Eventually, the casino operator exposed to a type of preventive legislation Loi Evin.
A thorny issue shakes the casino sector for several months. It concerns the issue of banned game, players “compulsive” and the impoverishment of indebtedness, the consequences of excessive practice fun. As for alcohol or tobacco (Loi Evin), casino operators may be afraid to run a tightening of legislation, individual or collective complaints of gamers (or their families) who would be ruined by playing slot machines As (MAS), or committed suicide as a result of leisure-financial setbacks. Steps that could result in costly compensation, the court cases that can destroy an image that casinos have taken years to rebuild.
This problem concerns all operators including the French play and games (JDF) and the PMU. But for the time of ignorance, convenience and interest the Government decided that only the casinos would be in their sights. Given the impressive growth rate of banned casino for 2002 (+ 74.35%) but in the absence of a statistical database updated by the Branch & racing games (SDCJ) threatened the casino operator to impose an identity check at the entrance halls of slot machines, as exists for the “big” games.
The services also SDCJ worry much higher banned game “volunteers” as the fact that some continue to frequent the casino despite the ban. Under the auspices of the Cabinet of Minister of Interior at the time (Nicolas Sarkozy) working group has met on several occasions. He led after protracted negotiations behind the scenes to sign a statement of conclusions favorable to the casino operator and very concerning in particular the following points:
approval of personnel (the time taken to accreditation decisions are accelerated);
investment (the investment requirement prior to filing the application to operate a casino is no longer required)
animation (it now means in a broad sense, inside and outside the casino walls);
the situation of small casinos (they can now operate with a single MAS board game: the ball);
increase the park (MAS are now taken into account the need for off-MAS peak days: weekends, holidays …).
In return, the casino operator and two trade unions (and Casinos France Casinos modern France) were engaged in the statement of claim to “define and implement a proactive policy of prevention, mindful of the risks that could create among players and their relatives play a practice that can lead to excessive dependence “. Then, under a charter signed at Paris September 24, 2003 (as displayed in the farms), the casino operator indicated that commitment by eight points.
The casino operator tried to give assurances of their commitment to strictly follow the code of good intentions signed. They financed flyers, hotlines, information campaigns and training kit to prevent …
The union Casinos France finances even curiously SOS Players, which has always fought vigorously in the media and gambling in general, casinos and slot machines in particular. Only the group Partouche has not yielded to pressures used by the association to get money. He created his own company outsourced “independent” to counsel troubled players, a structure that will be difficult to convince governments of its “independence” and its jurisdiction.
Because it is naturally on the issue of funding and independence of these structures to prevent the rub right now. Casinotier groups and two unions wanted total control measures that would respond to “concerns” of the regulatory authorities on gambling. In the case of SOS Players can even question the seriousness of this alliance against nature and wonder if there is not really a pathetic collusion of interests.
Without a sufficient dialogue (especially between independent groups and casinos), the powerful groups casinotier and union representation, refusing to take into account the complexity of the case seem to want to sink with it in “Quebec syndrome” . In Quebec in effect for over ten years, the operator entertaining history (Loto Quebec), which funded and supervised the research and studies on the prevalence of problem gambling for the benefit of the psychologist Robert Ladouceur. Faced with this contradiction and the result of campaigns by both intellectuals and researchers who specialize in gambling (play) and associations to help players truly independent, the Quebec government has radically altered this fact. It is now the Department of Health and Social Services and the Quebec Fund for Research on society and culture that ensures the objectivity of research and prevention campaigns planned in the Government Action Plan (2002-2005) heavily staffed.
If everything is not settled in Quebec to “maintain an acceptable balance between the supply of gambling and gambling problems, this country has the means (scientific and financial) to address the issue of problem gambling, unlike to France, which for the moment, merely a few scoops heterogeneous decided by the casino operator.
From 2001, the few French researchers who have worked for years on many people affected by gambling (not just on the casino players) yet had alerted the authorities about the need to quickly create a National Observatory practices fun. Organization may also scientific interest (sociological, socio-economic, statistical, historical …)
assess the overall benefits and disadvantages resulting from the provision of games (including as regards the Internet fun: cybercasinos, lotteries online …)
promote dialogue between governments and operators play;
to promote information and player protection;
lay the groundwork for a playful consumerism;
address the lack of study and expertise on gambling. The Court of Auditors had itself condemned this deficiency in its 2001 progress report, noting: that “no state service is responsible for assessing the economic, social and medical supply development games. In 2002, the report of Senator Trucy had also stressed the “lack of political games, the gaps in sociological and epidemiological research on the players.”
But it is clear that these calls were not heard. The State has to take the initiative to bring together all stakeholders, mobilize the skills to set up a second time structures (regulatory body, observatory, Institute …). The main players play (FDJ, PMU, casinos …) that are in fierce competition and which logically defend their turf, will never do for themselves. In addition, it is not their job!
A major national conference, to be held at the Palais du Luxembourg in July 2004, could break the deadlock. It would have the distinguished participants announced (deputies, senators, mayors, casino patrons, researchers …) to answer the question: “Which policy for gambling and money in France and Europe?” Unfortunately, after having been postponed to September 2004, the event was eventually canceled. The PMU and FDJ refused to participate! That says a lot about the interests at stake and the unwillingness of these two operators to change the political games that France needs.
For cons, the international colloquium organized by the Centre Jacques Cartier, Lyon (held in Montreal in October 2004) was a great success. Hope that this is an opportunity for regulators and operators play some that were represented at the highest level to inform government policy on the new Quebec government in the prevalence of problem gambling and research on gambling .
For it is of course to the public to develop and co-finance research organizations, expertise, measurement, control and prevention which concern all the games of chance and not only casino games . It’s not fun for the three operators, which can only co indirectly, in well-defined limits, to do so. These organizations must remain independent and act responsibly, but in the public interest.
Jean-Pierre MARTIGNONI HUTIN sociologist
Light at the university
Lyon II.
