Gambler blames casino for having lost half a million dollars

[LSN80]

But not in the way you think.

It's not about the money, Mark Johnston of Ventura, California insists. It's about the principle behind it. And for Johnston, the principle is that while gambling at the Downtown Grand Las Vegas Hotel & Casino, he blacked out from drinking so much alcohol that the Casino's employees essentially forced on him, and doesn't remember the losses he suffered gambling. Since he can't remember, he's alleging, he shouldn't have to pay.

Had he won $500,000 during said blackout, I'm sure he naturally would have given the money back as soon as his blackout was over, honorable man that he is.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/california-drunken-gambler-las-vegas-casino/?iref=obnetwork

On Super Bowl weekend, Mark Johnston lost $500,000 at pai gow and blackjack in a 17-hour period, but is claiming he was too drunk to be allowed to gamble. He is now suing the casino, seeking to both nullify the losses he suffered at the casino, and to deter the casino from similar "behavior" in the future. What behavior, you ask? Johnston compared it to being "pickpocketed", in a statement he made this past Thursday:

"Just picture a drunk walking the street and he's drunk, and someone pickpockets and takes his money from him. That's how I characterize it. I feel like it's the days of old Vegas, the way they've been extorting me with letters and attorneys."

Clearly, they're exactly the same, because someone who is pick-pocketed is the exact same as someone who takes out 2 lines of credit for $100,000 within 21 minutes of one another. As for Johnston, he puts the blame on the casino for giving him free booze, and for not stopping him from gambling when, he claims, he was visibly intoxicated. It's important to note that, in that 17 hour span, Johnston spent all of his money at the same table, a private pai gow(a domino-type game)and blackjack table. Johnston acknowledges he drank 10 drinks before he entered the casino, and as many as 20 more in the 17 hours he was in the casino. He took some responsibility- before accusing the casino of almost killing him.

"My responsibility is, look, I had some drinks at the airport, on the plane. At some point, that's my responsibility. The unfortunate part about it for them is, they have a bigger responsibility than I do."

The part I hate is the last line, where he claims the casino has a bigger responsibility then he does. It's the same as a woman who enters the bar after driving, knowing she has no other way home. She willingly accepts free drinks from other men, all-the-while knowing she's getting drunker. Does the bartender have a responsibility to watch and see and make sure she's not drinking too much? Sure, it's part of their job to cut someone off when they're visibly drunk, the same as it's the casino's to either cut off the alcohol or the gaming when a person is inebriated. But to blame the casino? As I said earlier, he not only blamed the casino, but he accused them of worse, saying they "almost killed him."

Here it is:

"This is about you almost killing me.What if I had gone to bed that night, with all those drinks in me, and I threw up on myself and I choked and died?"

Then it would have been the responsibility of multiple people, but most of all, the man for knowing he had consumed ten drinks before even walking into the casino, and continuing to drink. Just say no, and such. The fault would also lie with casino itself, for serving him free drinks if they notice he's already drunk. Free drinks are a way of getting a customer within a casino to lower their inhibitions. Just as a man pursuing a woman provides her free drinks in hopes that she'll open her legs, a casino provides customers free drinks in hopes that they'll open their wallets.

That doesn't mean they have to say yes. However, as is regulatory, Nevada Gaming Control Board is now investigating the Downtown Grand on whether it violated gaming regulations. Gaming regulations are strict when it comes to alcohol and gaming. They both are prohibitory of allowing visibly drunk individuals from gaming, and also, from serving alcoholic beverages to people in a casino who are intoxicated, whether they are gaming or not. Karl Bennison, chief of Nevada's Gaming Control Board's enforcement division, had the following to say:

"We are investigating this thoroughly. We are aware of this matter. We'll see if there are regulation violations, and if there are, the casino could face a license revocation or fines or both if the violations are substantiated."

If the man walked in after drinking ten drinks, and was served 19 more, I don't see how the Board couldn't find violations. But like any "good" drug addict, a "good" alcoholic can drink substantial amounts of alcohol and hide it well. But in the case of Mark Johnston, if he was truly served 19 drinks, free, paid for, or a mixture of both, the casino absolutely should be subjected to fines and license revocation.

