NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh joy! The GOP has finally solved the gambling problem. About 23 million American online gamblers are now on the way to recovery.

"Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society." - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. That's probably why they snuck the provision into a ports security bill few could vote against. This will surely be the winner in the war against terror.

We can only hope the European Nanny states follow suit. Prohibition always works better than restrictions. Freedom is on the march.

Are you as excited as I am..?

Now people can all just go to casinos and waste their lives there instead of doing it at home. Yay.

What, the freedom to empty your life savings on an website in an evening is a good thing?

There's nothing wrong with little bets on the Grand National or something, but these online tournaments are destroying homes and families - it's hard to spot an addiction and realise how much is being spent. Restricting it is a sensible move.

Welcome to Stop One of the Slippery Slope. Please leave your freedom with the scary looking man in the suit.

Welcome to Stop One of the Slippery Slope. Please leave your freedom with the scary looking man in the suit.
:rolleyes:

Welcome to Stop One of the Paranoid Delusion Slope. Please pick up an irrational fear of any form of legislation from the scary looking man in the suit.

Y'know, if you wanted to end all gambling (other than those rather cool 2p machines you get at the seaside) you could just give everyone a decent grounding in probability theory at school.

Tell me; are they thinking of banning bank and credit card transfers to insurance companies too?

Its all a conspiracy by the bingo halls. :D j/k Im not a fan of online gambling or any type of casino gambling for that matter so it wont bother me at all.
As long as the dog and horse tracks are safe. (would much rather choose a dog or horse to win a race than hope the next card is a 9)

Welcome to Stop One of the Slippery Slope. Please leave your freedom with the scary looking man in the suit.

Disobey and it's the Place Of No Darkness for you... or worse, Room 201.



We have no laws; it's just "cross us and get pwned".

[/allusion]

Hmm. What kind of gambling? I think that's quite important here.. Sometimes it's the game that is addictive and not really the gambling side of things. Anyway, this is probably for the best. How will it be enforced?

Oh joy! The GOP has finally solved the gambling problem. About 23 million American online gamblers are now on the way to recovery.

"Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society." - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. That's probably why they snuck the provision into a ports security bill few could vote against. This will surely be the winner in the war against terror.

We can only hope the European Nanny states follow suit. Prohibition always works better than restrictions. Freedom is on the march.

Are you as excited as I am..?

not all European countries are nanny states. in fact, many of them are not.

What on earth is wrong with gambling???

:confused:

What on earth is wrong with gambling???

:confused:

Nothing. It's more, whats wrong with people ruining their lives and their families because of gambling. Since we can't ban people.. well.

What on earth is wrong with gambling???

:confused:

Everything, if it's on the internet. Or so it seems. Offline is OK for now.

not all European countries are nanny states. in fact, many of them are not.

Most of them seem to be a lot more liberal than the US these days...

Drinking age?
Age of consent?
Public nudity?
Drinking in public?

And now those poor folks can't even gamble any more when they want to...

What, the freedom to empty your life savings on an website in an evening is a good thing?

There's nothing wrong with little bets on the Grand National or something, but these online tournaments are destroying homes and families - it's hard to spot an addiction and realise how much is being spent. Restricting it is a sensible move.


What a load of rubbish, an addiction is an addiction. Making it harder for people to gamble online does nothing to halt those with this addiction. They'll just go to the bookies instead. It is just another example of nannying from the goverment.

Nothing. It's more, whats wrong with people ruining their lives and their families because of gambling. Since we can't ban people.. well.

Ah, ok. So, since you can't get your society to develop strategies to help those addicted folks, you declare them criminals instead? Yup, I can see that's going to help...

What on earth is wrong with gambling???

:confused:
Well, from an "investment" point of view it's a much worse way of gaining money than putting it in a savings account.

From an enjoyment point of view, nothing really. It's just spending money for fun.

How will it be enforced?Indeed. I foresee Americans opening overseas accounts by the millions.
Hmm. What kind of gambling?Internet casinos, poker... I think.
not all European countries are nanny states. in fact, many of them are not.Really!?! I guess I stand corrected then.

Well, from an "investment" point of view it's a much worse way of gaining money than putting it in a savings account.

From an enjoyment point of view, nothing really. It's just spending money for fun.

