Is Regulation for Online Gambling Imminent?

[cerberus]

Blogguy,

Just my opinion, but if I had to list the primary reasons as to why the gov't wants to ban internet gambling offshore, on the top of that list would be the fact that they would rather keep those profits in the country. Do I blame them? Not really, but the gov't would rather try to fool the people that it is only acting in their best interests instead of being upfront about it. It is our role, as educated people, to see this for what it really is, and expose it.

Your point of attack seems to be to try to convince the detractors that internet blackjack and roulette are not scams, and once we allay these fears, then the pro-gaming side may actually get their wishes. Perhaps I am too much of a cynic, but I think this scam reasoning is just another way the gov't and anti-gambling side spin matters to fool those that are uneducated, or unwilling to do their own research in order to form their own opinions.

Sorry that I am so hesitant to subscribe to your scam theory, but I just believe that if this really was the case, then we should also get rid of credit cards, and many other practices used by the banking institutions.

Are we really so concerned about our fellow human being getting ripped off by some offshore gaming company?

Isn't it the responsibility of every human being to try to be educated enough or have the common sense to make sound decisions? Shouldn't this be what we strive for?

When someone unwittingly signs on for a $100,000 mortgage at the bank and amortizes for 30 years, do you think the loan officer tells him that the final cost of that loan when fully repayed at 8% is astronomical, and no longer in his best interests? Of course not. Not only does he not tell him, he then tries to sell him mortgage insurance, another big scam. Then he acts like he did the customer a huge favour, and completes the transaction by telling him that the bank is his friend.

I apologize again for being a cynic, but all gov'ts and so-called concerned citizens want you to do is conform. They don't really care about you. They just want to enforce their ideals upon you.

We don't need the gov't to save us from ourselves. We have to save us from ourselves.

[blogguy]

Maybe it just comes down to who you know personally. I know people who are opposed to gambling, and it has nothing to do with governments wanting to keep profits in the country (not saying this isn't part of what our government is thinking about...but any efforts to legalize gambling are going to run into a vocal group that's opposed to the scam element).

None of the people I know who are opposed to gambling are idiots, or are wanting to keep the money for themselves, or are religious zealots (well, okay, two are religous zealots, lol, but they're outnumbered by the intelligent people who have seen lives ruined by a good degree).

I'd say I agree with most of your cynicism about the world in general. Cynicism works both ways. You're talking to a guy who charted a thousand hands of blackjack at Aces Gold several years back. Talk about a harmonic convergence of scams, lol.

I don't mean to imply the ONLY hurdle to getting it legalized is to prove that people are protected. That's the first thing that jumped to mind after reading the editorial at the top which suggested that opponents were naive or too dumb to understand the internet. Many opponents aren't naive, aren't dumb, and have valid reasons for being opposed to gambling. There would be other hurdles too.

You said:
"Isn't it the responsibility of every human being to try to be educated enough or have the common sense to make sound decisions? Shouldn't this be what we strive for?"

Can't argue with that at all. Is it or is it not a government's job to protect people that lack those skills, are are otherwise predisposed to act irrationally? That's one of the linchpins of the small government vs. big government debate I suppose. Not endorsing big government. Just pointing out the hurdles that the pro-gambling side will run into within the government that already exists...and among the voters who could be influencing the decision.

Legalization is a government process...democracy means people rule.

If there's a televised debate between pro-gambling and anti-gambling forces...and the pro-gambling guy says "we have a right to do this and anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot." A journalist with a Nancy Grace complex is going to start in with:

Isn't it true sir that it's impossible to win over the long run at internet roulette? Isn't it true that the games are rigged to be even worse than casino roulette, which is already impossible to beat?

Isn't it true sir that it's impossible to win over the long run at internet blackjack? Isn't it true that the games are rigged to be even worse than the tightest casino blackjack games?

Isn't it true sir that internet sportsbooks make it very difficult for players who win to keep betting, but very easy for people who lose to keep betting?

Isn't it true sir that some internet poker sites have had troubles with collusion where multiple players share a table and communicate via cellphone to improve their chances of winning?