But in the case of Mark Johnston, if he came intothe casino with ten drinks already, then he was knowingly intoxicated. And he has no one to blame for that but himself, nor does he have anyone to blame for imbuing more alcohol then himself. If he "blacked out" and doesn't remember getting the lines of credit or gambling as much money away as he did, it's still on him for drinking himself into a blackout, and he's lucky he didn't die. He should be thankful for as much, and seeing that, as he said in the article, he's "lost more then that", he should be thankful he's alive. Then he should probably seek help, at least an evaluation, for alcohol treatment and abuse.

But it's absurd to think that he should get one cent in his lawsuit, but in the "blame everyone but yourself" world that we live, he likely will. And if the casino is found to have violated regulations, which they likely will if his story is true, I'd guarantee it. How about for once, we as a society take responsibility for our own actions, rather then looking to drop the blame on anyone else we can?

Johnston acknowledged blame himself, but also said the casino is "more to blame." Do you agree both are to blame? If so, who is moreso?

Based on the information here, should Johnston be freed from his debt and receive compensation as well in the lawsuit he filed?

Do you think the casino is guilty of violating the intoxication and gaming policies of Nevada?

Answer one, answer none. Any thoughts or discussion surrounding this story are welcome and encouraged.

 

[klunderbunker]

As is the case far too often in society today: the devil made him do it.

No one but Johnston was holding his mouth open and pouring drinks down his throat. I've been offered a lot of drinks in my life and do you know how I avoided drinking them? "No thanks." But hey, the guy was inebriated coming into the building because we can't blame him for those drinks either.

This is another idea that is ridiculous. Why in the world should a casino just forgive a debt because a grown man had a bunch of drinks on his way in and then had a bunch more once he was inside? How can the casino know that he won't remember doing anything? That's quite the helpful way to get out of a problem isn't it?

The license revocation issue is another deal, but this sounds like another case of someone not wanting to take responsibility for his own actions.

 

[Mustang Sally]

But in the case of Mark Johnston, if he came intothe casino with ten drinks already, then he was knowingly intoxicated. And he has no one to blame for that but himself, nor does he have anyone to blame for imbuing more alcohol then himself. If he "blacked out" and doesn't remember getting the lines of credit or gambling as much money away as he did, it's still on him for drinking himself into a blackout, and he's lucky he didn't die.

People are never going to stop finding ways to avoid personal responsibility for their actions, are they? In this case, while the guy is trying to convince people this is an issue of principle, in fact, he's doing it only because he lost his money and wants the casino to be forced to give it back.

The guy needed to be told that drinking and gambling don't mix? The casinos have been mixing the two for decades, and don't tell me the guy didn't know it. I doubt this was the first time he ever sat down at a gambling table; if he wasn't intelligent enough to keep himself sharp before risking his money ......too freakin' bad.

It's painful to watch society continually looking for ways to legally blame others for the bad things that happen to them..... but the fact that court cases so often wind up with people who ought to have taken care of their own destinies successfully getting others blamed for their actions result in two bad things: (1) a societal trend in which people come to believe they don't have to watch out for themselves because a negative outcome can be canceled out by getting someone else to pay for what you should have prevented by yourself, and (2) a bunch of lawyers counting their money and laughing about the circumstances under which they procured it.

 

[#tamale]

The law is in place that if a person is visibly intoxicated you are not allowed to serve him complimentary drinks. Same as if he tries to purchase a drink. Apparently there is also a former casino employee named in the lawsuit who can testify that Johnston was visibly drunk while playing and they continued to serve him drinks.

Johnston seems to have a problem with drinking and using common sense, but if it's proven true that they continued to comp him drinks while he was visibly intoxicated, then the casino is to blame for this situation. The law is there to abide by it and Johnston should be at least freed from his debt to the casino. If this is also proven true, the casino is in violation of the intoxication and gaming policies of Nevada and should be subject to fines and license revocation. That's why the casino will settle out of court with Johnston. They want to keep the fines and license revocation as far as possible.

Legally, Johnston does have a case against the casino. It is evading responsibility for your actions, but the casino did mess up if in fact they kept on comping his drinks while he was visibily intoxicated.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's another sad example of how far we've plummeted as a society. Personal responsibility is rapidly becoming an endangered species; it seems that hardly a day goes by in which someone that commits some sort of royal screw up in their lives while attempting to lay the blame on someone else. With that said, the casino isn't exactly 100% innocent here. If the casino did continue to comp this guy drinks while he was clearly drunk off his ass, then he may have some sort of legal case here.

