Self-Excluded Gambler Loses Suit to Retract Ban
Recently, there have been gamblers in the news for attempting to recover their losses through lawsuits, blaming casinos for not rejecting their play. Now comes a suit from a player who self-excluded himself, but has changed his mind and wants to know why casinos won't let him gamble.
A man idetified only as S.D. approached the New Jersey Casino Control Commission to have his name removed from the list of gamblers who had voluntarily self-excluded themselves from eligibility to wager in casinos. S. D.'s lawyer said his client had signed on out of impulse after a big loss.
This seems a likely story, as few have probably signed the exclusion list after huge winnings.
S.D. also argued that he didn't know New Jersey would share the list with out-of-state casinos, rendering it difficult if not impossible for him to gamble.
The judge in the case found S.D. had no constitutional right to gamble, and thus was not being denied his rights.
Further, the very arguments offered by S.D. are those one would expect from a problem gambler, the kind for which the self-exclusion list was invented. If compulsive gamblers trusted their own judgment, why would they need to ask the casinos to refuse them?
A lawyer from New Jersey and a greyhound trainer from England have both filed landmark suits recently, demanding repayment and damages from casinos that allowed them to play after their compulsive behavior took control of them. The English case was totally rejected, while the New Jersey one is pending.
True gamblers understand the risks, and know losing is part of gambling. These gamblers suing both to play when refused, and then to be refunded when they do play, are the same people who read the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes, smoke them anyway, and then blame the manufacturer for resultant problems. Society doesn't exist to correct every poor choice one wishes to "mulligan."
