|
THE question of legislating private behaviour is a complex and vexed one.
While most would agree that the State has a duty to protect its citizens
against harm, the implementation of that duty is very much a matter of
debate.
If a chemical company allows toxic wastes to escape from its property, and
that waste poses a genuine threat to those who live nearby, most of us would
not only approve of government intervention to solve the issue, but would
regard it as a government responsibility to do so.
And if our coastal towns and villages should be threatened by increasingly
high tides, we would applaud a government initiative calculated to protect
those settlements, and retard the progress of the sea.
Translated to human behaviour, however, the same level of protection and
defence against perceived dangers and ills could seem a stifling
interference in our private lives.
Take cigarette smoking.
Global scientific and medical opinion long ago decided that the inhalation
of tobacco smoke was a dangerous habit.
The world community was encouraged to cease smoking, and major campaigns
sought to make us all aware of the dangers to our health if we continued
that custom.
Up to that point, few would quarrel with the stance of governments.
But once the next step was taken, opinions began to change.
When governments start to ban smoking in recreational environments such as
sporting stadiums and parklands, many people cried foul.
That, they maintained, was an invasion of their rights to smoke if they so
chose.
Further, they claimed, that right remained despite their own knowledge that
the custom of smoking may in some cases kill them.
A second example is the sport of gambling. Reports yesterday indicated that
the number of poker machine players at licensed clubs has sharply declined
since the imposition of the K50 minimum bet came into place.
Many in the PNG community will cheer loudly at this news.
Their cry has long been “ban the pokies!”
The basis for their opposition to the pokies lies in the damage caused to
families and individuals by excessive playing of the game. This is widely
recognized, both by politicians and by ordinary members of the community.
We are all familiar with the inveterate gambler glued to his machine,
willing that mindless hulk of metal to produce some money to at least
compensate him for what is often a huge investment of his hard-earned cash.
And many of us weep for his wife, faced with no money for food, for medical
help, for school fees, or for other household necessities.
That man cannot stop gambling.. It is a recognized illness, similar to
alcoholism, and it needs the help of a social or welfare worker to help
bring about a cure.
Yet despite these obvious examples of social disruption caused by gambling
on the pokies, there are hundreds of players who will continue their games,
and for whom the financial and extended family impact remains small.
These are the club patrons who have money to spare, or those whose gambling
habit is occasional and controlled.
The pokies operations of many of these clubs contribute to the upkeep and
development of facilities for players and members alike.
Removal of pokies profits will have a negative effect on the ability of
clubs to maintain facilities for their members and patrons.
And there is a growing number of our people employed at one level or another
in the gambling industry. Many may lose their jobs as a result of a
permanent downturn in poker machine player numbers.
Those opposed to the industry will insist that such outcomes are a tiny
price to pay for the tremendous amount of good the reduction in gambling
opportunities and ultimate removal of the industry could bring.
These are not matters that can be easily resolved.
The people must express their views, and those views should take a measured
and thoughtful approach to the subjects in the spotlight.
PNG already has an unenviable reputation for knee-jerk reactions to many
major issues.
These concerns that materially affect our well-being, and the future of our
children, should be fully and carefully debated, and only then should
decisions be implemented.
A reasoned and mutually acceptable solution is called for.
|
