• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Introduction:
In recent years, the issue of problem gambling has gained significant attention, leading to the introduction of initiatives such as Gamstop in the UK. Gamstop is a self-exclusion program designed to help individuals restrict their access to online gambling sites. However, this case study aims to explore the phenomenon of "sites not on Gamstop," in which players can continue gambling even if they have self-excluded.

Background:
Gamstop is a system that allows players to self-exclude themselves from all licensed gambling sites operating in the United Kingdom. However, not all gambling platforms are licensed by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), which means they are not required to participate in the Gamstop program. Several offshore websites and non-UK casinos continue to operate outside the jurisdiction of the UKGC, attracting players who wish to bypass self-exclusion.

Case Study:
John, a 38-year-old professional, had been struggling with a gambling addiction for several years. After facing tremendous financial and personal losses, he decided to enroll in the Gamstop program to seek professional help. However, in his desperation to gamble again, he stumbled upon "sites not on Gamstop" during his online search.

Curiosity and Desperation:
Intrigued by the idea of continuing his gambling activities without any restrictions, John registered on one of the non-Gamstop platforms. They claimed to offer the same gaming experience and promotions as licensed casinos but circumventing Gamstop regulations. Once registered, John deposited a small amount of money and began gambling once again, against his willful self-exclusion.

Lack of Responsible Gambling Measures:
John quickly realized that the website he was using lacked responsible gambling measures. Unlike regulated platforms, it did not enforce deposit limits, time-outs, or self-exclusion periods. This absence of responsible gambling support made it easier for John to slip back into his addictive behavior without any external intervention.

Increased Financial Strain:
As John continued gambling on non-Gamstop sites, his losses began to accumulate exponentially. Lack of protective mechanisms led him to chase his losses further, resulting in a mounting financial burden. John's addiction resurfaced with a vengeance, triggering feelings of guilt, shame, and a cycle of destructive behavior.

Limited Support for Problem Gamblers:
Despite making a desperate attempt to seek professional help through Gamstop, John found himself trapped in the vicious cycle of addiction once again. The non-Gamstop platform he used did not provide any resources for problem gamblers, exacerbating John's struggle to break free from destructive patterns.

Conclusion:
The rise of non-Gamstop sites poses significant challenges to the effectiveness of self-exclusion programs such as Gamstop. While these initiatives aim to protect vulnerable individuals, the presence of unregulated online gambling platforms provides an avenue for addicts to continue their destructive behavior. As seen in John's case, the absence of responsible gambling measures, combined with limited support for problem gamblers, has severe consequences for those struggling with addiction. Addressing this issue requires a collaborative effort from regulators, policymakers, and the gambling industry to ensure comprehensive protection for all individuals seeking to overcome their gambling habits.