There’s psychological research revealing that gambling addicts intentionally, though on a subconscious level, play games of chance until they lose everything. Gambling addicts are known for this kind of defeatist behavior in order to subconsciously feel justified in their post-large-monetary-loss self-flogging of their own psyches. (This formidable symptom of a gambling addiction can reach an extreme, one example having been aptly demonstrated in the film Owning Mahowny).

Thus, I’m left somewhat discouraged by the prevalence of fellow human beings who in contented-conscience procure and retain employment involving the exploitation of gambling addicts. While one might expect such disgracefulness from privately-owned casinos, one would expect better from a government-owned and -operated lotteries/games entity, which in my province comes in the form of British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

Unfortunately, it’s using the weaknesses of its more ‘loyal’ consumers, especially those with obsessive-compulsive tendencies. It tokenly offers gambling-addiction-withdrawal counselling services — as well as their ads’ quite insufficient “Know your limit, play within it” and/or “If you gamble, use your GameSense … 19+”. But it all hardly suffices for the significant and often irreparable financial damage done to addicts and their families.

And then there was/is BCLC’s audaciously and hypocritically self-serving “jackpot disentitlement rule” aspect of the formal “voluntary exclusion [request]” policy that falls under the Gaming Control Act. It enabled both publicly and privately owned lottery/gaming entities to withhold, ergo confiscate, sizeable winnings from addicts who had signed onto the ethically inexcusable agreement (presumably since then amended in compliance with the court’s ruling).

However, those large-profit gambling interests would permit themselves to keep any and all betting losses suffered by addicts who had signed the “voluntary exclusion [request]” form but still managed to access the casino.

A lawyer representing two plaintiffs who had their large winnings withheld by BCLC, though later ordered by a court to be rightfully handed back over to the plaintiffs, said that he had hoped the ruling would have retroactively ordered all such withheld winnings to be returned to their gambling-addict owners, regardless of the exclusionary agreement. “The lottery corporation had no right to withhold the winnings as a penalty [while] they’re taking both the losings and the winnings.”