Most gambling scholars would argue that increased exposure and access to gambling increases the risk of pathological gambling for those exposed. Gambling opponents the world over have made this argument for decades.
Casino employees are more exposed to the gambling product than any other segment of the population. Therefore, they should be at the greatest risk of becoming pathological gamblers. This presumption--based on the "exposure" hypothesis--has led jurisdictions such as hashtag#Macau and hashtag#Singapore to ban casino employees from gambling. Violators face hefty penalties.
An alternative to the exposure hypothesis is the "adaptation" hypothesis. This hypothesis argues that after the initial period of exposure, most individuals will develop immunity to the lure of hashtag#gambling, and over a period of time, these individuals will be less--not more--at a risk of becoming pathological gamblers. This period of exposure, before the adaptation takes effect, is a few years, not decades.
Which of these hypotheses are true? How can we use existing research to formulate public policy for hashtag#casinos? Please see my latest article in casino.org: https://lnkd.in/fQRk_Ns.hashtag#gambling hashtag#problemgambling hashtag#casino
