Slashdot Log In
U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jul 11, 2006 08:56 AM
from the need-a-law-for-everything dept.
from the need-a-law-for-everything dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. House Clears Anti-Internet Gambling Bill 283 comments
matr0x_x writes "The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites when the US House of Representatives cleared an anti-Internet gambling bill yesterday. The bill is against a World Trade Organization ruling last August that stated the US must not block online gambling sites based overseas." From the article: " The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions. Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law."
[+]
WA Law: 5 Years in Prison for Gambling Online 535 comments
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.'"
[+]
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.'"
[+]
Betting Against Online Gambling 175 comments
conq writes "BusinessWeek.com has an article looking at the possible consequences if anti-gambling legislation is passed. From the article: 'Just how much of a setback is the proposed legislation for the $12 billion industry? While online gambling companies generate half their sales from U.S. gamblers, the industry is operated almost completely by companies beyond the reach of U.S. regulators. [...] It's a lot of smoke and mirrors and misstatements.'"
[+]
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?"
[+]
Online Gambling Bill Passed in House 170 comments
rkcallaghan writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless. Since this bill isn't expected to affect the usual, legal ways of gambling domestically, one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states, rather than overseas.
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.
They won't get rid of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know how it's in the US, but I don't wonder countries are against online gambling: not because of your health, or to prevent fraud, but because of all the money they'll lose their grip on.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Informative)
In the US itself, it's not a Federal matter. Gambling is lef
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:4, Interesting)
The legal fiction is that it's sovereign land. The truth is that it's federal land, held in trust. This is clearly true because soverignty does not apply to members of the tribe, only to the tribe as an entity in itself and to the land itself.
I work for a Tribal casino in Northern California. There is some truth to what you say; some tribes have contracted someone to come in and build and operate the casino, and those entities typically get the bulk of the profits for something like ten years.
The tribe[let] I work for put up a Bingo hall in the 80s and has been operating it more or less continuously since. When it came to be time to open a casino, they went to the bank, got a loan against the business, and built a new, larger bingo hall/event center, a 40-some room hotel, and a little conference center.
Consequently, the tribe gets the majority of the money. Not only do registered members of the tribe get a share of the money (aka the "per capita" payment) but a certain, significant amount of money goes into the tribal council's coffers. They've built quite a few homes with the money, and they're preparing to build more.
Nevada just legalized mobile gaming, which is to say, on phones and handhelds. I think they're going to be implementing video keno via sms first. This will knock out a considerable amount of online gambling, but only in NV. The simple fact is that people will do destructive things with their money and if we really want to "solve" the problem, we should be allowing it in the USA, with extremely tight regulation. If we're worried about the cultural impact of legalizing online gaming, maybe we can funnel a percentage of the taxes to a fund to deal with the ills. Ultimately though, people will end up gaming on-line via encrypting anonymizers, and the money will continue to leave the country, unless we legalize online gaming in the US, and collect the money here.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Take prohibition for example: sure, they could tax drugs and "allow" us our god-given right to voluntary association, but prohibition rakes in billions per year for government, and provides them with orders of magnitude more power than regulation and taxing, which can be leveraged for even more profit. Therefore, prohibition is here to stay, at least as long as big government is here to stay.
They will literally sit down and discuss how to maximize revenue and market share, like any business would, and the answer will be determined exactly that way. Don't you love being ruled by other human beings?
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:4, Informative)
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:4, Interesting)
He probably WOULD be redistricted. See, this war on drugs shit means that the law enforcement agencies get more and more money to buy new toys so they can abuse them. (Five-oh is outside, waiting with the van, hoping that shit will get out of hand / so that they can test their weapons on innocent civilians / the high tech shit costing millions and millions! --Michael Franti/Spearhead) In fact we just had some of that here in Lake County, which is known as a methamphetamine production center throughout California; the cops just got tasers like a week ago and they've already used 'em twice, then claimed that they've only done it once in a statement to a paper on the second occasion. Fucking pigs.
