Val d’Aosta: war between casino slot machines and private individuals

We would not like to use the phrase "war between poor" because it is certainly not "poor", but a sort of war between the same commercial segments this yes and sectors who, in any case, are not going on one of their best commercial periods : we talk about entertainment equipment, the notorious Slot machine, placed inside the St. Vincent Casino and the same, identical appliances managed by "private companies" that are located on that territory. Two weights and two different measures, according to some, which give birth to reflections and disturbances for an unfair applying of the law and for unbalanced attitudes in dealing with the same identical provisions. It is all too evident that this type of attitude, and the consequent behavior of the institutions, "is raising a fuss": in fact, we want to know why the Council of Ministers has ever decided not to challenge the regional law of the Aosta Valley On the game, law considered "ambiguously" favorable to the Valle d'Aosta casino and which thus puts a diversity of treatment between public game and casinos (in general), but in particular as mentioned that of St. Vincent.

According to some, in fact, gaming houses should also be subject to the distanziometer, especially since the slots that are hosted in these structures are, without doubt, much more attractive in terms of payout and, therefore, represent a greater danger towards of the problematic game being more captivating and engaging "and which, therefore, encourage the game. Hence the need to understand this non -appeal of the 2018 Valley Regional Law: the question is asked to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economy and Finance, and to the Minister of Health and to finish that of business Regional and autonomies. At the same time, of course, one would also like to know which initiatives can be taken from the institutions, each for their own competence, to ensure the respect of the equality of treatment between the offer of the game product by casinos and that of the "private management exercises ": All equally authorized by the state.

On the American territory the operating gambling housesThere are currently only three: St.Vincet, Venice and Sanremo while that of Campione d'Italia, declared failed in management last year is awaiting "knowing its destiny", a decision and intervention that depends on the central government. Many regions and many municipalities have issued, or are about to issue, somewhat limiting rules of the offer of the product game on their respective territories: but this only happens to those who manage a game activity "privately". These rules come to prohibit the launch of new activities, or impose the closure of the existing ones, also providing in addition rigid rules on ignition and extinguishing entertainment equipment: it does not appear that the regional and municipal legislation of certain territories is applied In a similar way to gaming houses compared to exercises managed by private companies.

For this reason, it seems legitimate to ask what the real reasons that have led the regional council of the Val d'Aosta to approve the law on the game that we are talking about in these lines are. If this path has been dictated to deal with the spread of the phenomenon of problematic game, or by the need to revive the fate of St.Vincent gambling house "formally hindering the spread of this phenomenon, but only of the gambling managed by private companies ". Of course, it is a particular, difficult question that will certainly remain without "satisfaction" because it probably involves too directly the interests that the state finds itself in the same Casino, as in other structures of the same kind. Although perhaps it would be right to put an end to the unjustified difference in treatment between the game offer in the various regions and to broaden the restrictive provisions put in place for "private" companies also to those of gaming houses, particularly with reference to the understanding reached on 7 September 2017 in a unified conference and to the decree on a national basis relating to sensitive places that should inevitably extend to the game offer proposed by casino.

But where do all these reflections come from? Easy to answer here: from an article from the beginning of March in which it was underlined: "Valle d'Aosta, war on slots, but only to save the casino": In those lines, we stopped to underline that in the 2018 regional law the anticipation was arranged for June 1, 2019 of the rules that ordered the closure of the exercises with prevalent game activities (date originally set at 2024) and those with the 'secondary game offer (date set at 2020). These measures are full of contradictions, but would still have led to the approval of the famous law that according to some should embody a legislative path to combat "the rampant plague of ludopathy": but evidently and practically applicable only to "private" management exercises and not the St. Vincent Garding House. Because? Maybe in those structures isn't gambling? And also sometimes in a (economically) "heavy" way

Above all if you want to look, with an objective eye, to the greater "social danger" ofgame offer inside casino: in fact, the gaming houses also due to their most convenient taxation can afford to allocate a greater percentage to the winnings, which stands at about 98% of the played, consequently making the game on the appliances installed in the casino rather interesting more interesting that on those present in other exercises managed by private subjects who are, on the other hand, subject to a very high level of taxation and need to limit this percentage. At the end of the reflections and questions that has been asked, and at the end of this article, it must undoubtedly say that the interest in the protection of health with respect to that of the free economic initiative should be considered priority: but but a Different treatment between the gaming offer of casino and that of the exercises differently managed by private individuals. Both, in fact, should be subject to the same legislation, for better or for worse, but unfortunately it is sometimes so.

Publication date: April 13, 2019 at 12:00

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