An article in the Sacramento Bee brought up a case in which a compulsive gambler has filed suit against several casinos, claiming they should have recognized her addiction and barred her from the casinos. Arelia Taveras, a former lawyer and TV commentator, was staying up for days at a time without eating or sleeping so she could gamble. Now, having lost her practice, apartment, parents' home, and being $58,000 in debt to the IRS, Taveras is suing for $20 million.
Naturally, questions arise regarding cases like this. Who's to blame for Taveras' addiction and her resulting financial ruin? That's a difficult one because both parties are at fault to a large degree. The gambling business' single purpose is to make losing seem attractive and exciting. (See Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation) It's really a criminal enterprise, yet it will remain in society along with alchohol and tobacco. That's where responsibility for the individual comes in. At some point, a person realizes they have become addicted to something; then it is their choice to seek help or face the consequences.
Should Taveras be suing? It's a dicey situation lacking an evident answer. Taveras should have sought help before reaching that critical helpless state. The casinos should have noticed her passing out at the tables and intervened. However, I believe Taveras lacks the grounds to file suit. As the saying goes, "If you play with the fire, you're going to get burned," likewise if you play the gambling game and end up losing, you really only have yourself to blame.
$20 million in compensation would definitely sort out financial problems for Taveras, but she shouldn't count on winning the case. Probably her best way out is to direct her determination into hard work instead of court battles. Sometimes the choices we make affect us for years. This is an excellent example of why gambling isn't worth it. But sometimes the only way people will realize the fire is hot, is to first burn themselves with it.
Naturally, questions arise regarding cases like this. Who's to blame for Taveras' addiction and her resulting financial ruin? That's a difficult one because both parties are at fault to a large degree. The gambling business' single purpose is to make losing seem attractive and exciting. (See Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation) It's really a criminal enterprise, yet it will remain in society along with alchohol and tobacco. That's where responsibility for the individual comes in. At some point, a person realizes they have become addicted to something; then it is their choice to seek help or face the consequences.
Should Taveras be suing? It's a dicey situation lacking an evident answer. Taveras should have sought help before reaching that critical helpless state. The casinos should have noticed her passing out at the tables and intervened. However, I believe Taveras lacks the grounds to file suit. As the saying goes, "If you play with the fire, you're going to get burned," likewise if you play the gambling game and end up losing, you really only have yourself to blame.
$20 million in compensation would definitely sort out financial problems for Taveras, but she shouldn't count on winning the case. Probably her best way out is to direct her determination into hard work instead of court battles. Sometimes the choices we make affect us for years. This is an excellent example of why gambling isn't worth it. But sometimes the only way people will realize the fire is hot, is to first burn themselves with it.
2 comments:
Excellent!!!
Well written. I like the last sentence, about how people won't understand the fire is hot unless they feel it first. So true!
Post a Comment