The addiction of gambling

Notice how 'scientific experts' in the popular reads these days always sound like they're reading off a script from CSI.

ie - made up, doesn't apply to reality.

Every time a bell rings, BF Skinnerism has convinced another loonbag of behaviouralism.

I agree exactly. :)

Addict gambler though - a 'regular' gambler like a 'regular' drug user doesn't do it for the ceremony or ritual, they do it for the results.

It's just that with gambling if you don't end up making more money than you put in, then it's overall a loss and a pointless thing to do. Drugs are different, they're like anything else you purchase & use. Of course if a drug does nothing for you, then you don't use it / don't buy it again - also just like any other purchase.
If you enjoy a puff say, then unlike with gambling, you win every time you buy it - because you get what you pay for. If drugs were like gambling exactly, then you'd be taking substances and most of the time they wouldn't do anything; same way that with most bets you lose.

No doubt about it - there's all kinds of things loads of people are very much addicted to, but because those things aren't illegal or seen as socially-crippling (eg - like blowing all your money gambling) they don't tend to be written up in the media or in research papers as being addictive things.

It's the ceremony that's important to the gambler, too...

In my opinion, the important thing about the burgeoning and well-supported body of evidence for addictive properties of all sorts of substances and experiences of every sort, such as television, video games, and gambling, to name a few well-documented in recent research, is simply that it shows (to anyone willing to pay attention, which of course is not most of the people in any kind of authority) that "addiction" is not some magic supernatural demon which lives only in the magic pills on the "evil" list in the law books. Rather, addiction is a psychological process, which has characteristics that are supported by various external elements (e.g. drugs, television, etc.) to various degrees. This degree of support of a given behavior/substance/etc. is what we normally think of as its "addictiveness". The extent to which "addiction" is happening in any individual circumstance will always depend on the complex interplay of factors such as individual disposition, the "addictiveness" of the behavior in question, external circumstances, and so on. This broader perspective on addiction, which is so glaringly absent from almost all drug policy, and even most addiction treatment and research, would go a long way towards solving not just the societal problems caused by drugs, but a much broader range of problems related to impulsive or short-sighted behavior such as mindless consumerism.

Or, in other words, there's nothing uniquely bad about drugs.

So, are they actually trying to say that anything addictive - they all just produce the exact same results, and that's why they're addictive?!

How can gamblings outcome be a surprise; there's only two possibilities. There's no room for surprise there, it has set odds and everything.

People do different drugs because they have different effects. People gamble because it might win them money, and then they don't have to go to work anymore & can afford to buy all those things they want but currently can't afford. Addiction is a habit-ritual-routine problem. It's the ceremony that's important to the addict.