‘Casino crack’ is a surefire loss for island

First proposed in 2007, then 2015, Guernsey’s introduction of the electronic slot terminals, dubbed ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’, is very much on hold as concerns grow about their impact on users in the UK.

It feels a good call, particularly for an island such as ours with a long aversion to a gambling culture and its associated problems.

These high-stake, casino games – most commonly roulette – are in a different league to other forms. Classed as dangerously addictive, players can bet up to £300 a minute.

While in no way underestimating the island’s problem with scratch cards, fixed odds could put that issue into the shade.

Home’s decision follows a long-awaited review, unveiled last month by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which is cutting maximum bets on the machines from £100 to between £2 and £50.

Bookmakers there, who warned shops would close if that happened and pointed to the rise in online gambling, are now expected to lobby MPs hard for the £50 option during a 12-week consultation.

Here, when the proposal returned to the States, the then Home minister said our rules would be stricter, with £10 maximum stakes, shops restricted to two machines and speed of bets managed closely.

Yet despite any comfort to be had from such pledges, or the behaviour of responsible gamblers, the potential threat of FOBTs for the player and their wider communities is well documented.

Figures from leading gambling charity GambleAware show 233,000 FOBT users lost more than £1,000 in one sitting last year, 650 lost more than £5,000 and one lost £13,778. Machines are also often clustered in shops within poorer areas.

Industry watchdog the Gambling Commission also found 43% of people who use the machines were either problem or at-risk gamblers. Meanwhile, leading gambling charity GambleAware is already calling for more clinics for addicts.

It all begs the question, why go there?

Money, of course. In the UK it was said to be worth more than £700m. last year to the Exchequer.

But at what cost – both in specialist support services and human misery?