We have helicopter overflights every day in my neighborhood. Ostensibly, they're looking for meth factories, and large outdoor plots of weed, since probably something around half of the people in my neighborhood are producing marijuana. And no, I am not exaggerating. It's kind of a mecca. Personally, I moved up there (it's at about 2800 feet) to try to get some cooler weather, and it hasn't been working worth a crap this year, but it's been over 100 degrees on the flatland pretty often. But the point is, they have a bunch of fun toys.
And speaking of fun, here's a fun fact: They took over 1,000,000 marijuana plants out of the Mendocino and Tahoe national forests to the north of me, in this county and the neighboring county alone. Since they're outdoor, that could be anything from 750,000 pounds up to about 3,000,000 pounds of product, and the average person will smoke less than an eighth of an ounce a week. 16 ounces to a pound makes that enough for (assuming 1lb/plant) 8 eights * 16 oz/lb * 1,000,000 pounds = 128,000,000 man-weeks of smoking, or enough to keep about 2.4 million people smoking for a year. (I'm not sure if there's any valid statistics on average marijuana consumption per user - marijuana research is actively suppressed in the USA unless you're aiming to prove that it's harmful. The government paid a bunch of money to try to prove that it's harmful, and failed, and decided not to publish the full results of the study. Surprise, surprise.)
In spite of that, there is no shortage. Prices have not gone up. Marijuana has not become scarce.
If you need any more proof that the war on drugs is more about buying toys and making money on the "corrections" system than about any moral issues, you're not paying sufficient attention. The war on drugs is doomed to be an ongoing failure until it ends, causing more crime than it could ever solve, just as prohibition of alcohol was.
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more profitable because it justifies military-scale law enforcement budgets, allows law enforcement to seize assets worth millions of dollars, allows the state to jail non-violent users to use as a cheap labor pool, and neccessitates the construction
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:5, Insightful)
IF the US were to legalize online gambling, and tariff the hell out of international gambling services, they could not only keep more of the money IN the US economy, but they could still tax the gamblers (capital gains) and the profits of the online casino.
Instead the government has created a situation where they are attempting to dictate morals to the majority aged citizens and are shipping our US dollars overseas for no good reason.
-Rick
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They won't get rid of it (Score:4, Informative)
Marijuana tax stamps were instituted by the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937", which enacted federal statutes. I've never heard of state marijuana tax stamps.
Can you tell me which states these are? Or at least name one? Preferrably with a citation.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, under which no stamps were ever sold (There is an anecdote about someone successfully getting them once, but I don't recall it giving any detail after that) was developed under the interstate commerce clause in the constitution and had two primary purposes. One was to protect paper and plastic industries - a lot of the lobbying involved here was on the part of Charles DuPont. Did you know Henry Ford once made a prototype vehicle made almost entirely out of hemp plastic, down to body panels and structural members? The other was to demonize blacks and mexicans, who were competing with white americans for jobs during the great depression. This was a highly successful campaign that painted marijuana as a drug of the evil blacks and mexis.
Everyone should keep in mind at all times that the war on drugs is a war on personal freedom (see: bill hicks) and that the government operates by keeping us separated from one another so we don't gang up on them.
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
And why not tax....both on the side of people who win and when the house wins. That is a lot of revenue. Online casinos usually fund one small group of people (it doesn't take much to own/manage an online casino).
The gov't wants a few things
Tax the players who win
Tax the casino
Ensure that it is not so easy for people to spend their lifes earnings (and money they dont have, such as credit card money) on gambling and blowing their lives away.
remember, it is not the easiest thing in the world to legalize gambling in a state. Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
While the struggle to get slot machines in Pennsylvania was, and still is, an acrimonious debate, the reason behind the debate is because of who benefits. Slots coming to PA is not to help increase revenue (though it will) nor to stop people from going to West Virginia, Delaware or New Jersey and spending their money at those gambling locations (though it will slow the exodus) nor is it to help in property tax reduction (um, yeah).