I might be wrong in that, but shouldn't it be at the discretion of each adult how they want to get rid of their money?

Ah, ok. So, since you can't get your society to develop strategies to help those addicted folks, you declare them criminals instead? Yup, I can see that's going to help...

I didn't say gambling should be banned, I just limited myself to answer your question, which I felt the urge to, since my father was once a gambling addict. But that's as far I'm going.

What kind of strategies would you suggest?

I will say this again...

Why do we need government telling us we can't destroy ourselves. I mean we are adults, not children.

Nothing. It's more, whats wrong with people ruining their lives and their families because of gambling. Since we can't ban people.. well.

Nannying at it's worse. Why should any goverment be able to tell us how to spend our cash? More lives are ruined by RTA's should we then ban people from crossing the road, or indeed driving cars? Ohhh I know war lets ban war that would save shit loads of lives, and keep more families from devistation.

Ah, ok. So, since you can't get your society to develop strategies to help those addicted folks, you declare them criminals instead? Yup, I can see that's going to help...
Path of Least Resistance FTW
Indeed. I foresee Americans opening overseas accounts by the millions.

I think it outlaws transfers to online gambling websites. So overseas accounts may not help.

I might be wrong in that, but shouldn't it be at the discretion of each adult how they want to get rid of their money?
Yeah, of course. That's why I suggested a decent grounding in probability theory, then nobody can say "but I thought I'd get rich".

I think it outlaws transfers to online gambling websites. So overseas accounts may not help.
If the account is overseas, and the gambling site's account is overseas, what're they going to do about it?
Maybe the US could invade the country hosting the bank accounts in a new War On Gambling?

Nannying at it's worse. Why should any goverment be able to tell us how to spend our cash? More lives are ruined by RTA's should we then ban people from crossing the road, or indeed driving cars? Ohhh I know war lets ban war that would save shit loads of lives, and keep more families from devistation.

Hey, again, I didn't say it should be banned. Stop your nonsense already.

If the account is overseas, and the gambling site's account is overseas, what're they going to do about it?
Maybe the US could invade the country hosting the bank accounts in a new War On Gambling?

Careful, they might be watching.

I didn't say gambling should be banned, I just limited myself to answer your question, which I felt the urge to, since my father was once a gambling addict. But that's as far I'm going.

What kind of strategies would you suggest?

Therapy, basically. Raising awareness of the problem, destigmatise it as far as possible, and offer free and easily accessible consultation and therapy.

That will be made a lot harder once the addiction has in fact been criminalised. It will stigmatise the addicted further and make it much more difficult to get help or treatment.

Indeed. I foresee Americans opening overseas accounts by the millions.
Exactly.. I can't really see it being hard to evade.

Internet casinos, poker... I think.
Hmm, I see. Never really knew that was such a problem.. But I guess in this modern age with "technology" and all that.

If the account is overseas, and the gambling site's account is overseas, what're they going to do about it?
Maybe the US could invade the country hosting the bank accounts in a new War On Gambling?

That's quite scary. I can see it happening.

"Switzerland has mass gambling facilities. We must destroy this evil regime at any costs."

:eek:

Therapy, basically. Raising awareness of the problem, destigmatise it as far as possible, and offer free and easily accessible consultation and therapy.

That will be made a lot harder once the addiction has in fact been criminalised. It will stigmatise the addicted further and make it much more difficult to get help or treatment.

But none of that is being made, nor it will in the near-future. I agree with you, though. However, I think in many cases this may be a matter of pure irresponsability. I don't see how therapy would help on that.

Not quite, just because it was banned over the internet, it doesn't mean it's been criminalized.

But none of that is being made, nor it will in the near-future. I agree with you, though. However, I think in many cases this may be a matter of pure irresponsability. I don't see how therapy would help on that.

Not quite, just because it was banned over the internet, it doesn't mean it's been criminalized.

Well, the first step in therapy is admitting you have a problem. Most people with an addiction don't realise that they're addicted.

Banning it is making it illegal, right? People who are addicted will continue on gambling, though... so either this ban is not worth the paper it's written on, or else there will be legal consequences for people ignoring the ban, thereby criminalising them.

just because it was banned over the internet, it doesn't mean it's been criminalized.Well of course it's not. It's not like they shut down Las Vegas, Reno, Mississippi riverboats and the like. It was just too hard to tax internet gambling. It's not like they cared.

