Online Gambling Bill Passed in House

Legitimate Business? by eldavojohn · 2006-09-30 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

The new gambling provision is not expected to affect gambling at tracks or casinos.

That's right, gambling at tracks and casinos will be restricted to our nation's poorest areas, with the exception of Nevada. Indeed, something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey ... all states with gambling in poor areas. It simply baffles me because if this was a legitimate business, the sensible person would allow it to thrive in a large city or everywhere. So, by these restrictions and odd placements, it's quite obvious that everyone knows gambling is detrimental to the populace and only promotes Pareto Law.

Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?

I'm from the mid-west and if you drive out to South Dakota, there'll be multi-million dollar casinos out in the middle of nowhere. Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor. Maybe I'm just more statistical than other people but I've only been gambling once like that. Poker, on the other hand, can be fun and social. It also has a clear cut 0 sum (aside from the rake) outcome for the players -- which is nice.

And I don't want to hear any of this Native American loophole crap because there's an act for that enacted by our Federal Government. They control it in the end -- I don't buy it that it's affirmative action for the Native peoples. None of this "The Indians stole my money BS" because the government controls where it happens and takes their own cut through taxes.

I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco. But when you sit down and do the math, people are raking in cash. Why doesn't the government enforce something like a maximum 5% take by the house? What I mean is that I'm sure the house is making on average something like 10-15% so why doesn't the government tax them back to 5% or allow the casino to give back to the local community through donations of this excess or building of community buildings? This isn't going to solve the social problems but I've heard that the tribe running Mystic Lake in Minnesota rakes in millions per member quarterly. I know a lot of them hand it out to members of their tribe but I don't know if that money is spent on things that necessarily benefit the community.

I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Legitimate Business? by malsdavis · 2006-09-30 04:29 · Score: 1

"I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco."

The Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though. Sure, it can make people happier but to sustain the industry it is a simple fact that far more people must be made unhappy to make those few happy.

Also, as tobacco is bad, it come with a large amount of health warnings, alcohol should only be drunk in moderation, so tens of millions is spent telling people this. However, I've never seen a poster near or inside a casino saying "despite all our advertising, the chances of you walking out of here with more money than when you came in are extremely small and we will do everything we can to prevent it".
Re:Legitimate Business? by TubeSteak · 2006-09-30 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Alcohol, tobacco & gambling are the trifecta of 'sin' activities that are taxed.

If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)

I wrote a longer post in a previous discussion on online gambling. I also discussed how alcohol prohibition is very similar to this 'ban' on online gambling.

Alcohol, tobacco & gambling will not go away unless the tax revenues can be made up elsewhere.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Legitimate Business? by truthsearch · 2006-09-30 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Are you serious? Every casino I've ever been in posts the odds at every game except poker (which would be impossible anyway). It's quite clear that your chances of winning are small and they're stated quite specifically. Slots are among the most popular "games" at casinos and the odds for every combination are laid right out there for you. I've never met a single person who thought they had a good statistical chance of winning at a casino. The rush people get is from winning when they know the odds of it happening are so slim!

And what makes you consider gambling at a casino a con? All of the rules of every game are quite clear. You can read books about them. The casino tells you exactly how much they get to keep at each game.

--
Developers: We can use your help.
Re:Legitimate Business? by terrahertz · 2006-09-30 04:48 · Score: 1

I'm with you 100% on all the points you make, however one small point I'd like to make is that you are (distressingly) not alone in failing to recognize gambling in all its forms, based on my personal experience.

Many years ago when I worked at a liquor store, I had the unfortunate task of operating a Maryland Lottery terminal as well as maintaining a Scratchoff vending machine. Before I started that job, I was more or less "on the fence" about the morality of state-sponsored gambling, though after I left I was decidedly against it. Seeing the same sad people throwing away money they could barely (and often times couldn't) afford to day after day really changed my opinion.

The current state of affairs is as pure a double standard as I can imagine. Tragically, as you mention, the overwhelming majority of gambling operations (including state-sponsored gambling) are targeted at those who are least able to afford the "habit." And it is an addictive habit like tobacco and alcohol usage, though the harm it does is less apparent to the uneducated eye.

--
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Cutriss · 2006-09-30 04:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Indeed, something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey ... all states with gambling in poor areas.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

In Mississippi, the vast majority of the casinos were put up on the coast in the more populated areas of the region. I suppose you could say that they're the "poor areas" now that the entire coast has been bushwhacked, but no - there are *WAY* poorer areas than Biloxi, which was probably the fourth or fifth largest city in the state before the casinos, and before Katrina, was easily second. Most of the "large cities" in MS are such because of the existence of an installation or university keeping them that size. Biloxi/Gulfport has only had Keesler AFB and the Seabee training center. The casinos in Vicksburg are of reasonable proximity to Jackson and Monroe, LA. The city basically wouldn't exist without the US Army Corps of Engineers research station, so obviously the existence of the 4 casinos in Vicksburg is due to Jackson and Monroe, but Vicksburg isn't exactly "poor" either (again, because of the research station). The only "Indian" casinos I know of are in Pearl (and it's turned out to be a nice inland resort type of place) and Tunica.

Now then, in Louisiana...where are the casinos? Let's see...Baton Rouge? Check. New Orleans? Check. Shreveport? Check. Hmm. Those are all big cities.

Now, does that mean that NIMBY doesn't apply here? No, it still definitely does. The reason Mississippi voted its casinos to all be dockside was so as to keep them out of Jackson. Of course, Jackson has the Ross Barnett Reservoir where something like that could go (if they could fit two barges in Pearl, they could do it in the reservoir), but that area is pretty much the most affluent suburb of Jackson, so there's no way anyone would allow that. And as far as Baton Rouge goes...well, I've been here over a year, and I know there are casinos here, but I have no idea where they are. I'm sure they're on the river, but I've driven on the highway that runs the river on the way to Angola, and I haven't seen them. So yeah, they're probably not in a great part of town either.

At least as far as Mississippi goes, you're way off the mark. Yeah, they've definitely "rigged" the legislation, but it's not as sinister as it looks.

