Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

WA Law: 5 Years in Prison for Gambling Online

Posted by timothy on Wed May 31, 2006 05:15 PM
from the a-sawbuck-says-you-can't-give-up-gambling dept.
United States The Internet The Courts Censorship
tpoker writes "Online gambling has been an ongoing legal issue for the federal government, but Washington State has recently decided to take matters into their own hands. The Seattle PI reports, 'Beginning next month [June 7th], Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal. Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.'"

Related Stories

[+] WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal 300 comments
tpoker writes "Following a previous story on Washington State making online gambling a felony, the Seattle Times reports that the first legal salvos have begun. 'The first casualty in the state's war on Internet gambling is a local Web site where nobody was actually doing any gambling. What a Bellingham man did on his site was write about online gambling. He reviewed Internet casinos. He had links to them, and ran ads by them. All that, says the state -- the ads, the linking, even the discussing -- violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit 'gambling information ... Telling people how to gamble online, where to do it, giving a link to it -- that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal.'"
[+] U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act 334 comments
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
[+] Internet Gambling CEO Arrested by FBI 298 comments
tightpoker writes to mention the news that several key individuals associated with online gambling site BetonSports have been indicted in a Missouri courtroom. Founder Stephen Kaplan, CEO David Carruthers, 9 other people and four corporations have been charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to fraud. The Sunday Time reports on the story as well, addressing fears this may be a prelude to a crackdown on all online gambling by U.S. law enforcement. From the article: "Nigel Parson, leisure analyst at Williams de Broë, said the move would 'throw online gambling stocks into a spin,' adding: 'David Carruthers is a prominent advocate of online gambling. The fear that this is an escalation of the anti-lobby will trouble markets.' Greg Harris, an analyst at Cannacord, said: 'It is too early to say if this is part of a broader strategy on prevention of internet gambling in the U.S. or if it is the Department of Justice flexing their muscles and trying to influence legislation.'"
[+] U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman 634 comments
imaginaryelf writes "Reuters reports that U.S. authorities have arrested Peter Dicks, the chairman of U.K. based online sports betting company Sportingbet Plc, while he was passing through Dallas. Just two months ago, the CEO of another U.K. based online sports betting company, BetOnSports, was arrested on U.S. soil as well. They are both charged with violating the 1961 Federal Wire Act, which can be broadly interpreted as declaring all forms of online gambling illegal in the U.S. Is online gambling the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

WA Law: 5 Years in Prison for Gambling Online 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:17PM (#15439683)
    Wow, you can kill someone and get less prison time... Look at the guy in the northeast who set off fireworks in doors and led to 100 people dying and he only got 4 years!

    Good game, government.

    • Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:4, Funny)

      by eln (21727) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:24PM (#15439746)
      I don't know about you, but from now on I'm going to threaten the governor and kick the dog every time I play poker online.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jason1729 (561790) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:42PM (#15439919)
      You cause kill a nursing home patient through gross negligence and get about 10% of the fine you get for showing a breast for 1/4 second during the superbowl.

      Welcome to the USA.
      [ Parent ]

    • magic the gathering (Score:4, Informative)

      by SEAL (88488) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:48PM (#15439966)
      Funny how Magic the Gathering Online, run by a Washington state company, now falls under this gambling bullshit. You can buy tickets to participate in matches, and the winners of matches can be awarded prizes -- therefore it's gambling in the eyes of the law.

      Congratulations on supporting local businesses, Gregoire! Oh wait you're in the pocket of the tribal casinos... I forgot.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @07:47PM (#15440805)
      The funiest part is that in WA we have tribal gambling, lotteries, and you can even have actual poker rooms off the reservation if you get the permits etc.

      So gambling is apparently fine, it's the online part that is illegal.
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Trailer Trash (60756) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @10:40PM (#15441700) Homepage
        The funiest part is that in WA we have tribal gambling, lotteries, and you can even have actual poker rooms off the reservation if you get the permits etc. So gambling is apparently fine, it's the online part that is illegal.

        It's not surprising:

        http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026550.php#026 550 [theagitator.com]

        From the article:

        Probably won't surprise you to learn that the bill's sponsor is heavily supported by Washington State's thriving bricks-and-mortar casino industry.

        Simply trying to protect their business. I am just waiting for the day that our bought and paid for legislators are kicked out of office.

