Self-exclusion in a Public Health Environment: An Effective Treatment Option in New Zealand (original) (raw)

• 553 Accesses
• 21 Citations
• 3 Altmetric
• Explore all metrics

Abstract

New Zealand law provides a banning and self-banning system for gambling venues with Video Gaming Machines(VGMs) that reflects the public health emphasis within the New Zealand Gambling Act 2003. The act defines problem gambling as a public health issue. Amongst its provisions is a simple process for self and venue initiated self-exclusion and substantial penalties for venues that allow excluded persons into gambling areas. When combined with defined host responsibilities this places the onus for providing safe gambling on the gambling venues.

This paper contrasts NZ self-exclusion legislation with comparable legislation in some similar jurisdictions. It also pursues a small sample of problem gamblers who have self banned and examines their follow up for up to two years. Measures include the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGs) and the number of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSMIV) criteria of pathological gambling before and after self-banning.

The findings suggest that self-exclusion is an effective treatment tool for the group of clients who have the extreme difficulty controlling their gambling in other ways, and may be more effective in the public health gambling environment.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

• Australia’s Gambling Industries (1999). Australian Productivity Commission Public Enquiry. Online URL: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/gambling/finalreport/index.html January 2007.
• British Columbia Lotteries Corporation (2002). Voluntary self-exclusion programs. Online URL: http://www.bclc.com/cm/playresponsibly/ourprograms/selfexclusioninformation.htm Accessed 10/10/06.
• Department of Internal Affairs (2006). Gambits. Newsletter of Gambling Compliance June. Online URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/GambitsJune06.pdf/$file/GambitsJune06.pdf Accessed 10/10/06.
• Gambling Act 2003 (2003). Wellington: NZ Government. On line URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/act0351/$file/act0351.pdf Assessed 10/10/06.
• Gambling Harm Prevention and Minimisation Regulations 2004. (2004). Wellington: NZ Government. On line URL: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Reg2004276/$file/Reg2004276.pdf#search=%22Gambling%20%202004%22 Accessed 10/10/06.
• Illinois Administrative Code. (2005). Title 86: Revenue. Chapter IV: Illinois Gaming Board Part 3000 Riverboat gambling Subpart G. Exclusion of persons Title 86 3000 Section 770. Duties of Owner Licensees. Online URL http://www.igb.state.il.us/whatsnew/750thru793june02.pdf Accessed 10/10/06.
• Ladoucer, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, F. F., & Leblond, J. (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(4), 453–460.
  Article Google Scholar
• Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 14(9), 1184–1188.
  Google Scholar
• McCullough, L. B., Chervenack, F. A., & Coverdale, J. H. (1996). Ethically justified guidelines for defining sexual boundaries between obstetrician-gynaecologists and their patients. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 496–500.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health (2005). Problem Gambling Intervention Services Statistics. 2004. Wellington: MOH.
  Google Scholar
• Missouri Gambling Commission, Department of Public Safety (2003). Voluntary exclusion programme for problem gamblers. Application for placement on the list of disassociated persons. Online URL: http://www.mgc.dps.mo.gov/frameset.html Assessed 10/10/06.
• Napolitano, F. (2003). The self-exclusion program: Legal and clinical considerations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(3), 303–315.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• National Council on Problem Gambling. (2003). NCPG Task Force on self-exclusion. Current voluntary exclusion practices. Online URL: http://www.ncpgambling.org/about_problem/self_exclusion_report.asp Accessed 10/10/06.
• Norwatzki, N., & Williams, R. (2002). Casinos self-exclusion programmes. A review of issues. International Journal of Gambling Studies, 2, 3–25. July.
  Google Scholar
• South Australia Centre for Economic Studies. (2003). The evaluation of self-exclusion programs and harm minimisation measures. Report A. Prepared for the Gambling Research Panel, Victoria. On line URL: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/saces/publications/consultancy/CompleteReportSelfExclusionA.pdf Assessed 10//10/06.
• Stewart, R. M., & Brown, R. I. (1988). An outcome study of Gamblers Anonymous. British Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 284–288.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Auckland, New Zealand
   Philip Townshend

Authors

1. Philip Townshend
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toPhilip Townshend.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Townshend, P. Self-exclusion in a Public Health Environment: An Effective Treatment Option in New Zealand.Int J Ment Health Addiction 5, 390–395 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9075-7

Download citation

• Received: 03 January 2007
• Accepted: 12 April 2007
• Published: 15 June 2007
• Issue Date: October 2007
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-007-9075-7

Keywords