Imagine This Was Your Ex-Wife's Lawyer...
March 11th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"She was an ambitious lawyer and TV commentator who starting going to Atlantic City casinos to relax, and soon was getting high-roller treatment that included limousines whisking her to the resort....But her gambling spun out of control...She says her losses totaled nearly $1 million.
"Now she's chasing the longest of long shots: a $20 million racketeering lawsuit in federal court against six Atlantic City casinos and one in Las Vegas, claiming they had a duty to notice her compulsive gambling problem and cut her off."
In family court fathers are often vilified by their ex-wives and their exes' attorneys. Whatever it is, somehow dad is always wrong and has let everyone down.
Feminist family law attorney Arelia Margarita Taveras (pictured) wrote The Gangsta Girls' Guide To Child Support, described by the Associated Press as a "guidebook for women dealing with deadbeat dads in the court system." According to the AP, Taveras' gambling losses totaled nearly $1 million. She lost her law practice, her apartment, her parents' home, and owes the IRS $58,000. She dipped into her clients' escrow accounts to finance her gambling habit, was disbarred last June, and faces criminal charges.
She does know right where to place the blame, though--on the casinos. "They had a duty of care to me," she explains.
It certainly is sad to see someone destroy their life this way. Still, given her "it's always their fault" mentality, can you imagine what it would be like if this was your ex's lawyer?
The story is below--thanks to Katie, a reader, for sending it to me.
Woman Files $20M Long-Shot Casino Suit
By Wayne Perry, Associated Press
3/8/08
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) She was an ambitious lawyer and TV commentator who starting going to Atlantic City casinos to relax, and soon was getting high-roller treatment that included limousines whisking her to the resort.
Arelia Margarita Taveras says she was even allowed to bring her dog, Sasha, to the blackjack tables, sitting in her purse.
But her gambling spun out of control: She said she would go days at a time at the tables, not eating or sleeping, brushing her teeth with disposable wipes so she didn't have to leave.
She says her losses totaled nearly $1 million.
Now she's chasing the longest of long shots: a $20 million racketeering lawsuit in federal court against six Atlantic City casinos and one in Las Vegas, claiming they had a duty to notice her compulsive gambling problem and cut her off.
"They knew I was going for days without eating or sleeping," Taveras said. "I would pass out at the tables. They had a duty of care to me. Nobody in their right mind would gamble for four or five straight days without sleeping."
Experts say her case will be difficult to prove, but it provides an unusually detailed window into the life of a problem gambler.
"It's like crack, only gambling is worse than crack because it's mental," said Taveras, 37, a New Yorker who now lives in Minnesota. "It creeps up on you, the impulse. It's a sickness."
She lost her law practice, her apartment, her parents' home, and owes the IRS $58,000. She said she even considered swerving into oncoming traffic to kill herself.
In interviews with The Associated Press, Taveras admitted she dipped into her clients' escrow accounts to finance her gambling habit. She was disbarred last June, and faces criminal charges stemming from those actions, but is trying to work out restitution agreements in order to avoid a prison term.
Her lawsuit names Resorts Atlantic City, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, the Tropicana Casino Resort, the Showboat Casino Hotel, Bally's Atlantic City, as well as the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.
The casinos deny any wrongdoing, maintaining in court papers that Taveras brought her problems on herself. Casino representatives either declined to comment for this report or did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Last month, a judge dismissed the Trump casinos, the Tropicana, Showboat and Bally's from the lawsuit on technical grounds, but allowed Taveras to refile the suit against them by April. The suit remains in effect against Resorts and MGM because its allegations against them were more specific...
As a young lawyer, Taveras made a name for herself representing the families of victims of American Airlines Flight 587, which crashed in New York City's borough of Queens in November 2001, killing 265 people.
Her practice had 400 clients and earned her $500,000 a year. She appeared on TV and radio to discuss legal issues, wrote a guidebook for women dealing with deadbeat dads in the court system, titled "The Gangsta Girls' Guide To Child Support," and was a regular contributor to Hispanic culture Web sites. In 2000, the New York Daily News named her one of "21 New Yorkers to Watch in the 21st Century."