--
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Re:Legitimate Business? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 05:01 · Score: 0

Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?

While not having a strong opinion on this topic I would point out that there are casinos in eastern Indiana (like Argosy in Lawrenceburg), and a proposal to legalize gambling in Ohio to fund community college and university education for Ohio students. I live in Cincinnati which is affected by both of these factors and I can assure you the area is not poor. The cost of living here is pretty low and the diversity of employers is good.

Again, not taking sides, just pointing out that there are gambling establishments in other non-poverty stricken areas.
Re:Legitimate Business? by malsdavis · 2006-09-30 05:08 · Score: 1

"Alcohol, tobacco & gambling are the trifecta of 'sin' activities that are taxed."

Whatever happened to the USA being a secular government?
The way the entire online gambling discussion is given such a priority in the federal government, despite being extremely trivial compared to the many more important issues facing the USA, shows that the fundamentalists are still in control.
Re:Legitimate Business? by omeomi · 2006-09-30 05:21 · Score: 1

Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?

I live in Illinois, and I wouldn't say that's the case here. While Chicago doesn't have a casino (yet...they've been talking about it for years), most of the towns that do have them also have relatively thriving economies. Many of them are Chicago suburbs, like Elgin and Aurora. There are others in downstate cities, like Peoria. They might not always be the greatest of towns, but they're not generally the poorest either...although we do have a bizarre rule that gambling can only happen on water, so all of our casinos are huge boats. How that helps, I have absolutely no idea.

--
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Re:Legitimate Business? by LilGuy · 2006-09-30 05:42 · Score: 1

Driving out to South Dakota is worse than sitting on a hot cattle iron. I grew up there myself, and I tell you, the casinos are an amazing break from the drab flat field after endless field. :P But in all honesty, the reason Deadwood is such a run down little dump is probably because the only people that live there that DON'T work in the casinos, blow all their money in them.

Also South Dakota has a few reservations... so that also makes a lot of sense.

--

You're nothing; like me.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Ibag · 2006-09-30 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor

Well, there are a few issues at play. First, many people don't understand statistics, or even believe that playing at a slot machine for several turns make the next turn more likely to win. Second, some people enjoy risk and uncertainty, and find it exciting or addicting to gamble for the sake of gambling. For these people, the payoff is enough.

Third, and most important, is people's utility of money. The value of money to an individual is not constant. If you have $30,000, doubling your money would make a huge impact in your life. If you had $1,000,000,000, doubling your money would have a slightly less huge impact in your life. This is why people with very little money can feel comfortable gambling (the gains in money are worth the risk) and people with a lot of money can make risky investments (the potential loss in money is worth the risk), but people in the middle don't feel safe doing either. It is also why people buy insurance: people would rather pay a little more than the expected value of a loss to guarantee that they don't end up severely disadvantaged because their utility with almost nothing is so much less than their utility of only losing the cost of insurance.

Risk and utility are strange concepts at times, but they are very useful at explaining human behavior.
Re:Legitimate Business? by MindStalker · 2006-09-30 05:51 · Score: 1

From what I've seen in these "poor" areas, the local poor people are working there, while the gamblers are generally tourist. Of course local poor also attempt to gamble some, but people who are compulive gamblers are going to find ways to throw away to gamble away their money, casino or no. But large casinos simply couldn't maintain profitability very long on the backs of a small poor community.
Re:Legitimate Business? by sethstorm · 2006-09-30 06:25 · Score: 1

Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.
There's gambling aplenty in NYC, it's done at Wall Street. They dont want competition.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Re:Legitimate Business? by symbolic · 2006-09-30 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

he Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though.

I have to disagree with this - these industries are constantly trying to con you out of money by making you think that you will gain a more desirable social status by using their products. It has, and is, one of the biggest, and ongoing con games that exist. And the deadliest - remember those billions of dollars that the tobacco industry lost in the suit filed against it, wasn't the result of its charity work - it was the result of a decades-long campaign to engage in calculated and deceitful advertising that conned millions of people into believing that smoking cigarettes neither addictive nor unhealthy.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 07:04 · Score: 0

Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.

There isn't one reason. There is NIMBY, but there is also real estate cost. Compare the cost of developing a casino in NYC to virtually anywhere else. The cost would likely mean the casino wouldn't be a good payout.

My area has casinos and they definetly do not put the casinos in the poorest areas here. The poorest areas are infested with meth addicts and the interesting crimes they engage in. So putting them there would be a threat to the tourism. Instead, they put the casinos up where good roads lead and the land is relatively cheap and often not really good for anything else(you're not going to build a Sears in the middle of nowhere are you?).

In my area, the Casinos have been REALLY good for the economy. The casinos have poured a lot of their profits into community development projects, schools, free clinics, etc... and it shows. The number of jobs they've brought in has been substantial and there are few people in my area who are anti-casino or have the NIMBY attitude. I don't even gamble and I bought my house about a 5 minute drive from a casino. The roads are good, the businesses are clean and legitimate, and there is more work in the area because of them, which translates into more work for me.

Granted, I live near a tourist town so my situation probably has different elements, but this is my take on it.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 07:12 · Score: 0

This isn't going to solve the social problems but I've heard that the tribe running Mystic Lake in Minnesota rakes in millions per member quarterly.

Not for too much longer. They apparantly have no right to the land. http://www.mklaw.com/
Re:Legitimate Business? by vtcodger · 2006-09-30 07:32 · Score: 1

***I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.***
Well, part of that is because you do not seem to understand the legal status of Indians and Indian Reservations. For the most part, the reservations are the result of treaties between the Indians and the US and/or state governments. Although the reservations are within states, they are for the most part not subject to state laws. For example, an Indian living on his reservation is not subject to state income tax from income earned on the reservation. That's not a modern concession to "affirmative action". It's a rather ancient (by American standards) concession to the likelihood that if pushed too far, the Indians would start butchering their neighbors.
One of the things that is under the control of the indians is whether gambling is permited on their reservations.
As to why Indian reservations are mostly way out in the boonies ... y'know, I'm not sure if it's a matter of the illegal immigrants (the Puritans et. al) settled where the Indians weren't or whether the Indians actually once had treaty land in or near what are now big cities, but had them ripped off. Mostly the former I think. In any case, the reservations were way the hell out where they are now many decades before the first Indian Casino opened its doors.

