions from the industry to areas of ability, and being needed to implement already established public health policies. 。

1. Strengthen policy governance, including transparent lobby activities, conflicting interests, political donations and entertainment from the industry, "rotating doors" between governments, civil servants, and gambling industries, such as "rotating doors" between the government, public servants, and gambling. 。

1. Establish a stable and independent funding source to prevent and reduce gambling damage, which is not affected by the industry and does not rely on the industry's revenue. In order to actively avoid contradictory funding sources, labor guidance will be conducted.

1. In summary, gambling has become more and more accessible, beautified, and advertised to a wide range of children, including children. This is a cycle in which gambling is normalized, people touch on harmful and sophisticated products, it is drawn as a fun leisure, and only the chil d-like childish or unfounded measures are taken as a protection measure. Is being created. Once harmful people and families have failed to understand and support, and the harm has worsened. As a result, people are exposed to harmful products, with few policies based on independent evidence to inform and protect the harm of gambling. < SPAN> A clear principle of engagement with industry officials is adopted based on the established guidelines. Formulate and agree with strict processes to review all involved activities, including existing agreements.

1. It is limited to gambling policies from the influence of gambling industries and people who are conflicting interest, limiting opinions from the industry to areas of ability, and being needed to implement already established public health policies. 。

1. Strengthen policy governance, including transparent lobby activities, conflicting interests, political donations and entertainment from the industry, "rotating doors" between governments, civil servants, and gambling industries, such as "rotating doors" between the government, public servants, and gambling. 。

1. Establish a stable and independent funding source to prevent and reduce gambling damage, which is not affected by the industry and does not rely on the industry's revenue. In order to actively avoid contradictory funding sources, labor guidance will be conducted.

1. In summary, gambling has become more and more accessible, beautified, and advertised to a wide range of children, including children. This is a cycle in which gambling is normalized, people touch on harmful and sophisticated products, it is drawn as a fun leisure, and only the chil d-like childish or unfounded measures are taken as a protection measure. Is being created. Once harmful people and families have failed to understand and support, and the harm has worsened. As a result, people are exposed to harmful products, with few policies based on independent evidence to inform and protect the harm of gambling. Based on the established guidelines, we will adopt a clear principle about engagement with industry officials. Formulate and agree with strict processes to review all involved activities, including existing agreements.

1. It is limited to gambling policies from the influence of gambling industries and people who are conflicting interest, limiting opinions from the industry to areas of ability, and being needed to implement already established public health policies. 。

1. Strengthen policy governance, including transparent lobby activities, conflicting interests, political donations and entertainment from the industry, "rotating doors" between governments, civil servants, and gambling industries, such as "rotating doors" between the government, public servants, and gambling. 。