No, the one and only reason that slots came to PA was to keep the horsetrack business alive. Without the slots the horsetracks in the state would have been dead within 5 - 10 years. Don't believe me? Then why is it that all the racetracks in the state (8 total) get to have slots licenses but only fourteen total licenses, including those at the tracks, are available for the entire Commonwealth? If the Commonwealth wanted to bring gambling to the land it would have allowed slot parlors to open anywhere that one could afford to pay the licensing and other fees. You'll never see a slot parlor in downtown Harrisburg but someone is fighting to build one just outside Gettysburg.
Let us not forget also the current controversy of having a middleman buy the slot machines and then distribute them to the parlors instead of allowing the companies to sell directly to the parlors. Just another way for certain elected officials to get kickbacks and produce jobs for their connected friends.
Oh, and as far as not allowing table gambling is concerned, you do know the reason for that, don't you? It's because a table game requires the person to concentrate on the game at hand and thus wouldn't allow them to watch the horse races. A slot machine requires no concentration and one can stop playing the machine for a moment and place bets on the races then resume playing the machine.
I'm not against gambling. I used to go to Atlantic City and spend a few bucks. I've gambled in Vegas and would like to see the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut. But what I object to is the typical PA bullshit of how the process was done and will be implemented. The Gaming Control Board is a joke. It's rules are so lax that corruption in the industry will be rampant.
Not to mention that one of the employees of the board dangled his girlfriend [poconorecord.com] out their apartment window and dropped her [papundits.com] while they were celebrating his job appointment in the commission because both were drunk as skunks.
Then there's the employee [pittsburghlive.com], an investigator no less, who was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, escape and public intoxication. Let us not forget the other folks of the gaming board who have also had issues including one who lied on his application and two others, attorneys in fact, who were involved in drunken brawls.
The real fight is not whether to allow gambling in Pennsylvania. The real fight is over how much money will be skimmed off the top for political purposes. Does the word WAM ring a bell?
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a very interesting item as far as globalisation is concerned because a number of countries where gambling is a major industry have filed a WTO case against the US for restricting free trade. More specifically it is related to stopping credit card payments to entities in these countries by Visa and MasterCard. Any congress intervention before the WTO proceedings are complete is putting the US on a deliberate collision course with the WTO.
Also, it is a classic case of double standard. Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK. And god forbid if it is against the beliefs of the taleban elders.
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Trade deficits == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you meant that as a slam, but I absolutely agree with that statement. As an
Re:Trade deficits == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, i
Re:Trade deficits == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has really been overpowered/bought out by multi-national corporations who owe their allegience to no government. Our senators and congressmen almost certainly know this but the system has been set up so corporate money is now required to enter politics at any serious level.
What is referred to as the "US" is really 270 million people being pulled along and steered by a tiny minority. They give us the illusion that we have control but where it counts, we do not and have not for at least 30 to 40 years.
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Informative)
I call your bluff, and raise you a fact.
All individual gambling income is taxed at the federal level. OTB and lotteries are done at the state level, and not at the federal level. This is simply the latest addition to a long history of federal anti-gamb
I bet.. (Score:5, Funny)
Land of the Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:5, Funny)
Um - some boat people you sent our way got mixed up into our politics. The one's wearing belt buckles on their heads. Thanks for starting us out with the best and the brightest.
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gambling is a special case though. It's a pure government money-grab. There ar
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
We all would love to live in a Land of the Free. It implies we have absolute control over our own actions, and "there ain't nobody that can tell us what to do!" Reminds me a lot of that feeling you get when you turn 18 and start flipping the bird to all and sundry.
The problem is that our actions, when taken in public, can have an effect on an awful lot of people. Riding without a helmet? Great. When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin. Ditto with seatbelts, only now you may have 4 people in comas for the rest of their life, and the cost increases dramatically.
If there was no monetary pain to me, at all, because you didn't want to wear a seatbelt or a helmet, go for it. After all, it is your life. If you can ensure that I don't have to pay a cent more because you want to risk it, I'm all for you not wearing helmets or belts. Or, rather, I'm all for your freedom to do as you wish. It's not my fucking job to keep you alive. I may tell you you're stupid and to put a seatbelt on, but that's just freedom of speech. It's not like you have to do what I say.