Well, the first step in therapy is admitting you have a problem. Most people with an addiction don't realise that they're addicted.

Banning it is making it illegal, right? People who are addicted will continue on gambling, though... so either this ban is not worth the paper it's written on, or else there will be legal consequences for people ignoring the ban, thereby criminalising them.

Will continue gambling on casinos, where it's not illegal.

Well of course it's not. It's not like they shut down Las Vegas, Reno, Mississippi riverboats and the like. It was just too hard to tax internet gambling. It's not like they cared.

Hah, yeah.

Well of course it's not. It's not like they shut down Las Vegas, Reno, Mississippi riverboats and the like. It was just too hard to tax internet gambling. It's not like they cared.

I was right, Path of Least Resistance FTW!

Will continue gambling on casinos, where it's not illegal.

It will continue online, simply because that's easier for most people. Imagine living in, say, Wisconsin. Would you be able to get a casino every evening? No. But you can go online every night....

It will continue online, simply because that's easier for most people. Imagine living in, say, Wisconsin. Would you be able to get a casino every evening? No. But you can go online every night....

I'm not sure about that. I really don't know how sites and all will be influenced by that "ban". But since it will be made much harder (I guess..), I'm positive at least *some* will stop gambling over the internet. Or not gamble as much.

I'm not sure about that. I really don't know how sites and all will be influenced by that "ban".
The biggest European poker site just sold its American operations for 1 dollar. :D

I'm not sure about that. I really don't know how sites and all will be influenced by that "ban". But since it will be made much harder (I guess..), I'm positive at least *some* will stop gambling over the internet. Or not gamble as much.

The people who stop will be the ones that didn't have a problem anyway...

Oh, I don't know. I see this as a form of protectionism, since most of the international internet gambling outfits are non-US. On the brighter side, the gambling will go underground in areas you don't have casinos, so you can forget consumer protection too.

Hey, again, I didn't say it should be banned. Stop your nonsense already.


Hey I didn't say you did, I was just replying to your comments.

Oh joy! The GOP has finally solved the gambling problem. About 23 million American online gamblers are now on the way to recovery.

"Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society." - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. That's probably why they snuck the provision into a ports security bill few could vote against. This will surely be the winner in the war against terror.

We can only hope the European Nanny states follow suit. Prohibition always works better than restrictions. Freedom is on the march.

Are you as excited as I am..?

yes i am excited... as long as outrage is considered a form of excitement.

i could talk about this for hours. i know because i already have.


they did NOT outlaw internet gambling. they debated the hell out of that bill this summer and it didnt get through congress. what frist did was to tack one small part of it onto the port security bill.

one small part that should outrage every american whether they place bets online or not

this bill outlaws the transfers of funds from US banks to "gambling sites"

the federal reserve, the congressional banking committees and the banks have 270 days from today (when the president is supposed to sign this bill) to make up the rules.


the rules could well include the banks needed to scrutinize EVERY SINGLE check, money order, electronic trasnfer or echeck you write.

this would cost billions of dollars to the banks because they would have to install check readers to look at the payee line of your checks. those costs would be passed on to US.

the "first question" the bank would ask when ANY of your checks hit their processing center is "did this go to a gambling site?". checks that you write at the grocery store, to pay your electric bill, any check, any amount. there is no amount that is too small under the terms of this bill.

congress is not just concerned that we will gamble our mortgage money away, after all gambling is legal in the united states . they have got the bug up their ass that internet gambling is the tool used by the terrorists to launder their money. maybe it is, *shrug* i find it doubtful but its possible. however, the $50 -$500 transfers that americans make to gambling sites are NOT money laundering, the amount is too small. this bill is forcing the banks (and thus US) to spend billions of dollars to catch NO ONE

i really could go on and on but since no one has read this far anyway, ill leave it at that.

congress is not just concerned that we will gamble our mortgage money away, after all gambling is legal in the united states . they have got the bug up their ass that internet gambling is the tool used by the terrorists to launder their money. maybe it is, *shrug* i find it doubtful but its possible. however, the $50 -$500 transfers that americans make to gambling sites are NOT money laundering, the amount is too small. this bill is forcing the banks (and thus US) to spend billions of dollars to catch NO ONE
Hahaha, is that really the reason? That's hilarious! Looks like some people need a decent grounding in statistics and rational thought as well as probability theory :D

Hahaha, is that really the reason? That's hilarious! Looks like some people need a decent grounding in statistics and rational thought as well as probability theory :D

its 3.5 weeks until the election. no rational thought need apply.

