In the wee hours of the last night of the last session of Congress, Majority Leader Bill Frist attached a ban on Internet gambling to a port security bill. It was a dubious maneuver, which not only prevented any real floor debate over the ban, but also attached an intrusive, unnecessary, big government measure to a bill that addressed important national security concerns. This meant that any senator who held the position that what Americans do with their own money in their own homes on their own time is none of the government's business couldn't vote against the gambling ban, lest they risk being smacked about the head with the "soft on national security" cudgel. If Frist's move was underhanded, it was also wholly appropriate, given the way the GOP has handled this issue. The debate—to the extent that there has actually been one—has been marred by misdirection, red herrings, and a certain obliviousness among the bill's supporters to, well, reality. [...] Poker professionals—three of whom came to D.C. earlier this year to speak against the ban—argue that the game isn't really gambling at all. At the very least, it's not a particularly addictive form of wagering. Of course, some (like me) would argue that the nature of poker is beside the broader point: preventing people from playing games of chance simply isn't a legitimate function of the federal government. At the very least, there are surely items on the DOJ's agenda that ought to be of higher priority—fighting terrorism, for example. Reps. Leach and Goodlatte, along with Sens. Frist and John Kyl, frequently used the words "untaxed" and "unregulated" when describing the estimated $12 billion Americans wager each year online. But they're "untaxed" and "unregulated" because Congress made online gambling illegal in the first place, pushing gaming sites offshore. In fact, the major gaming sites are begging to be both taxed and regulated. They'd much rather set up shop in the U.S., pay U.S. taxes, and be subject to U.S. laws and regulations. They'd rather carry the seal of legitimacy that comes with being recognized and incorporated on U.S. soil. Were online gambling legalized and regulated, we'd likely see trusted names like Harrah's, Bally, and MGM get into the business. [...] Some say the GOP pushed this ban to light a fire under family values voters. Others say their intent was more nefarious—to protect established gambling interests from online competitors. There may be some truth in both of those explanations, though I think the main motivation for the bill was simply the moral aversion to gambling held by its chief sponsors—Goodlatte, Kyl, and Leach — and a desire to impose that moral rectitude on the rest of the country. What does seem clear is that none of the people behind this bill were interested in thoughtful debate, any serious consideration of the bill's implications or consequences, or the principle of a limited, "leave us alone" federal government. Polls show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to a federal ban on Internet gambling. Industry experts estimate that some 15-20 million Americans wager online each year. The overwhelming majority do so responsibly. This largely apolitical group could well get politically motivated the first time they try to log on, and are told their small-stakes poker game has now been outlawed by the Republican leadership in Congress. If this was a political move, there's a pretty good chance it'll backfire, and cost the GOP more votes than it wins them. |
but not with pros at casino games that are rigged against them.
Casino gambling sucks and ruins lives.
It contributes nothing, and is ess fun than masturbation.
Casinos should be banned everywhere.
I was brought up in an anti-gambling family. It isn't fun to me.
I've seen the people I know are poor lining up at gas stations and buying lotto ticket after lotto ticket.
Now, another gambling vote is coming up. Horrible for poor people. They're tying it to education---again. People will be suckers---again.
You want to gamble? Have a poker game with friends. Or bet on the outcome of a football game, with friends.
I hate casinos, they have brought huge grief and hardship to a member of my family and I would bgurn evry damned one of the goddamn things to the ground if I could get away with it.
I am not opposed to gambling. I am opposed to the casino industry. When I say the "games" are rigged, that is exactly what I mean: the slots are rigged to keep a huge amount more than they pay out. Instead of Bingo, they have Keno, which is a form of the game that favors the casinos. If I play poker with my buddies and we all bet a total of $100, the total amount among us after we are through playing is still $100. THAT is an unrigged game. The casino games are rigged, because the casinos keeps a lot more than is won by players.
Whatever 'fun' morons have trying to 'beat the house' is not a fraction of the amount of harm these f*cking thieves do to them. I am against casinos for the same reason I am against larceny, burglary and felonious assault.
I am all for people who like to gamble playing games with one another. But casinos suck and should be banned everywhere forever amen
and should be banned because they are bad for society. I don't give a shit whether this is a liberal or conservative or whiggish proposition. I say ban all the mf'ers.
Casinos are leagalized fraud, essentially no different from bogus patent medicine, pyramid schemes, shell games, and three-card monte.
Casinos are leagalized fraud, essentially no different from bogus patent medicine, pyramid schemes, shell games, and three-card monte.
None of those are legal. Casinos should be banned for the same reason.
Posted by: Amianthus