--
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Re:Legitimate Business? by Llywelyn · 2006-09-30 07:50 · Score: 1

"something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey ... all states with gambling in poor areas"

Question, do you know where Harrah's casino is located in New Orleans, LA?

--
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Re:Legitimate Business? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 08:27 · Score: 0

Gambling is SO effective at generating revenue that in most jurisdictions the government has a monopoly on it.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Liam+Slider · 2006-09-30 09:08 · Score: 1

Actually, there's some degree of legalized gambling machines as well, which requires a license. And there's OTB/racetrack betting as well. So not all of Illinois gambling takes place on the water, just the casino style gambling.

And hell, the Little Egypt region (where there seems to be a fair amount of access to riverboat gambling in Illinois) isn't just where the gambling related tourism is, but much of Illinois' tourism period. Pretty good tourist economy with the bed and breakfasts, "outdoor recreation", most of Illinois' vinyards and wineries, tons of orchards, massive number of places of historic interest, small museums, tons of festivals, etc... So it makes sense that this part of the State would have the casinos too.
Re:Legitimate Business? by omeomi · 2006-09-30 10:30 · Score: 1

And hell, the Little Egypt region (where there seems to be a fair amount of access to riverboat gambling in Illinois) isn't just where the gambling related tourism is, but much of Illinois' tourism period.

Huh, I've lived in Illinois for 27 years, and never heard of Little Egypt. Interesting. Is there really a lot of tourism down there? I would have thought the vast majority of Illinois tourism is centered around Chicago...

--
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Re:Legitimate Business? by doktor-hladnjak · 2006-09-30 13:25 · Score: 1

In general, they way it worked was that the tracts of land that were the least desirable (poorest soil, no resources, no access to valuable commercial waterways, etc.) were turned into reservations and then the tribes were moved there. Typically the best land was taken by settlers by force and those already living there were herded up on to the land nobody else really wanted.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Liam+Slider · 2006-09-30 16:34 · Score: 1

Huh, I've lived in Illinois for 27 years, and never heard of Little Egypt. Interesting. Is there really a lot of tourism down there?
Huge amount. As I mentioned most of Illinois' wineries and vinyards are located here (and Illinois wine is actually very fine stuff, most of the vinyards have won international and national winetasting competitions) and there are organized "wine trail" tours between them. It's a fairly big business. Then there's the gambling. We also have a lot of large parks and lakes, including one very large and beatiful national park, and these are a pretty big draw, along with various private wilderness areas, and lots of the smaller rivers. There are a fair number of small, quaint towns that have some historic or niche tourist interest, and usually have a number of quaint (and expensive) "bed and breakfast" style places to stay. And the fall colors are generally a draw too, lots of people coming through on cross country bike tours and so forth. And it's apple season, people come from States away to visit our apple orchards.
I would have thought the vast majority of Illinois tourism is centered around Chicago...
Yeah, but to be fair a good number of Illinoisans seem to think of everything south of Chicago as a great wasteland...
Re:Legitimate Business? by Usagi_yo · 2006-09-30 17:38 · Score: 1

I'm tossed between yes and no. There is whole lot I can write here, as I play poker for spare income and have since the late 80's. Gambling is a hobby and passion of mine, but I'm not talking about the thrill of risk / reward or the adrenaline from action. My thrill is finding the overlays + managing a bankroll + spending the 3-4% in expecation per unit bet. It takes hard work and grit and determination for me to maintain that expecation, and alas I'm probably at my peak with little likelyhood of advancing further.
Gambling is like a minature and accelerated example of society. Some people go on to become fabulously rich and famous, others become lost and tragedies -- unable to overcome the first hurtles or establish a good foundation to build on. Most .. the pack just get by from day to day until the Vig catches up.
Even the basic premis of a Casino (the vig collector) is duplicated in real life .. but we call it taxes.
No doubt, Casinos create jobs and some people do take those jobs and earn a good living and livelyhood. Casinos create industry -- mainly focused in the service aspect but also some in the industrial and high-tech. But in the long run, I feel it's a degenerative industry. Once the Casinos are built and operating, they turn from job creators to collections centers as they tax the hopes and dreams of the wannabees, the poor, and the hopelessly lost. It's true that there are many people who go out and gamble responsibly and as a form of recreation -- but that's not what fuels the industry.
Finally, a word of advice to those of you who gamble online. Just remember this. You are placing a bet and thousands of miles a way, somebody you don't know, somebody you've never seen, somebody who cares nothing about you but taking your money a little bit at a time ... sends you back an electronic message telling you if you won or not.
Don't gamble online. ---- PERIOD
Re:Legitimate Business? by rtb61 · 2006-09-30 23:00 · Score: 1

It is a con. For it to be gambling, the casino should be sharing the same odds, otherwise it is just probability fraud rather than gambling. When everybody shares the same odds, then it is gambling, when one person tilts the odds in their favour, that's called cheating.
So rather than attempting to ban gambling they should just enforce a fair and equal chance in the odds, they lets see how many casino etc. want to keep their doors open when they a sharing the same odds as the mug punters they are trying to fleece.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Legitimate Business? by Raenex · 2006-10-01 02:04 · Score: 1

Every marketing deptartment is trying to con you out of your money. There's nothing special about alcohol, tobacco, or gambling.
Re:Legitimate Business? by Raenex · 2006-10-01 02:14 · Score: 1

There's gambling aplenty in NYC, it's done at Wall Street.

And how: Fund loses $8.7b in month, calls it a day
Re:Legitimate Business? by flumps · 2006-10-01 19:58 · Score: 1

Don't gamble online. ---- PERIOD

What a crock of shit. Thats the lamest argument I've ever heard for not gambling. Sure, talk about addiction and debt etc etc etc but "don't bet online cause its disreputable" is bollocks. I work for an online gambling company (Victor Chandler), and they are no more or less reputable than any other business on the internet. In fact your money is safer with us than in most banks, we take fraud and other things very seriously. You can pay money in, and take it out of your online account, like it were another bank account. We don't force you to play, steal your money out of your account, or try to trick you into loosing.

