Slashdot Mirror


Betting Against Online Gambling

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.'"

3 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Coming from a gambling addict.... by cfeedback · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...I'm glad I've managed to stay away from gambling online. If I had ever gotten into it, I probably wouldn't have this PC and net access to comment on this article. The two states I've lived in my whole life, Oregon and Nevada, are #2 and #1 in gambling addiction per capita (too lazy to provide links, but google it if you'd like) respectively. I've seen many friends who have wrecked their lives with gambling, and have come damn close to wrecking my own.

    I'm sure this bill will be denounced on slashdot, but I really don't think of it as *that* evil. Sure, there are plenty of legitimate online gambling sites, but many of them are there solely to rip you off of your hard earned dollars, and often times people (unfortunately) cannot tell the difference. Maybe, just maybe, our elected legislators have our best interest in heart this time.

    I mean in this day, is anyone really more than a few hours away from an Indian casino? Do you really need 24/7 access to gambling? It might be that the very few hours of distance is all that saves a lot of people from their self...

  2. In my home state of PA by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They want to put more and more Casinos in suburban areas and in the city of Philadelphia if I recall correctly (all this pushed by the former mayor of Philly Ed Rendell, a democrat, I believe). They talk about all these wonderful things it will bring it like jobs and more revenue. What the politicians don't mention loudly is that they are also proposing giving the casinos a big break on property taxes, that casinos have to make money to pay revenue (hint: it doesn't come from the good of their heart), and the crime rate going up. It's not like they're planning to put up a technology center or something positive.

    But this bill isn't about protecting people, it's about protecting revenue. Afterall, if you can sit in the comfort of your own home wasting your money on gambling, why go out and do state-sanctioned gambling (lottery tickets and casinos). What you can't tax, you ban.

    BTW, for gambling proponents endorsing building Casinos as a public good, just go to Atlantic City (hey, if you are a Senior Citizen, just take the bus for minimum cash, like $10, and they give you that and a little more back in slotmachine tokens - hell, you can probably cash your social security checks there too), and look at the streets directly behind the casinos. One street behind the Boardwalk, it becomes a total dump. All show, no substance.

  3. Re:US card networks can block gaming category code by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's to stop U.S. citizens from simply transferring funds to an offshore bank or other financial entity that doesn't care about U.S. laws/regulations or gambling?

    Are citizens going to be prevented from transferring any money or holding any bank accounts outside the U.S.? How would they stop someone from simply mailing the funds as a money order or using a "shirea"(sp?)-type money transfer scheme?

    Short of requiring the government to exclusively handle all citizens' money, and outlaw *any* transfer of citizens' money outside U.S. financial control, I see no way they can possibly prevent them gambling online, or even collect enough data to prosecute them for doing so.

    Of course, one could put on his tinfoil hat and argue that this is a step in the direction of the government seizing (more) direct control of citizens' money.

    Myself, I just think it's another short-sighted lawmaking exercise that will end up curtailing freedoms and hurting the U.S. economy with more regulatory and enforcement costs while not actually accomplishing the goals that are espoused for it's passage, something that the U.S. government is legendary for.

    Cheers!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.