Well, the pokies so-called debate, if that's what you call it, won't go away.
Now you've got David Gallop, the Rugby League boss saying no football club should be bankrolled by pokie revenue.
Well in an ideal world, we'd all agree.
Should a government be bankrolled by cigarette revenue?
In an ideal world, should we be buying oil from the Middle East?
The revenue we turn over to them is used for appalling terrorist behaviour which has, in the recent past, killed our own people.
Quite frankly, this is a very shallow debate.
And the same people who have mounted their high horses on this poker machine issue are the same people who rail against government for not providing this service or that.
And argue: Where's the money gone?
So if kids are being educated in demountable classrooms, replace them.
If the school toilets leak or stink, we need 120 million to fix them.
People are killed on the Pacific Highway, we scream at government to fix it.
We don't have enough beds for the mentally ill, more than a thousand short in fact, and we scream at government to provide them.
There are queues a mile long at hospital emergency departments, we call on government to provide more money for nurses.
People are waiting years for elective surgery.
The doctors are there.
There's no money to pay them for doing the surgery.
You could go on and on.
And if clubs shouldn't be bankrolled by pokie revenue, how is revenue from poker machines more odious than revenue from bookmakers or from the TAB.
But government gets hundreds of millions of dollars from TAB turnover, hundreds of millions of dollars from smokers and yes, globally across Australia, States get about $4 billion from poker machine revenue.
And you get the former National Party leader, once Deputy Prime Minister (who could never be accused of knowing much) John Anderson calling it excessive greed for revenue by government.
Well, I've yet to hear one syllable from anyone as to where government, Liberal or Labor, would get their money from if not from these sources.
How odious, if we're fair dinkum is payroll tax.
An employer gives some bloke a job and is taxed for doing it.
But if you back your objection to that stupidity by abolishing payroll tax, where then does the money come from.
If South Sydney Rugby League Club want to abolish poker machines, that's fine.
If they've got some other way of funding their football team and a variety of community projects, that's fine.
Perhaps they're hoping that people will spend their money in the club on businesses owned by Peter Holmes a Court so that he can make a quid.
Well I don't have a problem with that either.
But where government is called upon every day to provide a million and one services it can't afford, will someone stridently opposed to poker machine taxes explain why they're not opposed to using money from alcohol and cigarettes and why aren't they opposed to government using money from the TAB.
The whole debate all week has smacked of grandstanding and hypocrisy.
Running football clubs, running sport and running government, we can do without both.
One final point.
I've not seen one single acknowledgment that the club industry, supported by poker machine tax, employs almost 50,000 people and pays wages in the vicinity of a billion dollars.
The four largest contributors to government revenue are payroll tax, stamp duty, land tax and gaming taxes.
In an ideal world all of them are odious.
But can some of the grandstanders from this week explain where the money for government will come from once any or all of these are ditched.
Strange how they're vocal for the headlines but silent on the answer to that question.