If the law does indeed require banks to scan where the check are going, whats to stop them from taking note of where every check is spent and pass on these statistics to big corporations? I may be behin on the times if these already occurs but it seems a possibility.

As well, in California the Indians are allowed to run Casinos pretty much the way they want to so what is to stop them from manipulating the 'understanding' of their rules on gambling and operate their own online sites?

If the law does indeed require banks to scan where the check are going, whats to stop them from taking note of where every check is spent and pass on these statistics to big corporations? I may be behin on the times if these already occurs but it seems a possibility.

As well, in California the Indians are allowed to run Casinos pretty much the way they want to so what is to stop them from manipulating the 'understanding' of their rules on gambling and operate their own online sites?

Why would big corporations want to know who you write cheques to though?

Why would big corporations want to know who you write cheques to though?

So they can map how your spendings and think of more effective marketing?

If the law does indeed require banks to scan where the check are going, whats to stop them from taking note of where every check is spent and pass on these statistics to big corporations? I may be behin on the times if these already occurs but it seems a possibility.

As well, in California the Indians are allowed to run Casinos pretty much the way they want to so what is to stop them from manipulating the 'understanding' of their rules on gambling and operate their own online sites?

back in the '30s or '40s congress passed "the wire act" which made it illegal to place a bet with your bookie over the telephone (hence the "wire")

the department of justice has decided that the wire act makes internet casinos illegal in the US. (even if you use cablemodem). the debate this summer on internet gambling was supposed to clarify this issue. the republicans want to expand government control over our lives and make gambling or playing poker in the privacy of our own homes illegal even though the same gambling is legal in casinos and other betting places.

funny how "small government" goes out the window when its a pet issue of the republican conservatives.

if *I* were a bank executive and if it didnt violate the law, i certainly would want to make money out of this monitoring. im pretty sure they already try to sell your info and you have to specifically tell them NO in order to have it not happen.

the rules could well include the banks needed to scrutinize EVERY SINGLE check, money order, electronic trasnfer or echeck you write.

this would cost billions of dollars to the banks because they would have to install check readers to look at the payee line of your checks. those costs would be passed on to US.


Excuse me, Ashmoria, but frankly, bollocks. Virtually all transfers of moneys between banks are by electronic transfer. All that would be needed was a listing of the receiving accounts of the various internet gambling organizations - and a block placed on those accounts. I could set up something to do the job in about an hour, and I don't claim to be an expert. When the EFT request comes through to the bank, the computer stops the transfer and flags it for human action - they already do this if a transfer meets certain criteria. Then the bank clerk sends a note to the customer telling them the transfer cannot be concluded or the check has been refused.

I don't have any huge problem with this. Interstate gambling has been illegal for more than a century - this law simply extends that rule to the internet.

Will continue gambling on casinos, where it's not illegal.

And if they gamnble on line then is that not illegal?

Excuse me, Ashmoria, but frankly, bollocks. Virtually all transfers of moneys between banks are by electronic transfer. All that would be needed was a listing of the receiving accounts of the various internet gambling organizations - and a block placed on those accounts. I could set up something to do the job in about an hour, and I don't claim to be an expert. When the EFT request comes through to the bank, the computer stops the transfer and flags it for human action - they already do this if a transfer meets certain criteria. Then the bank clerk sends a note to the customer telling them the transfer cannot be concluded or the check has been refused.