Drugs and gambling are somewhat similar, but subtly different. The only downsides to these: people, due to their dependence upon either, breaking the law and stealing shit to fund their habit. The subtle difference is that, the act, itself, does not DIRECTLY (or as-closely-indirectly-as-seatbelts-do) cost me any money. I mean, the justification for outlawing drugs is a: social (we don't want drug use in our community), which is, in my opinion, the antithesis of a "free" community, or b: financial (we don't want drug users stealing our stuff), which, in my opinion, has some grounding. But the problem is that the habit, for all of its power over the person, is too indirect, in my opinion, to be banned. Example: if I'm a billionaire, and I want to sit in my mansion all day and do coke, who the fuck are YOU to say that's wrong? it's my life, it's my house, and I'm paying for it with my own money. Right there, whether you agree with drug use or not - doesn't matter. It's about freedom. Ditto with gambling. But when a crackhead steals my bike to pawn at a pawnshop to finance their need, I tend to get a wee bit pissed off. With that said, I'd probably be just as pissed off if it was just a bunch of punk kids on a dare. Or a hobo who thought he'd take up cycling for unspecified personal reasons. So really, in this instance, it's not the drug use, or gambling, that is bad, it's what people CAN do to finance it. Which is, in my opinion, a separate issue. They may be linked, but they're not one in the same. If you're Michael Jordan and you want to gamble away crazy moneys in Poker, go for it. You've got the money, and I'm not going to tell you what to do. But if you steal something of mine, then you're a thief, and you need a swift kick in the teeth.
Prostitution is way different. That's just the moral police acting like the world will end if they don't "protect the people". I'm old enough, thanks. I can think for myself. Are you going to protect me from credit card debt, too? No? Then shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Legalize prostitution. Tax it. Spend that tax money on setting up education programs for prostitutes. If they have a pimp who is abusing them, protect them. Mandate monthly checkups. STDs.
Nanny state, true. In some ways. However, sometimes your freedom to do something impinges on my rights. In that case, maybe a law is in order. Maybe it isn't. That's what public debate is *supposed* to be about. Instead, it's just a bunch of boiled down, trite sound bites strung together to rally the masses. Phooie.
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are non-regulatory solutions to alot of these things. Find an insurance company that insists on helmets and seatbelts, and charges more to those who ride without them. You say that prostitution should be legal, but the johns might be with your health insurance company. Thats going to cost you too.
The fact is, both of these things are costing you right now. You pay for the cops who are rounding up and babysitting these "offenders". You pay for the courts that process them. You pay with your money, and with lost freedom and privacy. (After all, they have to watch everyone to catch the offenders - ie driving checkpoints and undercover cops).
We've got laws dictating every little aspect of our behaviour. And I'm convinced we're little better off than we would be if we let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for them.
Re:Land of the Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
also, consider this example: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/04
Question... (Score:4, Funny)
What's the problem with gambling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I make my income through Internet gambling. However, even before that, I just never saw the problem. Why is it so demonized over there?
Re:What's the problem with gambling? (Score:5, Funny)
This is where you are suppose to laugh...
Re:What's the problem with gambling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because authoritarians presently rule. I'm 54, but the Bill of Rights was a pathetic, toothless joke even before I was born. We aren't the land of the free, many if not most countries are freer (Canada, right on our border, for example). It's not the home of the brave, either; at least, our politicians are all yellow, as are most of my cowardly countrymen.
You allow people to drink
Not in every county. For a couple of decades it was illegal everywhere. You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a beer in most cities.
smoke
Not certain substances (pot, crack, meth, heroin), and in my town nowhere indoors in public.
carry guns
Not really. Walk down a Chicago or New York street with a loaded shotgun and watch how fast the cops arrest or shoot you! Plus you can't transport a loaded gun legally, it has to be unloaded, broken down or disassembled, and can't be within the driver's reach.
and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least)
Only in Nevada. You can gamble in Nevada as well (slots, cards, dice, etc). Most states have some gambling; lottery, and there are riverboat casinos in many states (mine for one) where you can play poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, craps, etc; and we have horseracing and betting on it.
but not to bet on certain outcomes.