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.383 seconds.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Yes, the casinos made her steal from her clients. Right. Dipping into clients' escrow accounts is about as bad as anything an attorney can do. It's not as uncommon as people might think. Such misconduct is often fueld by a gambling problem or other addiction.
Newsflash, Gagsta Girl: the casinos had no duty to stop you from gambling. Their only duty is to their shareholders to encourage your gambling.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Who but a woman lawyer to play the "It's not my fault! I'm a woman and they didn't take care of me!" game?
And her book "Gangsta Girl's Guide to Child Support?" My god. This woman should be disbarred forever.
Sad thing is, the judges will probably let her case go to trial. I guess caveat emptor doesn't aply to women. This is the exact reason why I deal with women as little as possible in business. They're just too ready to shell out blame and sue you.
The big message that western women will NEVER get, due to their own self-centeredness, is that men just don't want to deal with them any more. There aren't any fancy psychological reasons. They're just too much of a pain in the ass.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
metalman: I don't know what state she's filing these suits in. If it's Nevada, that will go nowhere; the Nevada courts get hundreds of cases like this filed every week, and they toss out all of 'em. If it's Jersey, on the other hand, it may very well go to trial, and she could win.
But yeah, if this doesn't just take the cake. It's absolutely everything that's wrong with modern feminism all wrapped up in one neat package.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
someone needs to tell these "gansta girls" that children are more than a child support payment for them to "get paid", they are little humans.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Article: "She said she even considered swerving into oncoming traffic to kill herself.[and probably several others]"
The epitome of self-centeredness: I'm going to kill myself and I don't care how many others I take with me. Disgusting.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Unfortunately, the blame-game isn't limited to feminists -- it's everywhere in American civil law because we live in a society where it's perfectly acceptable to invent clever claims in an effort to shift fnancial responsibility onto someone else. I once had a case where a frat guy who shot somebody blamed the frat house for getting him drunk. We see a ton of cases where people blame banks or others for their own business failures.
I suspect that our litigiousness as a society, our willingness to try to foist the blame or responsibility on someone else, has crept into family law dealings where it can do the most harm -- because children are involved. Instead of working out problems amicably out of court, we want to bludgeon our adversary with a lawyer. We want to hurt them, make them feel pain. I tell every client I have who wants to sue that they are not going to like it, even if they win. It's expensive, time-consuming and emotionally draining. Usually -- not always, but usually -- everyone is better served by an amicable settlement.
Unfortunately, most men enter the family law arena already resigned that they won't get custody (we're the breadwinners not the nurturers, remember?, so men have zero leverage right from the outset. It's akin to a warrior of old entering battle without a sword or shield.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Okay she is 37, clearly an adult.
She has above average education as a law graduate.
Clearly mature enough to practice law.
I did all these things but I don't want to be held accountable.
Ohhh! Poor me. I need someone to rescue me. I'm a victim.
Sounds like a female in family court to me.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am
She's a victim of her decision to gamble.
That gambling was invented by the patriarch. That this innocent woman lost money and a career by engaging with the patriarch. That she ought to be compensated and comforted for losses.
There are two sets of laws in America today - one for women, the other for men. Her case will be heard from the perspective of a woman.
I expect her to be on Oprah promoting the new book - "The Gangstas Guide to Gambling: Because these days you have to be a gangsta to get paid"
March 11th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I think it's time women finally felt the sting of "paying for the worst" as men often do.
Those 6 casinos should bar all women from entering or gambling on the first day of the lawsuit. Make public announcements that because women are not responsible for themselves, the management will not be responsible for them. Public opinion will turn against her lawsuit quickly as women will realize that the next suit will restrict them even further.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Ok first of all a real "Gangsta Girl" wouldn't expect someone to to take care of them, they would do it themselves. And frankly if I lived that lifestyled I'd be insulted by this attempt at cashing in on the tough image.