I don't have any huge problem with this. Interstate gambling has been illegal for more than a century - this law simply extends that rule to the internet.


yes. all transfers between banks are by electronic transfer. we arent talking about transfers between banks. we are talking about transfers to gambling sites and their accounts in other countries.

currently NO US banks and NO US creditcard companies will transfer money to a gambling site. in order to get money into an gambling account you have to transfer the money an offshore service designed to do just that (currently neteller is the service of choice, it runs very much the same way that paypal does). OR you can send a check directly to an online gambling site. ultimate bet is licensed in canada and you send a check to somewhere in quebec, for example.

that would require your bank to pay attention to who you are sending your money. they dont do that now. they ignore the payee line totally and just OK the transfer.

now, it all depends on how the law is interpreted eh?

the republicans headed by the doj's own roberto gonzales, would love to have the banks have to keep track of all of it even if all you transfer is $50. this is the net. there WILL be alternate ways to get your money into your gambling account. they want the banks to have to figure out all the get arounds and stop them

im hoping that reality will sink in when they start writing the rules. the republicans aren't normally anti-bank so its quite possible that nothing willl really change. i expect that banks will have to monitor transfers over $10k, as they already do, and stop those that go to gambling sites. they might solidify the rule that stops credit and debit cards from sending money directly to gambling sites. it would amaze me if they decided on rules that would costs banks billions in new hardware and software.

in the meantime the gambling, poker and money transfer sites are in a panic. several poker sites have announced that they will stop taking US money and US customers as soon as this bill is signed. firepay has said it will stop taking US money transfers. i think they are being premature but they make their own decisions.

And if they gamnble on line then is that not illegal?

it is not illegal to wager online. except in washington state and maybe louisiana which have specifically made it illegal to place a bet online.

its only illegal to operate an online casino inside the US. thats why there arent any.

all online casinos exist outside the US and are perfectly legal in the countries they exist in. the laws of the US are irrelevant to the operation of gambling sites in other countries.

since its not illegal for those sites to operate in their countries, and its not illegal for a US citizen to place a bet online, the government is extremely limited in what it can do to stop it.

this bill outlaws the transfers of funds from US banks to "gambling sites"
Canadian law has had similar restrictions for years. But Canadians are still avid online gamblers, because there exist online virtual intermediaries (like NetTeller) who will act as the go-between on the way from your back to the casino.

This law is completely useless.

Canadian law has had similar restrictions for years. But Canadians are still avid online gamblers, because there exist online virtual intermediaries (like NetTeller) who will act as the go-between on the way from your back to the casino.

This law is completely useless.

it certainly should be useless but that depends on how the rules are written.

the banks lobbied heavily against the original bill. im sure they will lobby heavily in the rules making committees to make sure that the bill is useless.

however, gambling sites that are doing a multimillion dollar business off of their american customers are currently planning on pulling out of the US market. you dont throw away millions of dollars because of a useless bill.

it could very well happen, if people like bill frist gets his way, that US citizens will no longer be alllowed to place their money on transfer sites that do business with gambling sites. they could make neteller illegal.

Oh joy! The GOP has finally solved the gambling problem. About 23 million American online gamblers are now on the way to recovery.

"Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society." - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. That's probably why they snuck the provision into a ports security bill few could vote against. This will surely be the winner in the war against terror.

We can only hope the European Nanny states follow suit. Prohibition always works better than restrictions. Freedom is on the march.

Are you as excited as I am..?

If the Republicans had any interest at all in really legislating a ban on gambling, they would have done so. Of course, Abramoff's links to Indian Gambling is well publicized so we know that this has nothing to do with it. And this bill sure does nothing about Vegas, the tribes, state lotteries etc.

No, they don't have any issues with gambling no matter how they pretend to.

They just can't stand gambling that they can't tax, or that their buddies aren't profiting from.

That's just not the Republican way!

Disobey and it's the Place Of No Darkness for you... or worse, Room 201.



We have no laws; it's just "cross us and get pwned".

[/allusion]

"You sir, you fail! Room 101 for you!"

On a more serious note... Ideally, I'd prefer that gambling be unrestricted with easily accessible resources for those addicted to it (just like alcohol, marijuana, etc.). However, my main opposition to this act comes from its ties to the so-called "Moral Majority"... and even that isn't enough to convince me to really care about the matter.

