The real dependence on the game is that of the American state

But has someone "very high" who manages our country deeply thought of what the consequences will be on the whole national economy descending from the total prohibition of game advertising for the local market? Someone, always "very high" of our new government, wondered if there have been previous in other product sectors or in other European countries? These are answers that must be given to the world of public gambling to which, without a shadow of a doubt, difficult and decisive days are presented for the future of many game companies and its operators: but the feeling that this Dignity decree has been thought And put in place "with the speed of light" is certainly not positive for a peaceful and transparent tomorrow for the playful sector.

Post this premise that is now becoming a "mantra" that is repeated by several parties almost to mean that they have all "stunned" for this semi-produced position of the yellow-green government, it must be at least reiterated that the Game in USA It represents a real industry and a constant in the American economy: very high turnover and tax revenues of which it cannot be done without and on which it is counted "during the closure of the state budget". In short, the writer is convinced that the "true game dependence" is in immense form belonging to the same American state even if in this last period "you will remind you". The volume of the game has grown exponentially in the last four years and represents 4.4% of the gross domestic product of the state, not to mention that thousands and thousands of human resources, professional and credited, are also particularly recognized around the games, also particularly recognized to abroad for one's creativity.

But in the face of the Dignity Decree, the first thing that is to be underlined is that such a prohibition intervention certainly mortifies the freedom of economic initiative and, above all, discourages investments and productivity with repercussions on the eratory coffers and at work, generating one increasing unemployment that has reached a percentage at the "historical maximum" level. Of course, the prohibition of advertising is justified by the noble purpose of strengthening the protection of the consumer and the weakest subjects and for a contrast to the problematic game: but with all the utmost respect for those who are trapped by the addiction of gambling it is thought that This absolute prohibition of advertising in the sector will truly cause serious damage to the national economy, with further depletion of the state assets and a consequent increase in public debt that has reached truly embarrassing levels.

But also with the prohibition of advertising, unfortunately, the compulsive player will continue to play, since he is now tried again that it is not the advertising that encourages the compulsive desire to play. The "game patient" has a rooted and profound vice that does not "care" with the ban on advertising, but with specific tools: to prohibit advertising, therefore, does not help and does not heal the compulsive or problematic player on his addiction. The reality is that if you really want and concretely contrast the ludopathy, the game should be prohibited in the most side of the term, with all the inevitable and irreparable consequences in terms of tax losses and employment. To make some history, it must be reported that the Balduzzi decree had already introduced restrictions on the limitation of the game with the prohibition of inserting advertising messages of games with money in money in television and radio broadcasts.

Then, indicating that advertising to the games must be visible in a visible way the percentage of probability of winning that is held in each individual game; warnings on the risk of dependence on the practice of Games with money win and prohibition of entry to minors of 18 years in the areas intended for the game with win: And these measures produced satisfactory results, realizing a concrete limitation to access to the sector. But it is not evidently enough. We must also look at the experience that was obtained from such a prohibition measure applied to the cigarette market where, also in this case, such a measure was carried out: but the prohibition of advertising has not disincentive the use of cigarette and Even today, in USA, the percentage of smokers is somewhat high. It can therefore be deduced that the prohibition of advertising does not appear to be the suitable tool to contrast the abuse or "problematic" of any sector.

This absolute prohibition of advertising to the games, which arrived "between head and neck" appears ineffective to get to the objectives that the government officially declares: it seems instead harmful to the national economy. Even in sport and in the "football system" there will be important repercussions and then finally, one should think of how many multinationals of the game will flee up to our beautiful country! This, perhaps, will also expose the state to dispute for the current contracts currently in place that cannot be honored with all the misunderstandings and the various penalties that will cross over: in short, a true advertising earthquake that will not do well. Certainly not to problematic players. It is obvious that a "just installed" government, and that has presented itself with perspectives of change, should not implement measures that could submit the state to dispute against companies with acquired rights or measures that could be evil for the whole country

Not to mention one last speech that we do not "like" to remember often, but that particularly in this case of the ban on the advertising "we run the obligation" to underline: but the state with all these premises against the world of games, with all Restrictions and now also with this Dignity decree, where will it go to take the resources that are missing for the state budget? If the game collapses, where will it go to take the usual "annual contribution" that has been constantly picked up from the "bottomless well of the income by the games"? It is a direct and specific question precisely for Minister Luigi Di Maio and a answer is kindly expected since "asking is always lawful, but answer is courtesy" ...

Publication date: 7 August 2018 at 11:41

casino	Review	Visit
	888 casino 20 $ free + up to $ 500	Visit
	Snai Casino 10 $ Free + 1000 $	Visit
	Betway Casino 5 $ Free + 300 $	Visit
	LeoVegas Casino 250 Giri + 1000$	Visit
	Digital game casino 370 Giri + 500$	Visit
	Eurobet Casino 30 Giri + 1005$	Visit
	Bwin Casino 50 Giri + 200$	Visit
	Starcare 50 Giri + 200$	Visit
	BIG Casino 55 $ FREE + 300 $	Visit
	william hill casino 200 Giri + 1000$	Visit
	NetBet Casino 10 $ Free + 1000 $	Visit
	Pokerstars Casino 500 Giri + 2500$	Visit
	Betflag Casino 1000 $ free + 1000 $	Visit
	Casino.com 10 $ FREE + 500 $	Visit
	Unibet casino 100% up to $ 300	Visit
	Want to win 100% up to $ 1000	Visit
The game is forbidden to minors under 18 and can cause pathological addiction Play responsibly