"It's like crack, only gambling is worse than crack because it's mental," said Taveras, 37, a New Yorker who now lives in Minnesota. "It creeps up on you, the impulse. It's a sickness."
Bull jive. I've never been addicted to either but from what I've seen a crack addiction is much worse. A gambling addiction alone will not kill. Sure if you owe the wrong person a lot of money they could come and kill you but the gambling itself isn't fatal. Crack on the other hand is mental (because you think you must have it or you'll die and you ignore the fact that if you do get it you will die) and physical. Even if you don't owe your dealer money or something the crack itself will still kill you. I've never seen or heard about anyone overdosing on gambling.
And I suppose next she'll sue her state Bar Association for disbarring her, her apartment complex for kicking her out, the mortgage company handling her parents' house, the IRS for hitting up for fines, and the court system that is trying to bring criminal charges against her. Because its not her fault right? No feminism didn't start this trend of suing everyone in site when you f*ck up but they sure as shooting not trying to stop it.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
How you think Feminism start this, is beyond me.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
When will it stop??? Someone humor me at least and say that all of this type of madness will come to an end! Someone please do it!!! Suing the Casino for what SHE did??? Oh come on!! They had a duty to care fir her?? I can only imagine what would have happened if the Casinos HAD tried to cut her off. Can't you imagine the hell she would have raised?? "Why are you picking on me??? Men do it all the time and I don't see you cutting them off!! Why can't women do the same things as men?? Our cash is just as green as theirs! Blah...blah....blah" That's what would have happened. She would have shouted at the top of her lungs that it's a double standard to cut off women at the black jack table who obviously have gambling addictions. Wake up lady!!! Casino's care about the cash. Nothing more, nothing less! Sold your house, your car, YOUR KIDS in order to get that gambling fix?? Sure the Casino's CEOs hearts might go out to you but it's about the green! This kills me. She's not taking any responsibility for her actions. Women are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. And the one's who are hypocrites and are actually rational humans are already taken. DA**IT!!!
March 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Gambling is worse than crack. Right.
Just like being a woman is harder than being a black guy.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
ju1ce: "How you think Feminism start this, is beyond me."
I don't think most of us do think feminism started this - or even has much to do with it. That said, one of the goals of feminism is to work hard to convince women that they are victims (even when they are not)...That goal probably doesn't help when it comes to recognizing personal responsibility. Further, while feminism fights for equal rights, it does not fight very hard at all for equal responsibilities - again, probably not a good thing if you believe that taking personal responsibility is important.
But no, I would point to a larger problem: as Tim says, we have become a far too litigious society. Shifting blame to make a buck has become common and accepted practice.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
While the feminist matriarch is out of the home, disengaged with the family, even divorce, America's teenage daughters are turning into diseased whores.
1 in 4 teen girls has sexual disease
"At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group."
“A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19…”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_he_me/teen_stds
March 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I agree with Lance.
We have to be careful of blaming feminism for any aspect of society that we don't like.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
We had a similar case in the UK recently involving a man who sued a major UK bookmaker because they allowed him to continue gambling. So it's not just women - but we know that anyway.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Mark: "While the feminist matriarch is out of the home, disengaged with the family, even divorce, America's teenage daughters are turning into diseased whores."
So women aren't allowed to work now? Should they be barefoot and pregnant too?
These sentiments, while perhaps heartfelt, do not help our cause. We shouldn't (or at least I won't) fight to roll back equal opportunity in the workforce. That is, in a word, nuts. If there is a problem with society due to both parents working, then we as a society need to find another fix. Going back to the 50's ain't it.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Its sad this has to happen to someone whose practice was apparently, like so many other lawyers, whom prey upon children (subject them to exploitation, maltreatment as well as vastly more like molestation, violence, high school failure, suicide, other causes of premature death, etc.) and men.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Mark Ruffolo Says: "... A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19…” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_he_me/teen_stds) Our State implemented a school vaccination program for this, among if not the first in the U.S., the actual first. Curiously, I don't remember the media or the governor mentioning or better yet emphasizing that this is a STD or more accurately potentially very deadly STD for females. Little doubt if it had the equivalent potential to cause prostrate cancer or males penises to fall off there would be vastly less publicity and no government funding for vaccinations. And of course the males would be blamed for engaging in unprotected sex with pristine, near or actually virginal females whom somehow were carrying such an STD.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
George: I have to disagree. In fact, I think this case is a perfect example of have-it-both-ways feminism. Here's a woman who makes claim to all of the rights that men have (and more), but then when she screws up, she wants to get back on the pedestal, play little-girl, and have Daddy (the judicial system) come clean up her mess for her and make it all better.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Cousin Dave notes - "...when she screws up, she wants to get back on the pedestal, play little-girl, and have Daddy (the judicial system) come clean up her mess for her and make it all better."