This is just an attempt by the US government at protectionism. Give it a few years and you'll see a single US based online gambling company introduced, probably with support from the Federal Government, which will be the only company allowed to operate in the US. With its automatically large support it will then extend its influence on the open internet markets across the rest of the world and become the dominant firm.

however, gambling sites that are doing a multimillion dollar business off of their american customers are currently planning on pulling out of the US market. you dont throw away millions of dollars because of a useless bill.
But will they actually pull out? They'll probably stop advertising, but there's not real reason for them to stop accepting US customers.
it could very well happen, if people like bill frist gets his way, that US citizens will no longer be alllowed to place their money on transfer sites that do business with gambling sites. they could make neteller illegal.
That sort of extension should be unconstitutional. I know it is here.

The Canadian constitution prohibits the government from prohibiting any activity that is not harmful, or doesn't directly promote a harmful activity.

So, if gambling is harmful, they could prohibit it, and since money transfers from banks causes the harm of gambing, they can prohibit that. But the intermediaries add an extra step, so now the use of NetTeller is too far from the harm to be something the government is allowed to prohibit.

This is the same legal loophole that legalised the possession of child pornography in 1998 or so.

If the Republicans had any interest at all in really legislating a ban on gambling, they would have done so. Of course, Abramoff's links to Indian Gambling is well publicized so we know that this has nothing to do with it. And this bill sure does nothing about Vegas, the tribes, state lotteries etc.

No, they don't have any issues with gambling no matter how they pretend to.

They just can't stand gambling that they can't tax, or that their buddies aren't profiting from.

That's just not the Republican way!
I thought I said that in a more sedated manner.

Well maybe no more annoying online gambling popups/advts.

Until wait until the online gambling has some serious lobby money (a la tobacco), GOP will be kneeling like a female adult film performer getting a facial.

I love internet gambling. The 11pm-12am was my golden hour where usually anyone up that late was ethier drunk, stoned, tired or all three. Man it was easy money.

I love internet gambling. The 11pm-12am was my golden hour where usually anyone up that late was ethier drunk, stoned, tired or all three. Man it was easy money.
Awww

That's why I'm sore! No more bucks from drunken rednecks...

*sigh*

kinda like nj -d lautenberg adding domestic violence rider to bill that passed and is enforced retroactively - expressly prohibited by constitution go figure

kinda like nj -d lautenberg adding domestic violence rider to bill that passed and is enforced retroactively - expressly prohibited by constitution go figureNo! Let me guess... New Jersey... democrat...Lautenberg...maybe...Frank?.. Frank Lautenberg...Domestic ummm Violence Offender Gun Ban?!?

Try to be more cryptic next time, bud.

What, the freedom to empty your life savings on an website in an evening is a good thing?

There's nothing wrong with little bets on the Grand National or something, but these online tournaments are destroying homes and families - it's hard to spot an addiction and realise how much is being spent. Restricting it is a sensible move.

Got any proof to back up that statement?

I object to the criminalization of any "consensual" crime. This includes gambling, prostitution and drug use.

Everything, if it's on the internet. Or so it seems. Offline is OK for now.

Actually, most US states prohibit off-line gambling, too (Nevada is the only one where it's legal). The Indian casinos are on reservation land, which is technically sovereign tribe territory. Oh, and of course the states do have the right to designate certain areas as being open for gambling, where they tax it and regulate it. Basically, gambling is considered evil. Remember, we also outlawed liquor for 15 years not very long ago. That worked out real well, too.

I saw something about online gambling a few years ago. It was talking about that since the major online gambling sites were based outside the US .. like UK based sites etc. something about because the money(a lot of money) was going directly out, not taxed or something, and they couldn't get money from the site since they were in different countries they (the people on Dateline or 20/20, whatever, bitching about it) were wanting it to stop. I don't believe for one second they did this to protect people, it was done because someone wasn't getting money.

Actually, most US states prohibit off-line gambling, too (Nevada is the only one where it's legal). The Indian casinos are on reservation land, which is technically sovereign tribe territory. Oh, and of course the states do have the right to designate certain areas as being open for gambling, where they tax it and regulate it. Basically, gambling is considered evil. Remember, we also outlawed liquor for 15 years not very long ago. That worked out real well, too.

I hope you were being sarcastic. Prohibition did not work at all. It was really one of the most idiotic laws ever.

