Agreed. I see the point behind the campaign for regulation of...

Agreed. I see the point behind the campaign for regulation of gaming companies, especially pokies, but find it silly to the point of offensive. And not because I'm an investor in a gaming company.

There are addicts, we all know that. Those people should be supported and prevented from gambling money they can't afford to lose. No argument there. As with alcohol, some people just can't handle their intake and don't know when to stop, so they need government intervention to help. But like the majority of people who simply enjoy having a drink and are not alcoholics, I don't imagine that everyone who gambles has a problem. It's over the top to throw everyone who just enjoys having a bet into the pool of problem gamblers and legislating on that basis.

If governments really want to help problem gamblers, they might do better to focus on lotteries and horse racing. But really they need look no further than the stock market. That's an unregulated casino, in which people can spend and lose as much as they want, unchecked. No rules to throw them out when they've passed a mandatory limit. No background checks to see if they're financially capable and informed. No regulation of the people who "advise" them (is there really a difference between Motley Fool and a taxi driver?). Punters in this casino can even borrow for the purpose, euphemistically known as margin lending. This casino is rigged against small players, has a range of dubious products that are available to novices and pros alike, indemnity for the boards of companies who can trash the punter's wealth, and has no required return rate (as with a poker machines and lotteries).

I don't know where the line between gambling and investing lies any more.