        [ Parent ]

        • Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LunaticTippy (872397) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:59PM (#15440053)
          I hate to mention it, but I've set off fireworks indoors many many times and never killed anyone, or started a noteable fire.

          Then again, I've never done it anywhere that didn't meet fire code.

          I even have ignited dozens of model rocket engines indoors (safely secured) and detonated thermite. I'd say there is a basic expectation of fire-safety with regards to buildings. If there was a lazy/corrupt/incompetent fire inspector that is where the blame lies.

          People are going to smoke, light candles, use toasters, and have accidents in the kitchen. You can't always blame the person that finds the problem.

          [ Parent ]
        • That guy should do exactly zero time in jail.

          You got some average guy. This guys lights of indoor pyro as part of a music act.
          A foam mat catches on fire, people can't leave because the building is not up to code.

          That person will ahve to live with that forever. He is NOT a danger to society.

          There is no reason to put him in jail cost the taxpayers 100s of thousands of dollars, and put a hardship on his family, which will probably end up cost taz payers even more money.

          If this guy was an arsonist, then yeah, lock him up. He is just a guy, doing a task in a club that the fire martial should have closed.

          Seems like a tradgic accident, and the need for a scapegoat to me.

          [ Parent ]

          • Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Warg! The Orcs!! (957405) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @08:07PM (#15440900)
            By extension most murderers shouldn't be jailed. Most murders (in the UK certainly) are committed in the spur of the moment where the two parties are known to each other and something has gone suddenly wrong in the course of an argument. The perpetrator will rarely commit this act a second time in his/her life and is not a danger to society in general. There are other crimes regarded as "lesser" in nature that should really have more stringent sentencing. Rape springs to mind where the likelihood of the perpetrator re-offending is much greater than in the case of murder. So to re-order crimes according to the liklihood of recidivism
            • Counsel the murderers
            • Jail the rapists
            • Hang bad drivers
            [ Parent ]

      • Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2006, @10:32PM (#15441646)

        Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:-1, Offtopic)

        How is this [slashdot.org] off topic?

        The story was about a doctor who was killed by a SWAT team because he was gambling (in this case, coaxed into placing an illegal bet by an undercover cop).

        Either the mod is a LEO-bot, or the link to the Fox News site must have offended the Slashbot hive mind.



        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html [foxnews.com]

        In Virginia, the Death Penalty for Gambling
        Monday, May 01, 2006
        By Radley Balko

        About a month ago, I wrote a column about efforts in Congress to ban Internet gambling. There are lots of specific problems about those bills. But the broader issue is troubling, too: Why does our government insist on policing our personal lives for bad habits?

        Because there is almost never a complaining victim in vice crimes, law enforcement offers must go to extraordinary lengths to investigate and prosecute these crimes. This leads to all sorts of other problems, including invasions of privacy, entrapment, and police corruption.

        The sad case of Salvatore Culosi provides a recent, vivid illustration of the folly of vice laws. Culosi (as irony would have it, he was named after a police officer) was a 37-year old optometrist in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Fairfax, Virginia. According to friends, Culosi was a wealthy, self-made man. He was easygoing and friendly, a guy who enjoyed his success.

        He was also a small-time gambler. Culosi and his friends regularly met at bars in the area to watch sports, and frequently wagered on the outcomes of games. The wagers weren't insignificant -- $50, $100, sometimes more on a given afternoon. But the small circle of friends also had the means to back up their wagers. No one was betting the mortgage, here.

        As one friend of Culosi's told me, "To Sal, betting a few bills on the Redskins was a stress reliever, done among friends...none of us single, successful professionals ever thought that betting $50 bucks or so on the Virginia-Virginia Tech football game was a crime worthy of investigation."

        Apparently, it was. Fairfax police detective David J. Baucom met Culosi in a bar one evening last October, befriended him, and was soon making wagers himself. According to those close to Culosi I've spoken with, it wasn't long before Baucom began upping the ante, encouraging Culosi to wager larger sums than what the friends were used to. Baucom would later report in an affidavit that he'd wagered close to $30,000 with Culosi over a three-month period, and had lost nearly $6,000.

        Baucom eventually encouraged Culosi to wager at least $2,000 in a single day, the lower threshold under which Culosi could be charged under state law with "conducting an illegal gambling operation." On January 24 of this year, Detective Baucom assembled the Fairfax County SWAT team, and marched off to Culosi's home to arrest him.