The only difference between us and a bank is that we keep your money when you loose, thats all, like most casinos. At least we don't put extortionate interest rates on your credit or charge your for being overdrawn. We even try helping people who have gambling problems not to play any more.

And another thing, we can't come over to your house and beat you up and break your legs if you win too much, put the heavies on you to leave if you're on a winning streak. You can count cards if you want, or do some insider betting on the races. We're not there to breath down your neck like the police.

So don't bad mouth online gambling, its probably the safest form of gambling there is. Just make sure like any other company that we exist, have a trading address, a good customer service and all the normal online company things.

m

--
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
Re:Legitimate Business? by Rhipf · 2006-10-02 03:22 · Score: 1

I agree.
I have always found it rather funny that counting cards is considered such a terrible thing. The only reason that casinos don't like card counters is because it pushes the odds back toward the player. If you are smart enough to keep track of the card count great. It won't guarantee a win it just means you can play smarter.
Re:Legitimate Business? by rainman_bc · 2006-10-02 04:19 · Score: 1

Don't gamble online. ---- PERIOD

How about the real advice -> Don't gamble -- PERIOD.

However if you must, wtf is the difference between gambling at a casino or online? Only difference I can see is that when it's online, you aren't giving taxes to the goverment.

btw, how do you feel about the money laundering that goes through a US casino? You talk about shady off shore corporations (wtf? Party Poker is publicly traded!), yet you forget how shady your home-brewed online casinos are.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Legitimate Business? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-02 06:06 · Score: 0

Look, heres the thing: Ive been winning hundreds, occasionally thousands of dollars a month from online poker for almost a year now. I play on average 3 hours a day, and it adds a substantial kick to my yearly income, as well as being incredibly exciting. And now some useless, politically pandering dickheads come along and ban that? Im at risk of losing tons of money (profits), and so are millions of other americans. Theyre just too damn lazy and spineless to draw up plans to tax or regulate it, and they like to pretend to be christians. Or maybe they really are that stupid, im not even sure anymore.

Who is pushing this by rs232 · 2006-09-30 04:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Is it the gambling casinos in the states. How much money is beig channeled through the lobby system in Washington.

--
davecb5620@gmail.com

Re:Who is pushing this by KokorHekkus · 2006-09-30 04:39 · Score: 1

Is it the gambling casinos in the states. How much money is beig channeled through the lobby system in Washington.
Wonder if any money is actually needed.... they casino reps only need to sidle up to them and point out "We're in the state and provide jobs, tax incomes etc. On-line gambling gets you nothing, Do you really want that?"
Re:Who is pushing this by MarkusQ · 2006-09-30 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Is it the gambling casinos in the states?

Yes in for the Indian tribes. And no for Vegas. Could well be a tough cop/nice cop routine, if you believe they're more connected that generally admitted.
How much money is being channeled through the lobby system in Washington?

At least $85 million, that we know of. Not all on this issue, but much of it aimed at keeping out competition. Most likely, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
--MarkusQ
Re:Who is pushing this by jhines · 2006-09-30 06:41 · Score: 1

The Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is all about Indian (native american) lobbying on capital hill. There is a LOT of money involved.

Not only that but many states have lotteries or other forms of gambling as revenue.

And the horse racing industry wants to allow betting at remote tracks and the like.

There are many fingers in the no on-line gambling pie, all trying to preserve their piece they got now.
Re:Who is pushing this by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 12:38 · Score: 0

RTFA.... The nice Repub. Reps. from Az. and Tenn. attached it to a port security enhancement measure.

Obligatory posts ...
.... something about putting riders attached to Congressional Bills ...
.... something about non-harming actions and personal rights / privacy ...
.... something about supporting the 2nd Amendment and overthrowing the government ...
.... something about private and soft money donations to political campaigns ...
.... something about a plane trip to Costa Rica to set up a bank account ...

I'm looking at plane tickets to Costa Rica right now.....

Email is next! by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-30 04:21 · Score: 0, Troll

I got this email, and ended up losing all my money. Here's the story

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Why? by malsdavis · 2006-09-30 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't allow it but it has always seemed odd to me that when some of the US states have amongst the most liberal gambling laws in the world, the federal government should be so keen on stopping internet gambling.

The sceptic in me wonders if some of the rich US casino owners don't have a hand in this, my only guess is that the casino owners are worried about gamblers using overseas websites in tax-haven countries that offer better odds maybe?

Re:Why? by TubeSteak · 2006-09-30 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.
They can't tax it.

Seriously, that's the entire answer.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Why? by Rotten168 · 2006-09-30 05:01 · Score: 1

I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.

Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.
Re:Why? by TopShelf · 2006-09-30 05:03 · Score: 1

It's also a conveniently moralistic issue to push during campaign season. Lots of "family values" types out there to stem the tide of gambling abuse, and also stop the dreaded terrorists from funneling money through these unregulated channels.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 05:56 · Score: 0

Completely agree, it's puzzling. You would think that people would want freedom to do anything ? Yet they are being told what they cannot do.
It will hurt the US in that no US companies can be created to supply this need.
Online gambling will just be a non-US industry from now on, it will not vanish.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 06:15 · Score: 0

It's not the conspiracy some make it out to be. Historically, gambling operations were fronts for organized crime, both as a scam against their customers and as a money laundering / tax evasion thing.

What happened in later years was that the government tacked on regulations setting what the payouts had to be and then watched the statistics so that the House doesn't get to cheat. That, and the taxes, made gambling much less attractive a scheme for crime.

So while some of the government is concerned about online gambling for the greed issue (taxes!) or the morality issue (sin!), and local legit gambling places are against it because foreign gambling not bound by local laws will completely undercut them... ultimately, it's a global money flow thing.

The solution, IMO, is that we'll end up making deals with other nations that level the playing field and then allow online gambling through businesses inside that network... just like with any other issue of globalization.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 06:49 · Score: 0

s/sceptic/conspiracy theorist/
Re:Why? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2006-09-30 14:58 · Score: 1

Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.