See "smoke". Also see "prostitution", my theory is that American casinos are pushing this law. America has the best government money can buy. I have no representation at all, the only people with representation are the corporates.
What I'm sure a lot of foreigners don't understand about the US is that it's a HUGE country, over 6400 km wide and over 3200 km north-south, with its biggest state, Alaska, sitting on top of Canada and with Hawaii way off in the Pacific, halfway to Japan. Our Constitution limits (limited, no longer it seems) Federal power, leaving the individual states to pass their own laws. In theory, at least. There is at present no Federal law against gambling or prostitution.
You have to remember that most US states are bigger than most European countries. It's over 600 KM from Chicago to Paducah, and Kentucky borders Illinois. And Illinois is only a medium sized state! I live in central Illinois, and the closest legal whorehouse is in Canada 300 miles away; Nevada is almost ten times as far.
Re:What's the problem with gambling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Concern over the risk to society of creating gambling addicts, but that might be a rationalization for the first one.
Historical associa
EXCEPT (Score:3, Interesting)
no gambling (Score:5, Funny)
You guys can't gamble on the internet? [Takes long drag from joint]. I thought the USA was the land of freedom..?
More useless legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Nanny state? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the "problem" with gambling -- like the "problems" with prostitution and street drugs -- was that casinos in your neighborhood tend to bring with them a lot of undesirable activity, e.g., the underbelly of Las Vegas. But if the casino is not in your neighborhood, why should anyone care?
easy workaround (Score:5, Insightful)
This will just cause the creation of middleman sites where you park funds with your credit cards and then they transfer the $$ to the online casino of your choice. Paypal would be a good candidate for this. If the govt get's on Paypal's case, then some offshore holding company will come along and for a 1-2% fee do this. The sad thing is that it will probably be owned by a casino and will drive the cost up another 1-2% just to get into a game.
What about RPG Gam(bl)ing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Money can be funneled in via purchases of credits/dubloons/tokens, which can then be used in gambling on games within the meta-game. I use YPP as an example because it just recently added poker to its arsenal, although it's had multiplayer gambling for years (especially in tournaments, where you don't even have to convert the dubloons into anything to use them as prizes).
Granted, the dubloons in YPP are meant for purchases of items such as clothing and swords, but they COULD still be used for gambling...
The eternal workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
A quick history of payment in the industry. (Score:5, Informative)
No hope (Score:3)
If I want to gamble in the USA I can get on a plane, train or car and go to Las Vegas, Boloxi or some other place that allows gambling. I might meet someone new in Las Vagas, and I might hear some new ideas, but they will be limited to people who can travel to Las Vegas (mosty Americans). My community at home is still "protected" from "immoral" influences. Now they want to make it so I can't do virtual travel to accomplish the same thing I could do with physical travel. (This whole concept is beyond the intelligence of the average politician, even if they didn't have special interests to protect.) Actually, since I don't gamble, I don't have a stake in this decision other than to regret that it's another sign of Big Government chipping away at individual choice.
And, it's an election year: Politicians have to be perceived as being upright and moral, so what better target for publicity than an "immoral" activity supported by a population too small to have any influence across other issues? (They're against Prostitution and Drunkeness also, but that doesn't keep them from getting laid and drunk.)
The politicians are afraid of open interchange, and are heading toward deciding that we can't travel on the Information Superhighway without a passport.
Pointless... (Score:3)
-jcr
Why is popularity always cited in defence of laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note, I'm not coming down for or against online gambling, just making the point that its popularity is a specious argument when it comes to legislation.
No need to worry at all... (Score:4, Insightful)
damn
Hold on, someone's at the door...
Ms. Williams, take a letter... (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for helping boost our banking economy with your latest crazy laws.
Sincerely,
Switzerland
Re:Why is gambling illegal in the states? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe gambling laws are all controlled by the state legislatures. Gambling bills come up from time to time that will allows gambling,