        According to press accounts, police affidavits, and the resulting investigation by the Fairfax prosecutor's office, Baucom called Culosi that evening, and told him he'd be by to collect his winnings. With the SWAT team at the ready just behind him, Baucom waited outside Culosi's home in an SUV. As Culosi emerged from the doorway, clad only in a t-shirt and jeans, SWAT officer Deval Bullock's finger apparently slipped to the trigger of his Heckler & Koch MP5 semiautomatic weapon, already aimed at the unarmed Culosi.

        The gun fired, releasing a bullet that entered Culosi's side, then ripped through his chest and struck his heart, killing him instantly.

        It only got worse from there. This month, Culosi's parents called a press conference to release details of their own investigation into their son's shooting. They found that police waited more than five hours to inform them of their son's death, denyin
        [ Parent ]

  • Age old problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dotoole (881696) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:19PM (#15439694)
    When will people learn that you can't legislate away social problems?

    • Re:Age old problem... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by H3lldr0p (40304) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:22PM (#15439732) Homepage
      As if this was a "Social Problem".

      This is about control. As in, the State cannot control the revenue generated wherever the gambling goes on. Be certain that if WA could get "their" cut from "their" citizens gambling they wouldn't have this law.

      Think of it this way: State is to Gambling as RIAA is to Music. If they (the State) can't control it, they don't want anybody else doing it.
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Age old problem... (Score:5, Funny)

      by KingSkippus (799657) * on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:28PM (#15439786) Homepage Journal

      Well, Prohibition worked so well keeping people from drinki—

      Wait, I meant that sodomy laws do such a great job of keeping people from being homose—

      Well...

      Um...

      *sticks finger in ears* LALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!

      [ Parent ]

  • Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NBarnes (586109) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:20PM (#15439698)
    Pardon me, but what the hell is the point of this law if "it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest"? Selective enforcement... for the win!

  • Yeah, 'cause... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:20PM (#15439704)
    Most of the gambling houses are offshore, and the state doesn't get its cut.

  • Land of the Free, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bertie (87778) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:20PM (#15439707)
    So much more liberal and right-thinking than those evil Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.

    Keep on shining the torch of liberty into the darkest corners of the earth, now, won't you?

  • In California... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mcpkaaos (449561) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:20PM (#15439709)
    possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal

    I'm pretty sure one of those is legal. I just can't remember which.

  • Tax Revenue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Salo2112 (628590) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:21PM (#15439715)
    Amazing how the government can find the time and manpower to enforce crap laws like this when tax revenues are on the line.

  • God bless.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OzPhIsH (560038) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:21PM (#15439720) Journal
    God bless the good ol' land of the free. This is getting way past rediculous. It seems almost that soon murdering all witnesses that saw you commit some petty crime, like gambliing, will net you less jail time than getting busted for the small thing. I mean, 5 years for sitting at a computer and clicking a mouse. Sadly, it isn't sounding so unusual, but damn, that seems VERY fucking cruel.

  • No buying selling stocks online? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dotslashdot (694478) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:21PM (#15439721)
    Does that mean you can't buy & sell stocks online?

  • Dumb Law... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by creimer (824291) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:23PM (#15439736) Homepage Journal
    Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

    There should be a law that you can't put a law on the books with no intention of enforcing it. The law has enough baggage from previous years when politicians would grandstand for the "hang 'em high" crowd. I suggest hanging high anyone who puts a useless law on the book. :P

        • Re:Dumb Law... (Score:4, Funny)

          by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @09:11PM (#15441211) Homepage
          In Australia there are laws stating that you can't be, for example, kicked out of a restaurant because you're breastfeeding.

          I tried it once. I was kicked out of the resturant anyway, and the woman is suing.

          [ Parent ]

  • The state hates competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hsmith (818216) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:25PM (#15439759)
    Look it, the only reason that the gov't HATES online gambling is because it doesn't get paid tribute.

    The gov't hates when industries that rake in cash don't pay special tribute by donating, ect. Look at how google is now throwing out cash to avoid investigations and avoid the trouble MS had in the 90's.