You know, to any unbiased observer, your comment makes you look like a "nigger killer fingering the notches on your gun." Yes. You seem a little bit like a bigot, dude.
Re:Why? by Stickerboy · 2006-10-01 05:47 · Score: 1

>>I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.

>Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.

I have to say, there ARE more of them then the Microsoft-hating, copyright-infringing, slovenly geeks/internet tough guys with no social life and living in their parent's basement Slashdot constituency. So it just makes good sense for a politician to pander to them instead.

Plus, their womenfolk are prettier. Not to mention, they have womenfolk. If there was ever a tie, that would be a tiebreaker right there!

--
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Title is misleading by rudy_wayne · 2006-09-30 04:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Online gambling is already illegal in the U.S.

Companies got around that restriction by moving offshore, since the Internet makes it easy to do business anywhere in the world. The purpose of this law is not to actually outlaw online gambling, but to close a loophole by not allowing U.S. banks to be involved in it.

Re:Title is misleading by terrymr · 2006-09-30 04:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Online betting on sporting events is illegal in the US. Casino games currently are not illegal to play online. Go research it, the case that decided this was appealed all the way to the supreme court I believe.
Re:Title is misleading by terrymr · 2006-09-30 04:33 · Score: 1

In addition enforcing any ban on onine gambling is in violation of our WTO trade obligations (an organization we invented). We agreed to allow international trade in gambling services years ago and only relatively recently tried to claim that we didn't mean to sign up for that. International treaties are second only to the constitution it terms of legal standing, so our obligations cannot be changed by our own statutes.
Re:Title is misleading by mark-t · 2006-09-30 06:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

And just how do they propose that US banks be able to discern that any particular international transaction is actually due to online gambling so they can reject it?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Title is misleading by sgt_doom · 2006-09-30 08:13 · Score: 1

Somehow, after the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement was passed Friday a week ago - making the ownership of the majority of American ports (I believe the number is 21) by Dubai - now legal and official (Dubai never divested, they just waited for this bill to pass in our - America's - outlaw congress), and with the recent passage of the Detainee Act (also known as the habeas corpus rollback act), this particular government grab at citizen's monies should rate very low on the moral radar...
Re:Title is misleading by MidnightBrewer · 2006-09-30 14:32 · Score: 1

Which will result in companies investing in a further level of obscurity, meaning that they'll have front companies with innocuous names that will allow them to launder the money involved in gambling. Which will make things even less taxable. All the US government is doing is pushing themselves further and further out of the loop, rather than jumping on a golden opportunity to tax the hell out of it.

--
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Re:Title is misleading by Acer500 · 2006-09-30 15:38 · Score: 1

Ok, I'll bite. What does a FTA between Oman and the US have anything to do with a Dubai firm running (not owning if I recall correctly) US ports? If you know your geography, Dubai is in the United Arab Emirates, not Oman.

Can't comment on the detainee act but doesn't sound good. -

I still don't know what the problem is (of UAE firms operating US ports), I'll have to look it up.

--
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Re:Title is misleading by jonbryce · 2006-09-30 20:43 · Score: 1

The WTO rules are supposed to mean that you treat foreign companies in the same way that you treat your own.

If you don't allow american companies to do online gambling, and as a sovereign government, you should be allowed to make that decision, then it is perfectly reasonable not to allow offshore companies to do it either.
Re:Title is misleading by terrymr · 2006-10-01 06:36 · Score: 1

Ok - but we allow online lotteries and bets on horse races ... both such markets are closed to foreign companies. That is the problem ... that and the fact we didn't seek an exemption to the gambline related provisions when we signed the treaty, so as a sovreign nation we agreed to permit it.
Re:Title is misleading by sgt_doom · 2006-10-01 08:08 · Score: 1

Reading is fundamental - first you read the FTA, then you'll figure it out for yourself - somethings far too many Americans aren't capable of anymore. Which is why this Bushtard tyranny now rules. This FTA now makes legal foreign ownership of American ports, period. Could have sworn I already stated that. God, no wonder I consider at least 1/2 Americans to be stinking, candy-assed traitors.

Taxes and fees by NineNine · 2006-09-30 04:27 · Score: 1

It's the same reason many US states actually run their own liquor stores... money. It's not about being fair or passing good laws, it's about making sure that every shit-eating corrupt politician gets their piece of the pie. No surprise here.

Non troll by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-30 04:29 · Score: 1

Here's a better link, since FTR's css is gimpy in the fox: http://blog.flopturnriver.com/post/LeFou/790/Ban-E mail1

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Violation of personal liberty by Toby+The+Economist · 2006-09-30 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is a violation of personal liberty for the State to forceably intervene in citizen's lives in this way.

Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.

You do not outlaw an entire activity from ALL people because it can be abused; you simply take steps to deal with the problem of abusive.

The only justification for *forceable* intervention in another individual's life is *self-defence*.

This principle is the very antithisis of Big Government.

We pay tax through our noses for other people to progressively control our lives.

Re:Violation of personal liberty by rhsanborn · 2006-09-30 05:38 · Score: 1

Seat belt law?
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Toby+The+Economist · 2006-09-30 05:50 · Score: 0

> Seat belt law?

In my view, this should be law.

The reasoning is self-defence; if there's a car accident, the more people who are injured, the greater the demand upon those who are there trying to save people - and so the greater the risk that someone *else* may die, not just yourself.

If it was just you, then I would say this shouldn't be law. If you want to take the risk, it's your life.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 05:57 · Score: 0

Someone once gave me a reason how me not wearing a seatbelt might affect them. The basic idea is that I can be launched from my vehicle and become a lethal missile. So the off chance that during an accident I might fly through the air and hurt or kill a bystander is, apparently, a valid reason to pass a law. I don't buy it but it amuses me that people think that way.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by bitbiter · 2006-09-30 06:24 · Score: 1

Seat belt law, helmet law, just more ways that our "wonderful" government helps protect us from ourselves. We have tons of laws like this that help protect the stupid. They have to do this so that they still can find people to vote for them. Not enough stupid people to vote and most of the folks in office couldn't win reelection.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2006-09-30 06:33 · Score: 1

It is a violation of personal liberty for the State to forceably intervene in citizen's lives in this way.

Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.

Indeed. You are perfectly free to go and gamble online and transfer money via PayPal, e-gold, Swiss banks, money orders, hawala, cash in a white sheet of paper in the mail, etc. after the game is over.

What was passed was "a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions". Not "a measure that makes it illegal for US citizens to gamble online".
Re:Violation of personal liberty by j79zlr · 2006-09-30 07:17 · Score: 0

Seat belt laws affect everyone. Your car insurance and medical insurance premiums are higher when you have to pay for someone else being injured in an accident when a seat belt could have saved them from serious injury.

--
I'm not not licking toads.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by mike2R · 2006-09-30 07:26 · Score: 1

Seat belt law?
A fair point.

Personally I agree with mandatory seatbelts and disagree with banning gambling. My justification would be something like this:

Mandatory seatbelts save lives - the evidence is clear that when madatory seatbelts are introduced, many more people survive car accidents.

You could equally say the same thing about gambling - banning gambling will reduce the very real problems that some people have.

BUT gambling, for many people is a pleasurable occasional passtime, if you ban them from doing it you are infringing on their life in a way that I don't belive can be justified by the good that you are doing.

I can't see that argument for seatbelts. If you don't wear a seatbelt you're an idiot, plain and simple, and I don't have a problem with the government making that sort of judgement.

If you can come up with a reason why not wearing a seatbelt could be beneficial, then I might well change my opinion, at least for tha specific case - for example the UK has mandatory crash helmets for motercycle riders, but permits Sikhs (who wear turbans for religious reasons) are exempt from this, which seems fair enough to me (although if I was a Sikh I think I'd make myself a crash-turban).

--
This sig all sigs devours
Re:Violation of personal liberty by trewornan · 2006-09-30 08:10 · Score: 1

I didn't witness it in person but my father was a bus driver and was once involved in a fatal accident where a man was thrown through the window of a car and in front of his bus. He ran over the top of him and killed him (assuming he wasn't already dead at that point). Had he had more time to react he could easily have swerved in an attempt to avoid the victim - who knows what consequences that might have had.

So in fact people do occasionally get thrown through car windscreens, it may be an extremely rare set of circumstances but weird things happen.

Trouble is you can't organise your legislation on the basis of freak occurences . . . it's illogical Captain.

PS: I feel I must also mention that the police investigation cleared him of any fault.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by 955301 · 2006-09-30 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

automobiles alltogether are a flaw. People shouldn't be driving cars to get places w/o much cargo, and the government shouldn't be spending so much on highways. The public transit systems should be far better and expansive - PRT's, light rail and heavy rails. Not automobiles. They are a bad solution.

There, no seatbelts necessary.

--
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Re:Violation of personal liberty by 955301 · 2006-09-30 08:25 · Score: 1

Isn't the car a lethal missile by nature? I'd rather they stop producing them altogether - roads are just poorly designed tracks and cars are just personal vehicles on these tracks. Put computer control in and the fact they we tend to go to the same places over and over and you have a Personal Rapid Transit System (PRT).

--
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Eccles · 2006-09-30 08:31 · Score: 1

Seat belts keep the driver behind the wheel, and the front passenger from flying into the driver, and thus the driver is capable of keeping a minor accident into a major one. (Just watch a NASCAR race for examples of this, admittedly by drivers far better than the general population.) Note that seat belt laws only apply to people in the front seat and (with car seat law) those too young to decide for themselves.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by zippthorne · 2006-09-30 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

My mind was actually changed on seat-belt law by another slashdotter. I had been thinking in terms of personal liberty, and the exceedingly rare odds that a ballistic corpse would strike a living person.

However the argument that changed my mind was this: the seatbelt helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle, which is a critical factor in the scope of an accident. Without a seatbelt, it is very likely that you WILL lose control of the vehicle in a severe accident. Requiring seatbelts for drivers is simply codifying the idea that drivers must maintain maximum control of their vehicles possible.

I've got nothing on passenger seat belt laws though.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Violation of personal liberty by yndrd1984 · 2006-09-30 11:03 · Score: 1

By that logic, we should outlaw rock climbing, unsafe sex, and steak knives. Plenty of people need medical attention because of those things as well.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by yndrd1984 · 2006-09-30 11:11 · Score: 1

Mandatory seatbelts save lives - the evidence is clear that when madatory seatbelts are introduced, many more people survive car accidents.
You'd have an excellent point, except for the fact that it (apparently) isn't true.
If you can come up with a reason why not wearing a seatbelt could be beneficial, then I might well change my opinion, at least for tha[t] specific case
Delivering papers? I delivered several hundred papers a day when I was in college, and the usual method would be to stop at one block, grab the papers and deliver them, and then move to the next block. To follow the law exactly, you'd have to use your seatblet, your hazard lights, and never jaywalk - which would possible, but very inconvenient. Plus at 15 mph on roads that have at most one other moving vehicle, that's just stupid.
And that's the problem, you can't think of every exception ahead of time.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by I!heartU · 2006-09-30 13:40 · Score: 1

Well the passenger's could be flung into the driver, which would be bad, mkay.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Bing+Tsher+E · 2006-09-30 15:02 · Score: 1

Yes, but shouldn't people really be living in dormitories, and all wearing the same basic clothing? Why the need for people to travel at all?
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Bing+Tsher+E · 2006-09-30 15:04 · Score: 1

Better yet would be to have simply made it impossible for off-shore gambling operations to collect. The US Government could simply say that gambling debts for online gambling is null and void. People who won would collect for a few milliseconds, people who had lost would immediately stop paying anything. The online gambling industry would *pfft* disappear.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by stinerman · 2006-09-30 18:37 · Score: 1

You'd have an excellent point, except for the fact that it (apparently) isn't true.
I won't debate whether it is true or not. The overriding point of the matter is that not wearing a seat belt does not increase the risk of injury to other drivers in any real way. It is my right to be as safe or as unsafe as I want to be when doing anything that is of no risk or consequence to anyone else.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 20:38 · Score: 0

Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.

