The House is set to vote today on a bill to ban online gambling in the United States. And you've gotta love the sober, logical analysis of those who support such legislation:
John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet "the crack cocaine" of gambling.
"There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house," he said.
Wow, it's that simple? Just click your mouse and lose your house? That will make a great ad campaign for the gaming sites. You know, because it rhymes. For crying out loud, grown up people take such nonsense seriously? People screw up their lives for lots of reasons. Some people drink too much and lose their house. Anyone wanna go back to prohibition to make sure that doesn't happen? The fact is that there are any number of things that the vast majority of people can engage in responsibly that a small minority have a problem with, but we don't ban them all and prevent responsible adults from doing them in order to save a few people from themselves. The fact that other people play poker badly and without discipline is not a rational reason to prevent me from playing poker. It really is that simple.
Oh, and you have to love this brilliant media analysis from the article:
Congress has considered similar bills several times before. In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Ambramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company.
Online lotteries are allowed in the latest bill, largely at the behest of states that increasingly rely on lotteries to augment tax revenues.
Uh....if the 2000 bill banned lotteries and this one doesn't, then Jack Abramoff didn't lead a fiece campaign against a "similar" bill. In fact, this bill is exactly what Abramoff wanted, a ban on internet gaming that competed with his clients (who owned real brick and mortar casinos) but also exempted his other clients (lottery companies) from the ban. Gotta love that media, just blindly report the talking points, oblivious to the fact that your own report contradicts those talking points. Don't bother to point out that contradiction, that would require thinking and stuff.
- Log in to post comments
Well since gambling is fun and the internet is fun that combines into an orgy of fun that can't be allowed in civilized society.
The law would also require that the ISPs block access to known gambling sites.
Regardless of the other idiocies of this law, this sets the stage for future Censorship laws, all purporting to enforce Public Morality.
Are conservatives afraid of everything!? What a bunch of weak wussies.
This Republican Nanny State is outrageous!
Indeed, the Republican Nanny State is outrageous.
Just as outrageous as the Democratic Nanny State.
Anyone who thinks that legislation like this wouldn't be passed if the Democrats were in power is fooling themselves. The money just flows to whoever has the power, then the filter is applied.
Democrats: We are passing this anti-gambling legislation to protect the blue collar workers, and minorities who are hit hardest by these fat cat gambling corporations who only care about the bottom line.
Republicans: We are passing this anti-gambling legislation to stop these immoral, liberal hedonists who are flushing our society down the drain with their dirty on-line habits.
Just as in Alien vs. Predator: No matter who wins. We all lose.
And, the bill passed this afternoon with huge support from both Republicans and Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. JeremySN is so right about the conduct of both parties being outrageous. Both are indifferent to right and wrong, perfering to dance to the sound of money, if it's in play (and it was in this instance). A pox on both parties.
How is this enforcable, by the way?
Matthew-
It will be enforced primarily through banks, credit card companies and other money transferring institutions, at a minimum. It essentially deputizes those institutions to sniff out any money transfer they think may be for the purpose of online gambling. But as in Washington, they will eventually turn it against both the players and those who advocate for those companies. Another way it may be enforced is against anyone advertising for online gaming. Notice that all the commercials you see for any online poker site is for a .net rather than a .com? That's because the .coms are for profit and the .nets are their free games. The Travel Channel actually had a huge sum of money seized by the Federal government that was paid to them by an online poker site for commercials advertising their site, and that was done before this law took effect.
Note that internet gambling on lotteries and horses would still be allowed. Apparently, this is not attractive to children.
Either that or the horse lobby has done some good work.