Sir, can you point to any legal precedent in any country that says citizens have a "right" to gamble? Or that this is a right that governments shouldn't be allowed to take away?

The tip of the iceberg for anybody who's done research in the field. As we all know...

The voices for pro-gambling better be ready for that. Editorials saying opponents are religious zealots or just too dumb to get it don't move things down the road very far.

Thanks for talking this through with me cerberus without yelling at me, lol.

blg

[cerberus]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blogguy

&lt;&lt; Maybe it just comes down to who you know personally. I know people who are opposed to gambling, and it has nothing to do with governments wanting to keep profits in the country (not saying this isn't part of what our government is thinking about...but any efforts to legalize gambling are going to run into a vocal group that's opposed to the scam element). &gt;&gt;


I would be curious to know exactly what they are opposed to. Are they gamblers themselves? Just asking because I don't think it would be a stretch for me to believe that the majority of those that oppose gambling are those that don't really enjoy it, or care for it, hence my belief that most people just want to impose their ideals upon others.



&lt;&lt; None of the people I know who are opposed to gambling are idiots, or are wanting to keep the money for themselves, or are religious zealots (well, okay, two are religous zealots, lol, but they're outnumbered by the intelligent people who have seen lives ruined by a good degree). &gt;&gt;


Lives are ruined by many things. Some people overspend on their credit cards, and never recover, or go bankrupt partly because of the exorbitant interest rates. Do we ban credit cards because a segment of the population can't control themselves? Similarly with gambling, do we ban it for everybody to protect a segment of the population?


I'd say I agree with most of your cynicism about the world in general. Cynicism works both ways. You're talking to a guy who charted a thousand hands of blackjack at Aces Gold several years back. Talk about a harmonic convergence of scams, lol.



I don't mean to imply the ONLY hurdle to getting it legalized is to prove that people are protected. That's the first thing that jumped to mind after reading the editorial at the top which suggested that opponents were naive or too dumb to understand the internet. Many opponents aren't naive, aren't dumb, and have valid reasons for being opposed to gambling. There would be other hurdles too.



You said:

"Isn't it the responsibility of every human being to try to be educated enough or have the common sense to make sound decisions? Shouldn't this be what we strive for?"



&lt;&lt; Can't argue with that at all. Is it or is it not a government's job to protect people that lack those skills, are are otherwise predisposed to act irrationally? That's one of the linchpins of the small government vs. big government debate I suppose. Not endorsing big government. Just pointing out the hurdles that the pro-gambling side will run into within the government that already exists...and among the voters who could be influencing the decision. &gt;&gt;


I think the government's job is to mind their own business, and only interfere with peoples' lives if absolutely necessary. If we want to ban gambling, then we should also ban alcohol, smoking, fatty foods, credit cards, and anything else that can be abused.



Legalization is a government process...democracy means people rule.



If there's a televised debate between pro-gambling and anti-gambling forces...and the pro-gambling guy says "we have a right to do this and anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot." A journalist with a Nancy Grace complex is going to start in with:



&lt;&lt; Isn't it true sir that it's impossible to win over the long run at internet roulette? Isn't it true that the games are rigged to be even worse than casino roulette, which is already impossible to beat? &gt;&gt;

So casino roulette is bad, and internet roulette is even worse. Why don't we just ban them both? Oh, I forgot that the gov't doesn't generate revenue form internet roulette, just casino roulette.



&lt;&lt; Isn't it true sir that it's impossible to win over the long run at internet blackjack? Isn't it true that the games are rigged to be even worse than the tightest casino blackjack games? &gt;&gt;


It is also impossible to win at many casino games, yet I don't see slots, paigow poker, caribbean stud poker, etc... being banned. In fact you allow casinos to fool people into getting players' cards, so they can stay at the tables and slot machines longer. This allows them to lose more money, but they do a give miniscule portion of those losses back in some form of comp. Do you make a concerted effort to let casino patrons know the true reasons behind encouraging patrons to apply for these free cards? In fact, if you cared for the patrons so much, then you should have a big sign in front of every game that says "for suckers only."