:rolleyes:

Welcome to Stop One of the Paranoid Delusion Slope. Please pick up an irrational fear of any form of legislation from the scary looking man in the suit.

look at ALL the freedoms in the past few years that have been curtailed (USA and UK) with an open mind... then you might realise the paranoid delusionists are actually right. bush and blair need to be stopped

I saw something about online gambling a few years ago. It was talking about that since the major online gambling sites were based outside the US .. like UK based sites etc. something about because the money(a lot of money) was going directly out, not taxed or something, and they couldn't get money from the site since they were in different countries they (the people on Dateline or 20/20, whatever, bitching about it) were wanting it to stop. I don't believe for one second they did this to protect people, it was done because someone wasn't getting money.

yes but if they wanted to make money on it all they have to do is legalize it inside the US. i would LOVE to be playing poker on the harrahs online casino. it would have all the protections of US law and the government could have some control over all of the bad aspects of gambling. it could regulate how much money you could put on a site, add your winnings to your income taxes, allow for lawsuits for unethical practices.

instead the republican sneak in a back door ban with part of a bill that was rejected by the full congress. they tack the worst part of the bill onto the port security act at the last possible minute just before congress goes into recess. the bill must be passed so it is passed. so much for representative democracy.

Actually, most US states prohibit off-line gambling, too (Nevada is the only one where it's legal). The Indian casinos are on reservation land, which is technically sovereign tribe territory. Oh, and of course the states do have the right to designate certain areas as being open for gambling, where they tax it and regulate it. Basically, gambling is considered evil. Remember, we also outlawed liquor for 15 years not very long ago. That worked out real well, too.

Wow, no gambling outside Nevada and no drinking befre you're 21? America must be so boring.

what is the difference between a lotting machine,there of there?
well poker games are know to use cheat,do you think the web can do better?

Wow, no gambling outside Nevada and no drinking befre you're 21? America must be so boring.

luckily we're a nation of scofflaws.

the drinking age is uniform but there is also casino gambling in lots of states, some with legalized gambling subject to certain restrictions, some, like new mexico, with indian casinos.

its much more expensive for me to go to the casino to play poker than it is to play online. in person, its a 150 mile round trip, eating out, and a minimum of $100 to take to the table. online i just turn on the computer and play for free or very low limit (a tournament that costs $1 or $5)

This is just an attempt by the US government at protectionism. Give it a few years and you'll see a single US based online gambling company introduced, probably with support from the Federal Government, which will be the only company allowed to operate in the US. With its automatically large support it will then extend its influence on the open internet markets across the rest of the world and become the dominant firm.


Sounds about right.

luckily we're a nation of scofflaws.

the drinking age is uniform but there is also casino gambling in lots of states, some with legalized gambling subject to certain restrictions, some, like new mexico, with indian casinos.

its much more expensive for me to go to the casino to play poker than it is to play online. in person, its a 150 mile round trip, eating out, and a minimum of $100 to take to the table. online i just turn on the computer and play for free or very low limit (a tournament that costs $1 or $5)

That and you can always call your friends over and play for chips, then insist to the police that they're not worth anything.

Wow, no gambling outside Nevada and no drinking befre you're 21? America must be so boring.
Luckily, most states define poker as a game of skill, not a game of chance, so gambling prohibitions don't apply to it.

What's this? The state is introducing more "legislation" to limit our personal freedom?

Shocking. And do these incompetent legislators have any idea of what this will do to the economies of the places in which the online casinos are housed?

Just one more reason why our lives shouldn't be controlled by anyone but ourselves.

Luckily, most states define poker as a game of skill, not a game of chance, so gambling prohibitions don't apply to it.

there are some legal precedents to support that view. it certainly is MY opinion that poker is a game of skill.

however, the department of justice seems to disagree and they will try to make sure that these rules apply to online poker sites as well as sports betting sites.

in the meantime, party poker, one of the biggest sites with 100,000 people playing at one time in the evenings (US time) has closed its doors to us players.

Does the government have the right to outlaw this? Of course, it's interstate commerce.

Is it a wise move? Very hard to say.

Some forms of online gambling are without a doubt the most life-destructive sort for gambling addicts and others caught up in them, for a number of reasons that anyone with an honest interest can research for himself.

Sports betting and event-futures markets aren't nearly as bad though, so the law would be better if it distinguished between different sorts.