    Pay tribute to the masters and you can do what you want.

    plus the state has a monopoly on gambling (state lotteries), they don't want that threatened. so lets throw harmless people in jail for a non-violent, victimless crime. Yes, america "home of the free" what a load of crap

  • Here's an idea for new laws..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:27PM (#15439771) Homepage Journal
    Mandatory sunset date of one year. Not just this stupid law but also laws that your congress-vermin pass. One year, it's re-evaluated and then passed again or thrown away.

  • awesome (Score:3, Insightful)

    by austad (22163) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:36PM (#15439859) Homepage
    This is sweet. We definitely need to fill our prisons with more people that shouldn't be there.

  • Jackpot (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:37PM (#15439869) Homepage Journal
    Jack Abramoff's main gig (as far as we know so far) was lobbying for "antigambling" laws to stop new casinos from competing with his casino clients. Also under the guise of "protecting gamblers from themselves", even enlisting the most popular Christian political organizers.

    Sounds like "antigambling legislation" is a bigger rigged game, a nest for money launderers, mobsters, bribers and bribees. We should protect our legislatures from themselves by keeping them out of the business. They're welcome to stay in the business of busting money launderers, mobsters, bribers/bribees and extortionists, and rehab for compulsive gamblers - but I doubt they'll be as interested in that losing game.

  • Indian casino lobbyists at work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xswl0931 (562013) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:40PM (#15439897)
    In Washington State, Indian reservations are building more and bigger casinos. Online gambling is considered a threat. They have successfully lobbied for this law. That's all there is to it.

  • Washington has quite a few casinos (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_kress (99356) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:50PM (#15439988)
    We have quite a few Indian casinos, and playing poker is legal in general. The online joints are probably taking revenues away from the state, so I'm not terribly surprised.

    Besides, with unregulated online casinos running in another country, why on earth would anyone A) implement a casino without the ability to skim (Which could be completely invisible to anyone without some serious probabilities analysis tools and a lot of time to sit playtesting) or B) want to play said unregulated online casino?

  • Just one more personal freedom lost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AriaStar (964558) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:52PM (#15440002) Journal
    You can choose to smoke cigarettes around a newborn baby, even blowing smoke in its face, and it's completely legal, but to gamble your own money should be a crime? Because they can tax the cigarettes, but it's difficult to enforce taxes on online winnings. Without that tax money, how are they supposed to vote themselves more payraises? There is no logical reason for this. If you think about it, most laws are in place for no reason other than as reasons to fine us or tax us to death.

    The original purpose of laws at all was to impose a minimal number of laws to ensure the safety of lives and property of citizens. How does it ensure the safety of my life or property if I cross a suburban street anywhere other than a street corner if no cars are coming? I learned to look both ways. It's still a crime a cop could fine me for.

    What politician does it hurt if two guys want to go consensually behind closed and do whatever the hell they want to do with each other? Who does it hurt if I want to give a guy a blow job, or he wants to go down on me? Hell, we're adults, and yet these are still crimes in some states. Must we get permits?

    See why I like a lot (but not all) of the ideas behind anarchy? Get the government the hell out of our lives.

  • Wanna bet? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anne_Nonymous (313852) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @06:00PM (#15440063) Homepage Journal
    Five bucks says they'll never catch me.

  • Just what we need -- more NIMBY irrelevant laws (Score:4, Interesting)

    by istartedi (132515) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @06:15PM (#15440172) Journal

    IMHO, the purpose of the criminal justice system is not to punish. Let that sink in. I don't want to punish criminals. It's stupid. It's vindictive. It's emotional and it isn't constructive.

    What SHOULD be the purpose of the justice system? One thing, and one thing only:

    To separate dangerous individuals from society, and keep them separated.

    Note, by "dangerous" I mean physicly harmful only. I don't mean, "they don't live like we think they should". I don't mean "they stole a lot of money". Yes. That's right. Thieves don't belong in jail unless they hurt people physicly. If the crime is monetary, there is an excellent argument for RESTITUTION in the form of fines and wage garnishment. There is no good argument for SEPARATION unless the guy waved a gun in somebody's face to get the money.

    I may not *like* the Enron criminals, but wouldn't mind living next door to them. These guys are not going to stick a gun in my face and BLOW MY HEAD OFF. They are (probably) not going to rape my children.

    Get it, government idiots?

