Are there lessons from gambling control for tobacco control?

Abstract

In addition to controlling cigarette pack sizes, tobacco control can learn from self-regulation measures used in the gambling market-place. Self-banning from gambling venues and ‘fintech’ (financial services technology) solutions that constrain gambling expenditure on credit cards could feasibly be adapted to support reduction of cigarette consumption. The notion that the quantities in which products are purchased impacts consumption patterns has been recognized 1. In this respect, discussion of the pack sizes in which cigarettes are offered for sale is of immense importance 2. Larger pack sizes may encourage consumption and inhibit intensions to quit smoking. In contrast, smaller pack sizes may facilitate smokers increasing their consumption levels, as the cost of smoking additional cigarettes is less if smaller packs can be purchased. More research is needed to evaluate pack size legislation before it is possible to conclude what the optimal pack size should be. However, there are other related ways in which it is possible to assist smokers in controlling their cigarette consumption. Below, two examples from the gambling market-place and their transferability into tobacco control are briefly explored; specifically: (i) self-regulation and (ii) fintech solutions. The examples come from the Australian gambling market-place, which is a useful place to look, as Australia has the world's largest per-capita expenditure on gambling, in terms of consumer losses, and has a focus within government, industry and advocacy groups on consumption control. The enforcement of self-imposed restrictions in the market-place has been present in the betting and gaming sector for some time. The focus is on the self-regulation by an individual of their consumption and the most extreme form of self-regulation is self-exclusion. Self-exclusion programmes allow consumers to voluntarily ban themselves from gaming venues and on-line platforms. These bans are usually for 12 months and often involve casinos, but they also involve local gambling venues that offer electronic gaming machines (pokies) and, more recently, on-line platforms 3, 4. They are currently enforced in venues by photos provided by the individual, which staff use to identify any breaches. However, it is possible for bans to be enforced through digital images and the use of facial recognition software at the point of entry but, to my knowledge, this technology is not yet being applied. On-line self-exclusion bans are enforced through the suspension of an individual's account. In principle, it is possible for supermarkets and news agencies to offer a similar programme so that smokers could self-ban themselves from purchasing cigarettes. While it is possible to use other vendors, the psychological barrier of having a ban in place, the risk of being refused a purchase and/or the inconvenience of having to travel further to find a vendor with whom you do not have a self-exclusion agreement may still result in a reduction of cigarette consumption for the individual and an increased likelihood of a successful quit attempt. Therefore, governments may consider legislating that all shops that sell cigarettes be required to offer customers the option to self-exclude. Another common self-regulation option available to gamblers is an expenditure cap, where players declare a daily limit on their credit card expenditure within a given venue or on-line gambling platform. Once they reach the limit, their card is refused. The possibility of accruing large gambling debts on credit cards through on-line platforms has led some banks and financial institutions to introduce a variety of credit card restrictions. These financial services technology or ‘fintech’ solutions vary across credit card providers, but include: (i) rules about the proportion of a card's credit limit that can be spent on gambling (usually 85%, although some banks allow customers to self-determine this amount), (ii) preventing credit cards from being used for gambling, (iii) restrictions on the level of withdrawals from cash machines at gambling venues, (iv) removal of the 30-day interest-free period for gambling purchases and (v) charging interest on gambling purchases at the same (or higher rate), as charged on cash withdrawals. These restrictions can be placed on purchases that are registered as gambling transactions. It is feasible for banks to apply a similar set of rules to cigarette purchases, although there are additional hurdles. In particular, credit card transactions from outlets that sell cigarettes would need to be identifiable at the point of sale and the value of the total expenditure related to cigarettes would need to be identifiable, given that cigarettes are sold in multi-product environments. The growth in fintech means the technology is available to do this. The gambling market-place offers new ideas on how to control consumption that are worthy of consideration in the tobacco control debate. While tobacco and alcohol control often share knowledge, less knowledge translation is evident between gambling and tobacco, yet I have shown here that there are avenues to be explored. None.