The Australian government has announced gambling advertising reforms

Overall reaction to Australian gambling ad reforms

• Many welcome the cap of three TV betting ads per hour and bans during live sport before 8:30pm, calling current ad volumes “deluge” and “appalling,” especially around football.
• Others see the reform as weak “band-aid” politics that leaves social media and late-night advertising largely untouched.
• Some intend to lobby for a total gambling-ad ban across TV, radio, social media, and public spaces, similar to past cigarette-ad bans.

Gambling harm and cultural entrenchment

• Multiple comments describe gambling as deeply woven into Australian life, especially via sports betting and poker machines (“pokies”) in pubs, RSLs, and clubs.
• Reported harms include young adults heavily in debt, working multiple jobs to fund gambling, and families losing savings.
• Some highlight that pubs and clubs rely on pokies revenue, complicating reform, while one state (WA) is cited as an example where pokies are restricted to casinos.

Pokies, money laundering, and industry power

• Several comments argue pokies are more damaging than sports betting and central to Australia’s world‑leading gambling losses.
• Allegations of widespread money laundering via casinos and clubs are raised, with references to whistleblowers and lax AML controls.
• The gambling lobby is portrayed as wealthy, politically connected, and adept at using “veterans’ clubs” branding and community grants as cover.

Legalization, black markets, and prohibition analogies

• One camp argues that prohibition (for gambling, tobacco, or alcohol) just drives activity underground, enriches criminal groups, and increases enforcement costs.
• Others counter with data points (within the thread) suggesting prohibition can significantly reduce consumption, and note large historical illegal betting markets already existed.
• Concerns are raised that very high tobacco taxes in Australia have already created a major black market; some fear similar dynamics in gambling if bans go too far.

Advertising vs. vice itself

• Strong support emerges for limiting or banning advertising of harmful but legal products (gambling, tobacco, alcohol, junk food, fossil fuels), while allowing adult use.
• A minority questions who decides what is “harmful to society,” warning of arbitrary or moralistic overreach.
• Some argue gambling has no real individual upside and is structurally predatory; others defend it as entertainment that increases engagement with sports.