The great dilemma in the argument over whether pokie machines should be banned is this: a great amount of money floods into the community from these machines, and if they're turned off, so is that funding tap.
Of course there are other dilemmas - gamblers may turn to other ways of
losing money such as casinos or online gaming or even underground gambling.
But the fact two out of three arguing against a ban in Tuesday night's public debate in Rotorua were from funding trusts shows where a lot of the power in the pro-pokies argument lies.
And they've got a pretty good argument. Many of us enjoy the benefits that come from pokies-related funding - $4.8 million worth in Rotorua in the last year alone - money that would otherwise be unavailable.
Many good things come out of this gambling, but should that be reason enough to allow it? More than $20 million was spent on pokies in Rotorua in the past year. Nearly a quarter may have gone to good causes, but we're talking about more than $20 million that could have been spent elsewhere in the local economy.
Any bid to restrict public freedoms, such as a pokies ban, should be eyed with great caution. Surely people have the right to spend their own money however they see fit?
But when their ability to control that spending is compromised, as it is with gambling addiction, it needs to be viewed in a new light.
John Minto, arguing at the debate in favour of a ban, said 88 per cent of New Zealand's problem gamblers were addicted to pokies.
That's a huge proportion. And that's what distances pokies from other forms of gambling.
Yes, if pokies were banned gamblers may turn to other options, but not necessarily with the same damaging intensity.
Commendable efforts have been made to control problem gambling, and Rotorua's responsible hosts deserve a pat on the back, as do those who provide valuable support for the afflicted addicted.
But these efforts are only necessary because of the addictive power of the machines.