Gee, Dave, I'd say she's going for more than making it all better - she's looking to get stinking rich out of her misdeeds. She's looking for $20 million for her supposed $1 million self-inflicted loss.
I love this part:
"According to the AP, Taveras' gambling losses totaled nearly $1 million. She lost her law practice, her apartment, her parents' home, and owes the IRS $58,000. She dipped into her clients' escrow accounts to finance her gambling habit, was disbarred last June, and faces criminal charges."
Just how did her parents house end up on the chopping block for HER gambling? Did they willingly participate in this, or was this another instance of her "dipping" into someone elses assets to fuel her greed? I wonder if she's counting the loss of THEIR home as part of HER $1 million in losses? I wouldn't be suprised...
Her ex-clients and her parents should immediately file suit looking to grab the entire settlement away from her should she somehow manage to prevail.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Gah, can we just hang these types of people?
nah, don't answer, I know our Empire has a never ending need for these types.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Is this a 'feminist that is a living,breathing,attractive,gym going, four dollar latte drinking,career building,luxury car driving woman who unintentionally intimidate's men?'
Who wouldn't want her?
See previous articles on Feminist Author Wants Your Opinion on Dating Part I or Part II
March 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
When Arelia walks into court with that rack and big booty, I'll bet that everyone stands up and salutes, even before the judge comes to the bench!
That body has to be worth twice whatever settlement she eventually receives.
It is simply unjust to put her on trial. (Just not worth the taxpayer's expense. She is too bodacious to convict.)
Just not right.
The misogyny of it all.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
All right, roy, stop that! You almost made Coca-Cola come out of my nose!
March 11th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well, the courts don't hold a woman responsible if she ruins her children's lives and her own by gambling away her house, her child support, her children's future, etc. They won't even award custody to a father who would take proper care of them. Why would we expect the courts hold the woman's lawyer responsible for destroying her own life with gambling?
March 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Cousin Dave,
Try Pepsi.
Or Dr. Pepper.
More adhesive.....
March 11th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Betsy,
Actually lawyers today are very afraid of being sued by their female clients if they do not advise them to adopt all of the strategies (typically in divorce) that you mention.
I really appreciate your sense of gender justice.
It is rare.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Sure, compulsive gambling is a disease. Let her try to prove that she was, in effect, "over-served" by the casinos (good luck with that!). However, the disease causes one to gamble -- not to commit crimes which involve the greatest breach of trust and fiduciary responsibility. She should serve time, like any common thief.
And sure, both men and women will do almost anything to evade personal responsibility for their own mistakes and shortcomings. The difference is, in today's society, women can expect to be successful, and so are encouraged to be irresponsible.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Oh this is sweat, we have gone past "it's his fault" to "it's the Casinos fault". Chicks are out of control.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Beyond the shirking responsibility issue there is another thing to keep in mind.
When you gamble you are playing the odds in order to win big... no one plays to lose (although most people do end up losing).
What this woman is looking for is insurance against her loss in a very risky money making strategy.
I very much doubt she would accept a law suit from the casino if she happened to get on a huge winning streak and they wanted to recoup their losses... does a player have a responsibility to stop playing if they are winning too much?
If not then by what convoluted logic does she expect the reverse to hedge her risk in this case?