The consumption of psychotropic substances is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.

..so what?
Re:Violation of personal liberty by mike2R · 2006-09-30 21:58 · Score: 1

That wikipedia seems to assert that while seatbelts certainly reduce fatalities, maybe people have more accidents when they are wearing seatbelts because they feel safer, and this might cancel it out. It provide no citeations to support this. That artical links to this more detailed one which is one of the most once sided opinion pieces I've seen on Wikipedia. The top post on the talk page is titled "This Artical is a Mess" and has a reply to it that sums it up better than I could:

Most of article is the stuff of fringe opinion pieces -- not suitable for an enclycopedia article. The more than a hundred jurisdictions that have passed belt-wearing laws have a rational evidence-based basis for so doing. The more than a million traffic fatalities documented in the FARS data file provide no indication that belt laws pose a measurable increased risk to pedestrians -- anyone claiming that they do has an overwhelming obligation to support the claim with a data-based study published in a peer-reviewed journal -- there are many such journals dealing with traffic safety.
I do take your point of a delivery driver doing very short hops though, but I do think all that needs to be done is to tack "without good reason" onto the end of the law and leave it up to the good sense of judges and the police.

I can see why theoretically this might be seen as objectionable on a personal libery basis, but I think trying to maintain that position in the face of the obvious benefits provided by seatbelts, and by the fact that mandatory seatbelts do make a lot of people wear them who wouldn't previously, is untenable. IMO it's one of those issues where practical benefits have to trump theoretical ideology.

I just don't see this as important from a liberty point of view, but I am convinced that it is a law that saves a considerable number of lives.

--
This sig all sigs devours
Re:Violation of personal liberty by jshazen · 2006-09-30 23:57 · Score: 1

I call bullshit. In a "severe accident", the airbag will deploy anyway, which blows your hands off of the steering wheel. The seatbelt (and helmet) laws aren't about control in an accident, they're about injury prevention, so the state doesn't have to pay your medical bills.
Re:Violation of personal liberty by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2006-10-01 05:17 · Score: 1

Because many more drivers in the US don't wear seat belts the assumption is the driver *will not* be wearing a seat belt and the strength of airbags in cars destined for American markets its far far greater than say those for European markets where it is assumed the driver *will* be wearing a seat belt.

American air bags can kill children. European ones dont. If an air bag goes off in a European spec car it is there just to cushion the blow and the seat belt will keep the driver under control and do most of the restraining work. When someone side swiped my Volvo the air bag went off which resulted in friction burns but I had no trouble retaining my hold on the wheel and the car under control.

So you're statement is only true because of an assumption about the drivers. If people wore seat belts, they could reduce the strength of air bags and you could keep the car under control!

State governments by Infonaut · 2006-09-30 04:32 · Score: 1

I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.

For the last 20 years or so there has been a massive movement toward local and state government sponsorship of gambling. It is often referred to as a "lottery." Sometimes it's "Indian Casino Gambling." No matter how you slice it, the state governments get revenues from these deals, either directly or indirectly. Given that during that same 20 year period, Americans have become increasingly opposed to taxes, the scramble for revenue makes sense. Of course, the governments don't spend any less, because they make up for tax revenue with gambling revenue.

State-sponsored gambling is a great way for governments to demonstrate that hard work, saving your money, investing wisely, and investing in education are actually not worthwhile persuits. Siphoning money from the poorest members of society to pay for budget shortfalls the rest of the public is unwilling to support makes much more sense. If online gambling is allowed to flourish, states won't be able to control that nifty revenue stream. See, it's all about family values!

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Re:State governments by j79zlr · 2006-09-30 05:11 · Score: 1

Indian casinos do not pay taxes and are not regulated like other casinos.

--
I'm not not licking toads.
Re:State governments by Infonaut · 2006-09-30 07:59 · Score: 1

Indian casinos do not pay taxes and are not regulated like other casinos.

State governments still receive all kinds of indirect revenue from these arrangements.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Re:State governments by raehl · 2006-09-30 11:39 · Score: 1

Siphoning money from the poorest members of society to pay for budget shortfalls the rest of the public is unwilling to support makes much more sense

s/poor/stupid/g

Losing your money gambling is a result of being stupid.* It is not surprising that stupid people also tend to be poor people.

Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Others are poor because they deserve it.

(* Some people lose money gambling as a recreational expense, and there's nothing wrong with taxing that, either.)

--
paintball

Passed Both Houses by cybermage · 2006-09-30 04:35 · Score: 1

According to this article , the Republicans in congress attached a measure to install radiation detectors in U.S. Ports and pushed it through early this morning. It is now awaiting Bush's signature.

Hopefully, this will backfire in November.

--
Last Minute Games On Capital Hill

--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.

Re:Passed Both Houses by cybermage · 2006-09-30 05:01 · Score: 1

Oops. My bad. Wrote that backwards. They attached the gambling measure to a bill install radiation detectors in U.S. Ports.

--
Under-Reported News and Comments

--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Re:Passed Both Houses by SourceVisigoth · 2006-09-30 05:53 · Score: 1

I fear that more likely this will help maintain the status quo in November.

Most voters in this country are in fact moralizing holier-than-thou types who would like nothing more than to tell you how you can and can't spend your own money, in addition to micromanaging every other aspect of your life. Congress is only too happy to do their bidding.
Re:Passed Both Houses by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 06:15 · Score: 0

Yeah, like Democrats don't push through more restrictive gambling laws. Be thankful that the federal law isn't as restrictive as the one for the State of Washington which bans posting on the Internet anything about "gambling information."
Re:Passed Both Houses by Firefly1 · 2006-10-02 00:59 · Score: 1

I for one conclude from that fact that the Republicans who conceived this bill were uncertain at best of its viability as a stand-alone entity - why else would they have it leech onto another piece of legislation, and one concerning national security, at that?
Related question: where was someone to throw down the gauntlet and ask, "if this is so important, why not bring it to the floor on its own?"
That said, I wonder if there is some within-the-framework means to discourage such irrelevant attachments.