&lt;&lt; Isn't it true sir that internet sportsbooks make it very difficult for players who win to keep betting, but very easy for people who lose to keep betting? &gt;&gt;


Casinos are allowed to boot card counters at the blackjack tables because they win. Some sportsbooks boot winners too. What is the difference?



&lt;&lt; Isn't it true sir that some internet poker sites have had troubles with collusion where multiple players share a table and communicate via cellphone to improve their chances of winning? &gt;&gt;

Cheating happens there. It also happens at the track. Next question.



&lt;&lt; Sir, can you point to any legal precedent in any country that says citizens have a "right" to gamble? Or that this is a right that governments shouldn't be allowed to take away? &gt;&gt;

If you don't think citizen's have a right to gamble, and want to take it away, then take away all forms of gambling. Don't pick and choose.



The tip of the iceberg for anybody who's done research in the field. As we all know...



The voices for pro-gambling better be ready for that. Editorials saying opponents are religious zealots or just too dumb to get it don't move things down the road very far.








Thanks for talking this through with me cerberus without yelling at me, lol.



blg</end quote></div>



Don't wory about me yelling at you, or threatening to put you on my ignore list like you know who. That isn't happening. I enjoy reading all your posts, as they are always well thought out.

We already know each other's stance on this topic by now. Maybe we can change the topic, and agree that Bert Blyleven was by far a better pitcher than Jack Morris was. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[blogguy]

lol...always a pleasure chewing the fat with you C. I was a fan of both of those pitchers. Wish strikeout props existed back then...

First point...I think it's easy to forget that casino roulette, blackjack, and such ARE ALREADY BANNED in most of the country. It's just a handful of places where you're allowed to play them. The talk of legalizing gambling means we're trying to "un-ban" things that are already banned in most places. That's a bigger hurdle to clear than just saying "don't ban something that I have a right to do." Roulette has already been banned in the country. Nevada got the ban lifted as a state because states can make their own rules. Atlantic City got it lifted. Riverboats, indian casinos etc..have made cases that the laws don't apply to their locations.

To me, that kind of nullifies some of your answers to Nancy Grace.

"So casino roulette is bad, and internet roulette is even worse. Why don't we just ban them both? Oh, I forgot that the gov't doesn't generate revenue form internet roulette, just casino roulette."

They're already banned. A few places chose to unban them. This doesn't mean the nation as a whole has to allow people to do them on the internet in the minds of people who are opposed to gambling.

"It is also impossible to win at many casino games, yet I don't see slots, paigow poker, caribbean stud poker, etc... being banned. In fact you allow casinos to fool people into getting players' cards, so they can stay at the tables and slot machines longer. "

I don't think that's right. Those things are banned. Nevada chose to unban them, and Nevada (and riverboats, etc...) allows casinos to fool people into getting players cards. The fact that casinos fool people into playing longer plays into the arguments of the anti-gambling people. They already know this stuff is going on in Nevada, they don't want it going on in their computer rooms.

Second point: the people I know on that side of the argument aren't former gamblers, but it's not because they don't enjoy mental challenges or whatever. They've had people close to them (typically family members) suffer great losses and bring shame to the family because they got in over their heads. They learned about the how a problem gambler can kind of be a bomb that blows up within a family. The ramifications hit everybody. So, it's not just a matter of people being responsible for their own actions. Problem gamblers can have a big impact on many within their circle of loved ones.

I lost a stepfather to lung cancer several years back. I'm as anti-cigarrette as it gets. I don't care if he made a choice. The devastation impacted many people around him for years...and are still impacting people 10 years later. I'm enough of a live and let live person to not start a petition to outlaw cigarrettes. But, if they were already outlawed, and people were trying to get them legalized, they'd hear from me. I've got a story about a tumor the size of a grapefruit that I love to tell kids.

I would say the anti-gambling people I know are like that. If gambling were already legal everywhere, they'd go along with the "personal choice" stuff and worry about keeping their own loved ones out of the way. But...gambling isn't legal in most places. If the government is suddenly going to "endorse" gambling by legalizing it and regulating it, they'd have problems with that. They're certainly going to vote against it in an election, or vote against candidates who say they're going to try to legalize it.