Here's the thing about the gambling industry: it's built on people who lose money. It always has been and it always will be. Winning $1 gambling is better than earning $10 working a job somewhere, it's part of the American Dream. Whatever money casinos pay to winners hardly counts as a drop in the bucket compared to what they take in. That's how the games are designed and that's exactly how the casinos want to keep things. I know that there are all sorts of regulations in place and various technicalities pertaining to the gambling laws in Nevada but...well...let's just call it like it is: the gambling industry is essentially illegality made legal. You know who really built Las Vegas and its casinos? The mob. At one time or another, every casino in Vegas has been owned, run or financed by organized crime. What's that tell me? That I have a better chance of catching The Pope in an S&M orgy than I do of finding an honest game in Las Vegas. The entire industry is designed to bilk people out of their money, so I'm not at all surprised that they'd go so far as to keep letting this guy drink when he's practically handing over fat sums of money to them. Vegas' history is well known and well documented, I'm sure Mark Johnston is fully aware of this, yet he and millions of others like him every single year flock to Las Vegas in the hopes of hitting it big.

It's extremely difficult for me to feel sorry for Mark Johnston or anyone who loses their shirt in Vegas. He's obviously not some wide eyed innocent that had no Earthly idea what he was getting himself into. Hell, he walked into the casino hammered in the first place. Casino security didn't hold him at gunpoint at the blackjack table while forcing him to chug-a-lug.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

Casinos actively try to get you buzzed so you can keep gambling. Casinos are some of the shadiest and cruelest organizations out there. They obviously tried to get him drunk so he can keep playing. Him falling for it is definitely his fault, but that doesn't mean I'm going to side with the casino. Fuck the casinos. I hope this goes in his favor.

 

[LSN80]

Casinos actively try to get you buzzed so you can keep gambling.

Did you miss the part where he walked into the casino already drunk, or are you posting this just to be contrary?

Casinos are some of the shadiest and cruelest organizations out there.

They are. So wouldn't you think that a man who was a veteran of casino's, who fully acknowledged that he's lost more than this in some visits, would avoid gambling in an already inebriated state? That's the part you're not taking into consideration, I believe. He had already, by his own admission, had at least a half-dozen drinks before entering the casino.

Perhaps he's an alcoholic, and half a drinks is nothing for him. But had I consumed half a dozen drinks, I would be on the floor. But regardless, drinking lowers ones inhibition, and I know this from my younger years. I used to go to Atlantic City quite a bit(I knew a girl up there as well), and I lost quite a bit of money there, because I had been drinking beforehand. Was I offered, and on the receiving end of complimentary drinks? Yep.

But it was my choice to accept them, and to keep gambling as well. No one held the man down and forced him to drink, nor did they hold him at gunpoint and force him to keep gambling.

They obviously tried to get him drunk so he can keep playing.

And he, of his own volition, accepted such drinks. He could have said no. He didn't. His fault. It's a dirty business, and casinos profit greatly from people who say yes. But it's the individual who accepts the drink, and as such, the individual who should be held responsible for their losses.

Him falling for it is definitely his fault, but that doesn't mean I'm going to side with the casino. Fuck the casinos. I hope this goes in his favor.

This makes sense. You acknowledge that it was his fault, but you hope it goes in his favor as well. Of what sense is that? I don't agree with how casinos run their businesses as well, which is why I don't gamble anymore.

This guy was probably at a table in another casino a week later, inebriated once again. It's another poor example in our society of a person wanting to blame everyone else for their failures, rather than take responsibility for themselves.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

his fault[/I], but you hope it goes in his favor as well. Of what sense is that? I don't agree with how casinos run their businesses as well, which is why I don't gamble anymore.

This guy was probably at a table in another casino a week later, inebriated once again. It's another poor example in our society of a person wanting to blame everyone else for their failures then themselves.

Yeah, pretty much. I wasn't pretending to be fair. Casinos are the shadiest organizations out there, and their whole business model is designed to take advantage of people's addictions, ignorance and/or naivety.

Therefore, I really don't care how stupid this guy must have been throughout it all to get shit-faced and gamble away every cent to his name. I hope the case goes in his favor, because the casino is always the bad guy, and maybe, just maybe, a big loss in a case like this, might help change their ways. One ruling will probably have no effect, but maybe 3 or 4 will make them reflect about initiating a policy about kicking out people when they're drunk.