If this goes through successfully I wonder if we will see suits against the nasdaq for losses back in 2000 when the tech bubble burst... or people sueing their mortgage broker for their bad investments when the housing market went bad.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:06 am
At least her driving privileges should be revoked as she clearly admitted to use her vehicle as weapon on completely innocent drivers on the roads. It is the job of the Govt to care for the drivers driving on state owned roads and keep such dangerous individuals off them.
What ever proof she presents for this detailed encounter should be used to convict of DWI for driving in those conditions if she did drive in a sleep deprived state.
On the other hand, has the court noticed the too-much detail kept? Was this entire thing a setup for the casinos? Maybe she planned this all along.. being the nice natured woman that she seems to be.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:33 am
It seems to me that, starting in the 80's, there have been at least a couple similar scenarios. One is where there was some bar that served several beers to an Irish guy, then being responsible when he got drunk and got into a fight. He went to court and sued the establishment, because they "should have known that Irish guys get drunk, and then get in fights".
(I read that story in a newspaper in Charleston South Carolina, some years ago; but as I recall it had actually taken place somewhere in a major city in the Northeast. Perhaps it was an urban legend, but even if so, it at least indicates that the mentality is out there).
One I do know of that actually happened, as they interviewed one of the "victims" on TV, was where several people filed a class-action lawsuit against stock "day trading" sites (or whatever they're called) on the internet .Supposedly they were victims of the sites, having lost tens of thousands of dollars trading, because they suffered from an addiction, and the sites "took advantage of their addiction".
(I don't know if the suit was won, but apparently it was taken seriously. It was sometime in the 90's).
Anyhow the main observation to be made, is that in this day and age, we have a combination of things working against us (as men), including the mentality that no one is responsible for their own actions, combined with the permanent victim status of women and the assumption of validity of rape and DV charges made by women.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Step 1 would be to dump the entire American Bar Association into the middle of the ocean so that we can have some real tort reform. Step 2 would be to eliminate private campaign donations. Step 3 would be to do away with lobbying. That's the only way America the Litigious will change.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Should a morbidly obese person be able to sue the grocery store? If they see she is obese don't they have a responibility to see that she only buys diet food? Or should they just refuse her service because she obviously doesn't need to eat for awhile?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The CASINOS made her steal money from her clients to facillitate her addiction! It's all THEIR fault!
Jiminny Crickets, lady. I'd laugh if it wasn't so scary, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't so typical.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
If they told her that she had a gambling problem that would have been a lawsuit also, after all she is an independent woman who is in ":control" of herself.
b
March 12th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
[...] To read more, click here. [...]
March 13th, 2008 at 3:27 am
"If they see she is obese don't they have a responibility .."
Actually, there have been several suits against fast food establishments. None has yet been won, so there must be at least one sane judge out there.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
"New York Daily News named her one of "21 New Yorkers to Watch in the 21st Century.""
We are watching. What a loser.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
The problem in this world as I see it is this: Women wanted and have fought for equality. For the most part, at least in more "advanced" societies, we now have it. However, we no longer want equality. We want superiority and won't settle for anything less. And when our greed leads us to a fall, we refuse to take the blame. It is always someone else's fault. Sadly, too many men with the power to make change (lawmakers) won't because women are powerful voters and it would be political suicide. Making a woman accountable for her actions is taboo and often simply avoided. In this woman's case, was she married? She must not have been or she'd have been blaming her husband instead of the casinos.
March 21st, 2008 at 12:06 am
David M Says: Should a morbidly obese person be able to sue the grocery store?
I’ll take this one. If the grocery store is displaying the food properly and the nutrition labels are clearly readable, Nope.
If you are talking about restaurants, who have taken over the job of feeding the family and make it very inconvenient if not downright impossible to know the nutrition values and are deliberately preparing meals with day or more worth of salt, fat, trans fat, and more, YOU BETCHA! Momma never cooked stuff that bad for you. Would you knowingly allow them to serve that to you and your kids? Jack in the Box has a burger meal that has two full days worth (six meals) of fat and salt in it. What is that?!?