Hope that clarifies my earlier points. Smart people can be opposed to gambling for legitimate reasons. It's already banned in most places, so the task of getting it accepted across the entire country is going to be tougher than people who live in gambling areas realize I think.

Best wishes for the holidays if we don't chat again this week...blg

[Dewitt22]

Good reading. Informative and entertaining.

Thanks all.

peace,

D.[img]i/expressions/beer.gif[/img]

[Uncle B]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Dewitt22

Good reading. Informative and entertaining.



Thanks all.



peace,



D.[img][/img]</end quote></div>




you it is.

lots of interesting posts and views here, imo.

[Hartley]

I dug this up from an article last month. I thought it's relevant to the topic at hand.

Online gambling a hot potato
November 20, 2006


by Liz Benston

Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- While the gaming industry is heralding the appointment of casino-friendly Democrats to key positions of power in Washington, experts warn that it could take many years before Congress will be willing to consider regulating online gambling.

"If it comes up again, they're going to say, 'We've already dealt with that issue,' " said David Stewart, a Washington attorney who advises the American Gaming Association. "They were exhausted by this latest effort."

The American Gaming Association didn't fight or support the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, a bill signed into law last month that further criminalizes Internet gambling - a legally suspect business conducted by non-U.S. companies. The association's two largest members, Harrah's Entertainment and MGM Mirage, want to legalize Internet gambling in this country, but other members have been lukewarm to the idea. The group expects to decide at a board meeting next month whether to push for legislation that would study legalizing Internet gambling. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., introduced such a bill in the last session of Congress that gained support from more than 40 co-sponsors.

Among a slew of Democrats perceived as friendly to the industry is Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an outspoken liberal who will head the Financial Services Committee and who voted against the Internet gambling prohibition bill that originated in his committee under its chairman, Jim Leach, R-Iowa.

Even if more libertarian minds prevail in the online gambling debate, Stewart says it could take at least a decade for Congress to legalize Internet betting - dooming a $12 billion industry that has earned a place in mainstream culture to black-sheep status.

"They don't have the appetite for it," he said of members' desire to pursue a debate.

Opposed by a few religious conservatives in Congress and supported by companies believed to be operating illegally, Internet gambling has been a fringe issue with complex ramifications and little to gain politically for proponents.

Online poker players sent hundreds of e-mails and letters to members of Congress opposing the prohibition bill but were no match for Republican conservatives and their allies. Online gamblers are growing in number but don't yet have the political clout to influence legislation, Stewart said.

Rather than legalizing online wagering nationwide, Internet gambling expert I. Nelson Rose said Congress may eventually pass a law allowing states to opt into a regulatory system enabling Internet betting for in-state residents. A similar system enables gamblers to bet on horse races from remote locations in their home states as well as other states that choose to participate.

Short of that, states will likely seek to regulate Internet betting within their borders.

"I think states will make it a state's rights issue," said Rose, a professor at Whittier Law School in California.

One effort is under way in his home state, where poker rooms are working on legislation that would legalize Internet poker wagering for California residents.

In 2003 the Nevada Legislature passed a bill allowing regulators to study whether Internet gambling could be regulated. The state Gaming Control Board heard testimony from technology companies with software claiming to pinpoint the location and identity of gamblers using satellites, online background checks and account information.

But regulators did not pursue the issue after receiving a letter from the Justice Department restating the feds' position against Internet gambling.

Nevada regulators considered appeals to legalize online gambling for Nevada residents but didn't pursue the matter, saying the Legislature intended for the state to consider the more lucrative prospects of taxing Internet gambling revenue beyond Nevada's borders.

While Nevada casinos don't want to run afoul of the feds, some local companies may seek the right to allow Nevadans to bet online in the years to come, Rose said.

Nevadans already can make sports bets from their home computers after registering at a casino and transmitting bet information over a secure line.

"If at-home sports betting is legal, then Internet gambling should be legal for Nevada residents," he said.
___

I thought that paragraph was very interesting and shows the narrow mindedness of the people now in charge. This Sgt Shultz type thinking of I know nothing, I see nothing is very counterproductive to any forward thinking people. What's it going to hurt to hear the counter arguments?