    Some guy who plays online poker and smokes weed on the weekends does not belong in jail. If you want to tax the weed and the poker, fine but I am SICK AND TIRED of my government setting child rapists and armed thugs free so they can put functional members of society behind bars because of their particular notions regarding crime and punishment. Frankly, that kid of life sounds like enough punishment.

  • My two cents as a Washingtonian... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Antony-Kyre (807195) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @07:26PM (#15440677)
    I'm not sure how they do it, since it's on gross receipts. Maybe it's the total difference of incoming money and outgoing money from a given individual casino concerning gambling. The B&O tax is a fixed rate, more or less. It tends to be either 1.5% or 1.6% of the gross receipts for gambling if you look at http://dor.wa.gov./ [dor.wa.gov]

    This law doesn't bother me. Gambling via the Internet seems like a bad idea. You cannot check for someone's age, and plus there's no way to deal with people who have gambling problems.

    However, what does bother me about the law is the punishment. One, at most it should be a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. Two, they should go after any business which doesn't hold a disclaimer saying Washingtonians cannot gamble via their site. A fine equal to 110% of the winnings or amount gambled, whichever is greater, for the individual Washingtonian who gambled.

    How many have heard that Washington state is considering raising the gambling age from 18 to 21?

  • That's one way of pissing on my birthday (Score:4, Informative)

    by tyrione (134248) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @08:28PM (#15440995) Homepage

    I don't even gamble but this stupid law makes me sad to be a resident of Washington State. Sometimes the greed in our State government knows no bounds. They weasel their way into raising our tab fees after we voted them down and they screw us on our road bills where they say roads will be paved with high grade concrete only to be stripped and replaced with asphault, guaranteeing more idiots working the roads and less efficiency in our state funds going to improve more infrastructures. Vote Libertarian and force these pukes to follow through and put the money where they proclaim it will be put and no more.

    Let the idiots who become addicted to gambling shrivel up in their own miseries for being weak. Re-privatized our Liquor stores that presently force everyone to drive to the reservations for reasonable prices. Good for the reservations and their exemptions but come on! Stop screwing your residents. Fix out power grids with a joint private venture so we are less susceptible to power outages and real jobs are created instead of the various strip mall retail service ilk.

  • One issue no one mentioned so far (Score:4, Insightful)

    by soft_guy (534437) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @11:35PM (#15441997)
    One thing I can think of is that in Washington (and other states) they regulate casinos in order to make sure the games are fair.

    How can the state make sure the online games are not rigged?

    Why is this not a problem that bothers online gamblers? If you gamble online, please reply and tell me how you know the virtual cards or virtual dice or virtual roulette wheel is not rigged. I am curious to know as I don't gamble at all.

    • Re:It's illegal over there? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:26PM (#15439764)
      It dates back to around the 1930's (I think) when organized crime was rampant thanks to things like prohibition. The feds tried to crack down on illegal betting way back then by passing laws that made it illegal to place any sort of wager by phone. Betting parlors, bookies, etc. relied heavily on people placing bets via the phone. (For it to be a federal offense the call actually had to cross state lines.) Needless to say, those laws still remain on the books some 75 years later, and they're now applied to internet wagering as well...
      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Place your bets.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lord_Slepnir (585350)
      Are you serious? I don't know if you've actually ever been to washington, but a vast majority of the population consist of people that were too liberal for california and decided to move north. It's an extremely 'no government is good government' kind of

      • Re:Place your bets.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by anagama (611277)
        There are two Washingtons. To the west of the Cascades, there is s fair percentage of liberal thought. To the East of the Cascades, it's pretty much a Dependent Territory of Idaho.

        • Re:Place your bets.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Blakey Rat (99501) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:49PM (#15439970)
          I've lived in both western and eastern Washington. My assertion is that when they were splitting up the territories, they did it in the wrong direction; Washington should be a long narrow state like California, entirely west of the Cascades, and Oregon should be a bigger yet less-populous state east of the Cascades. Then each state would probably have a much easier time governing itself. But alas.
          [ Parent ]

    • Re:Place your bets.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by kodyjoe (973095) on Wednesday May 31 2006, @05:32PM (#15439827)
      The state profits on gambling from horse racing and the state lottery. The Indian casino lobby is huge. Since the online guys don't kick back to the state, and since the Indians have deeper pockets, guess who gets the shaft? Nothing to do with the churches this time.
      [ Parent ]
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.