Lawsuits force them to throttle back a bit on the over-hyped taste and get some of the evilness out using herbs and spices instead of cheap fat and salt. Profit margins rule!
DanH
June 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I see casinos take advantage of addicts, drunks, and other sick people every day. It happens far more than the general “casino hugging” public wants to believe.
I wish casinos could somehow develop social responsibility and a corporate conscience, if there is such a thing. But I don’t know how to achieve that and be consistent with my goal of extracting as much money from them as possible. I think that advantage players taking money from casinos goes hand in hand with the casinos being socially and morally deficient.
In the extreme, society would probably be better off if casinos did not exist at all. Would I, or most of my advantage-player friends be better off? Probably not. We rely on casino incompetence and employee indifference to allow us to extract money. If casinos were well-run with many employees who cared about their employer, we would have fewer opportunities. Would I like casinos to be made illegal? Definitely not. I don’t think alcohol or drugs should be illegal either, though I neither drink nor use drugs. Alcohol prohibition was tried and was a miserable failure. The “war on drugs” still goes on, and has been a miserable failure. As a Libertarian, I fully support the right of casinos to exist. But their greed disgusts me.
In Nevada and presumably in other jurisdictions, we have regulations prohibiting casinos from allowing drunks or other obviously impaired people from playing. But we all know these regulations are almost never enforced. In the rare cases they are enforced, there is no punishment to the offending casino or its employees for violating the regulations. I’m aware that most of Arelia’s problems were in New Jersey, but I am more familiar with Nevada regulations. When a player is falling asleep at the table, it’s time for the casino to stop further play.
Nevada Gaming regulation 5.011 Grounds for disciplinary action.
…
10. Failure to conduct gaming operations in accordance with proper standards of custom,decorum and decency, or permit any type of conduct in the gaming establishment which reflects or tends to reflect on the repute of the State of Nevada and act as a detriment to the gaming industry.
Most large industries have regulations which are enforced, or at least a reasonable effort is made to enforce them. A glaring exception is the casino industry. The regulations already exist, such as the nice, simple one above. The problem is the lack of enforcement. Maybe the answer is an extension of what New Jersey has tried, but at which it has failed: A Gaming agent always on duty in large casinos. But instead of just sitting in a booth at the large casinos, the agent would patrol the casino. In jurisdictions with many casinos, agents would go through small casinos on a regular basis. The agents’ primary duty would be to protect the public, not the casino. The agent, not the pit boss, would be the arbiter making the decision whether a patron should be cut off from further play. There would be no need to identify the patron by name; no need to compile lists of cut off patrons, etc.
The tax money spent on this enforcement activity would probably be less than the tax money now spent on the results of compulsive gamblers’ activities, including prosecuting their embezzlements, thefts, etc. In fact, casinos should be taxed to specifically pay for enforcement. After all, their refusal to act responsibility and their routinely thumbing their noses at the regulations has escalated the problem.
Whether this would work on a practical basis is of course unknown, because it hasn’t been tried. Having another layer of government employees goes against my beliefs of less government intrusion in our lives, but I think the casino industry has brought this on itself. Perhaps there could be a group of volunteers to handle the patrols, who would call enforcement agents when there is a dispute as to whether a patron should be cut off. There could be several different approaches.
The current system is undoubtedly broken. We have the casinos, who benefit the most from allowing compulsive gamblers to continue to play, entrusted with the task of stopping them. This is an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It is telling that in Arelia’s case, the casino executive with a conscience who tried to get her to stop playing, told her he could lose his job for making that suggestion to her. If the “responsible gaming” nonsense spouted by Harrah’s and other casino operators is to be believed, that executive should have been commended by his bosses for trying to help a troubled patron, not be in fear of being fired for doing the right thing.
I am not suggesting huge changes in the way casinos operate –- just that the existing laws and regulations be reasonably enforced, with appropriate penalties for casinos and casino employees who flout them. Getting cut off from further play might have served as a wake-up call (no pun intended) that might have saved Arelia, and might save countless others.