The Australian example is only an example of the wise behavior of state agencies regarding control of one of the most sensitive sectors in the economic fabric. In addition to the large percentages that the state deducts from the profits of these companies, the sector also provides important operational capacity and creates jobs. The real stake for the state remains in its ability to balance the profits made by the sector and the repercussions it causes. The gambling industry does not cost the state as much as the cigarette or liquor industry because it is forced to provide health support institutions for those affected by them, while for gambling addicts their health care does not require a large cost since they are affected psychologically and not physically.
You forget that smoking causes both physical and mental problems. Trying to differentiate physical and mental problem isn't possible because they both work cheek by jowls in running the body system. The brain helps the functionalities of the body and vice versa. An injured person can't think straight forward, due to pains. Same for a mentally disabled person. He can hurt his body and also feel disheartened. None is good for any human or better than the other problem. What is important, is reducing the high rate of mentally disabled people in the society, especially, those caused by gambling. As the number of gamblers increase a lot in the society. In addition, any form of illness officially mandates lots of money, not minding the type of illness. Saying the government should focus more on physically ill people over mentally ill citizens, isn't completely proper. The only abstract thing in both affected corporeality, is that mentally ill person; addicted gambler can stay unnoticed. Hence, making the process of tracing him difficult by the government. Unlike a physically ill person, that must be noticed immediately by everyone around them. Addiction takes time before society realizes the problem of the gamblers. I don't think anything, should be the reason why one side of the party won't be helped by the government. So, if the government use the money generated via gambling to tackle addicts and then tobacco money for affected smokers.
Well, I don't know in the other Countries , but when it is about what I live it is not so. They can charge all the taxes that they are queir, and yes, they tell you that they will help health, sport, whatever, but they do not, that money is for them, and they are replable to make their face, But at least in this country it is not so, so there are many countries that Prohibit casinos , games of chance for this to prevent addicted people and the Solution is not that , it is not prohibit , it is quite the Opposite, to Leave and that People take their Responsibility , the fact that a country Prohibits games of Chance just for protection is a lie , and then much Less the taxes that a Government can Subtract from a casino is a lie that will use them for the benefit of addicts, in The personal I have always thought that the most legal Countries for these Things are the most prosperous, Switzerland, Nordic Countries , which are Countries that pay anything in taxes because they have such a high quality of life that they can Do.
Prohibition policies were not useful in any way in reducing the spread of addiction among gamblers, especially since gambling activity can be practiced on any game locally without the need at all for the presence of the state or one of its institutions to regulate. For example, I live in a conservative country whose religion is Islam, which is considered one of the most important sources of legislation. Although the Islamic religion clearly prohibits all gambling activities, the state regulates the sector and benefits fully from its revenues without even bothering to take care of addicts.