Gaming industry tries understanding new problem gambling rules

John Wilen

Thursday, March 25, 1999 | 11:40 a.m.

At what point does gambling become a problem?

Is it when you've gambled away a hundred dollars more than you planned? Is it when you can't resist the urge to head straight for the casino after work? Or is it when you begin to embezzle money to finance your habit?

"When does it become a problem?" asks Carol O'Hare, executive director of the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, rhetorically. "When it begins to affect that person's life."

With gambling machines in virtually every grocery store, drug store, convenience store and gas station in Nevada, not to mention scores of bars, restaurants and casinos, it is easy to understand how one with a proclivity to gamble beyond the limits of their financial means or mental well-being could get into trouble.

And it is largely for that reason that Nevada's gambling regulators last year passed a regulation intended to increase awareness of problem gambling.

The regulation is brand new. Provisions requiring the posting of gambling addiction hotlines and literature went into effect Jan. 1, while provisions requiring establishments to train employees and let customers limit their access to credit lines and promotional programs just went into effect March 1.

The regulation was written by the Nevada Gaming Control Board, with input from the gambling industry, and passed by the Nevada Gaming Commission.

At a recent Casino Management Association seminar on problem gambling, panelists like O'Hare explained the new regulations and answered a bevy of questions about how to implement them from an audience of about 100 casino executives.

Other panelists included Punam Mathur, government and community relations director for Mirage Resorts Inc.; Bob Faiss, the influential gaming attorney who represented the Nevada Resort Association during the drafting of the new problem gambling regulations; and Todd Westergard, research specialist for the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Mathur started the seminar by noting how quickly problem gambling has caught on as an issue.

"Problem gambling, when I started two to three years ago, wasn't something we would get together in a room this big to talk about," said Mathur.

Several panelists commended the gambling industry for supporting the push to address problem gambling.

"The significance of the industry's acknowledgment of problem gambling is huge," said Westergard.

If the industry had chosen to fight the regulations instead of working with regulators, much time would have been wasted just achieving a consensus that problem gambling is an issue, let alone drafting regulations to do something about it, said Westergard.

Mathur speculated that the gambling industry realized it was up against a wall. With the federally appointed National Gambling Impact Study Commission due to issue a report on the impact of gambling on society this summer, the industry may well have felt it was time to act or be forced to act, she said.

"Maybe they understood that if we didn't do something ourselves, others would get together to do it for us," said Mathur.

"It appears likely that the attention paid to problem gambling in the commission's final report will be considerable," said Westergard.

Indeed, the new regulations were passed on the eve of the commission's visit to Las Vegas last fall.

But regardless of the timing of or reasons behind the new regulations, the important fact is that they are in place, said Westergard.

"Whether the end result is achieved out of obligation or compassion doesn't matter," said Westergard.

The new proactive approach gives Nevada a chance to establish a leadership role in the eyes of the rest of the country, said Faiss.

"I remember the dark days when Nevada was looked down upon," Faiss said.

O'Hare agreed, noting that officials in other gaming jurisdictions are now paying close attention to Nevada's approach toward problem gambling.

"We have a regulation that others are now looking at," said O'Hare.

O'Hare hastened to assure executives that the Council on Problem Gambling is not anti-gambling. In fact, gaming companies contribute to its budget.

"We are neutral on gambling," said O'Hare. "What we don't want to do is become your enemy."

Rather, the council is a place industry executives can turn to for help in following the regulations, including ordering signs and brochures and training employees. The council offers one hour and fifteen minute open-enrollment training for employees of smaller gambling establishments, and four hour train-the-trainer classes for larger operations that want to train their employees in-house.

The training component is a very important piece of the new regulation, said O'Hare. After all, the main goal of the regulation is to create awareness that gambling addiction is real, and treatable.

"A level of awareness that would be appropriate for people working day in and day out on the gaming floor is not going to be accomplished by (brochures) alone," said O'Hare. "The most important value of this training that we see is the knowledge of the individuals out there."

One audience member questioned the need to train every employee on the casino floor. But O'Hare argued that such training is really for the employee's benefit. Without knowledge that gambling addiction is considered a valid problem, and training as to where people can turn for help, a casino floor employee might not feel comfortable even discussing the issue with a patron. In some cases, employees might feel they'll get in trouble for telling a patron where they can find information on problem gambling, said O'Hare.

"You're really doing the employee a favor when you train them," said O'Hare.

Westergard said there are no specific rules governing training. But employers will be required to document that everyone has been trained, he said, even if that employee claims to have gone through problem gambling training at a previous job.

Depending on how well the current training regulation works, more specific requirements may need to be drafted at a later date, said O'Hare.

"This is not like teaching your employees where the bathroom is," said O'Hare. "These things could change."

The regulation provision that seemed to cause attendees the most concern is the so-called self-limitation clause. Under this provision, gambling establishments must have a system that allows casino patrons to limit their access to casino credit and to have themselves removed from promotional mailing lists.

Casino executives in attendance worried how far this required them to go. Are they to walk around the casino looking for people on the self-exclusion list? Are they required to share self-exclusion lists with other casinos? Is there a time limit on how long a person on the list must be barred from casino credit lines?

Panelists said industry responsibility under the provision is limited. Explained Westergard, gambling establishments are not required to post signs telling people about their self-limitation program. The only requirement is that they have such a program. Nor are casinos required to 'police' their gaming floor, looking for people on the self-limit list.

Time frames are to be determined on a property-by-property basis, said Westergard. This recognizes that what works for Mirage Resorts might not work for a mom-and-pop Laundromat, he said.

"The time-frames are not set as part of the regulation," said Westergard.

But, he noted, gambling addiction knows no time limits.

"If you're a problem gambler, there is no gambling in moderation," said Westergard.

O'Hare cautioned executives not to make the self-limitation list a revolving door.

"If you make it easy to get on and off that list, what point is there?" she asked. "Bailout is a very common process for people with addictions."

Panelists agreed that gambling establishments have no obligation to share their self-limitation lists with other establishments. Indeed, making such information public could create liability problems, said Faiss.

"In some eyes, calling a person a problem gambler is a defamatory statement," said Faiss. "It's information you do not have to share. Once it's shared there's a possibility of liability."

Mathur said Mirage will keep its self-limitation lists confidential, but noted that the information will have to be widely broadcast inside the company to ensure self-limitation requests are honored.

Panelists reminded the executives that the point of the new regulations is not to make casinos intervene in the lives of its patrons. Gaming employees are not required to identify problem gamblers, said Westergard. And the self-limitation provision is not a license or requirement to baby-sit patrons.

"It's a way for them to take a very positive step in terms of their own recovery," said O'Hare.

Nor is the self-limitation provision something dreamed up by regulators. It is an attempt to deal with a real problem faced by people with a gambling addiction.

"I can tell you, I've had problem gamblers come to the council and say, 'How do I close a credit line?"' said O'Hare.

"I think what we're trying to avoid is a world where everything is restricted," said Mathur.

The gambling industry is not going to identify those who are out of control and make them get help. It's just going to make sure people are aware of the dangers of gambling addiction, said Mathur.

"We're not saying we're going to do your diagnosis," Mathur said.

After all, she said, most people who gamble do it responsibly and in moderation. But it is clear panelists see it as senseless -- not to mention dangerous from a liability standpoint -- to ignore those few who are problem gamblers.

"Problem gambling, though it affects very few, affects those few profoundly," said Mathur.

archive