--
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts

Online Rehab by Ice+Wewe · 2006-09-30 04:35 · Score: 1

The next thing you know they'll be sites charging people to break their online gambling addiction.

"Stop loosing money to onlinegambling sites today! We'll show you how! All you need is your credit card [to verify your age, of course] and your time."

NIMBY by TubeSteak · 2006-09-30 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?

It's the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)syndrome

Rich people have enough clout to say NIMBY when it comes to Casinos, powerplants, garbage dumps or pretty much any other item that could bring with it social negatives.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

American Inquisition by Doc+Ruby · 2006-09-30 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's nothing. This same House just passed the Theocracy Protection Act, and the Torture Lover Act.

Grand Inquisitor Abu Gonzales will now have the option of torturing you when god tells him you're bluffing.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:American Inquisition by Ubergrendle · 2006-09-30 05:01 · Score: 1

There's are lots and lots (and lots) of well eductated, moderate, intelligent posters on Slashdot (no its true!) who realise their rights are being progressively infringed upon, and taken away. But unfortunately the sheeple populating a good chunk of the US still provides your president with ~ 30% approval rating. Its scary the % of the population willing to give the great leader (tm) a blank cheque in terms of executive power.

I can only equate the last ~ 5 years of political discourse in the US as the preliminary (being generous here) steps toward fascism. I suspect Bush's use of the completely inaccurate terminology of "Islamo-fascism" as being an attempt to disuade people from the true nature of fascism, being pro-industry and anti-citizen in nature.

I really hope the US wakes up in time for the NEXT presidential election -- if that ever comes. Should another terrorist attack take place shortly before the next election, I can see an extended set of executive powers being granted to the sitting president, at which point my suspicions will be fulfilled.

--
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Re:American Inquisition by Doc+Ruby · 2006-09-30 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative

In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too.

Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).

Here's how your Senators voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators killed any control over US torture (again mostly excepting Democrats).
The Senate is waiting to approve Theocracy Protection until after the November election.

Go to the polls and fire these people who are speaking in your name for torture and theocracy, an America run on the model of the Spanish Inquisition. Keep our country ruled by the people, instead of a class of professional torture priests.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:American Inquisition by plasmacutter · 2006-09-30 23:34 · Score: 0

So.. does this "Military Commissions Act" absolve this son of a ****h of all the freaking blatant war crimes he's committed over the past 6 years? What about the other impeachable offenses?

Has this bastard engineered his own pardon?!

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:American Inquisition by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-01 02:21 · Score: 1

Many sensible observers are saying that the MCA violates at least the absolute requirement by the Constitution for habeas corpus, and will likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court within a year or two, and possibly prevented from application by injunction much sooner than that. It's not clear whether they can retroactively allow those violations, especially if they're unconstitutional, without legal consequences. Like finally finding criminal violations of the Constitution when found to be breaking its law, as in the unwarranted wiretapping decision this Summer.

OTOH, these Republican fascists have packed the Court with "unitary executive" traitors, and might get the chance at another one before any trial goes through. The fascists already got to the Wikipedia page enough to make it's neutrality "disputed", just like a Soviet Encyclopedia in the making.

--
--
make install -not war

Toothless and useless bill by wolfie_cr · 2006-09-30 04:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

This bill is going to be totally ineffective, the banks dont even have a coding system for ACH transactions........they were given 270 days to figure out how to do it. Credit cards on the other hand are a marginal funding method to gaming sites and have been for a long time The only real entities affected from this bill will be public egaming companies which do actually have CEOs,CFOs,etc that might be prosecuted as a consequence of this (unfortunately I work in one of such companies) The rest of the industry..............will keep going largely unaffected by this

Re:Toothless and useless bill by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-01 04:30 · Score: 0

This bill is going to be totally ineffective, the banks dont even have a coding system for ACH transactions
The gambling sites don't even use ACH for funding anyway. They use third party payment systems which in turn use check drafts.
Re:Toothless and useless bill by wolfie_cr · 2006-10-01 10:40 · Score: 1

Some sites (big volume ones) uses ACH The sites that act as an intermediate between the bank and the site are normally ewallets whose customers are 99% gaming companies, that is the current concern (right here in Costa Rica , right now) about this bill, whether or not the banks will block transfers to ewallets related to gaming (but first they would have to create some sort of ACH coding which does not exist)

Here is a short overview before... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 04:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

...a zillion of ignorant posts get modded +5.

1. The bill is a joke. Here is why:
- It makes a clear difference between ONLINE gambling & gambling, without realising that the first has way more safety nets to deal with the two main problems - underage gambling & gambling addicts.
- It makes a difference between sports gambling, poker & "wagering on horses", which is of course fine.
- It is a protectionist bill, against current WTO decisions that banning an activity is ok ONLY if you apply the same rules to domestic & foreign operators.
- It forbids US citizens an activity under a moral pretext(which fails on the 2 points above) or on the grounds of "money is getting out of the country". If US people feel ok being forbidden doing something because of that, I suggest next time you want to visit another country you hold on it. I'm sure postponing my next US visit for unforseeable future.

2. This bill will NOT work. Here is why:
- Unfortunately for the US, it has NOT power whatsoever. Bookies will find many new ways of moving the money around.
- The Bill has an excempt on banning transactions to e-wallet companies, ergo, this is a HUUUUGE loophole as you'll still have no problem using your funds trough an intermediare.
- There is no possible way for ISP's to block access to gambling sites, not with the current development of technology.

3. What will happen?
- It will get SLIGHTLY more difficult for the after dinner poker mums to enjoy the game they like, but they'd still be able to do it.
- We'd get AT LEAST on case of a high profile offshore player being sued under the RICO act OR by the IRS(much more likely), however it'll be presented as a victory for the new legislation.

Will post more if I think of something.

Re:Here is a short overview before... by madsheep · 2006-09-30 09:32 · Score: 1

Yes, this will not prevent people from using a service like NetTeller that allows you to put money in an account and then jump from there. What it will do, however, is actually spell out to people that this activity is illegal and will inherently reduce the number of people willing to participate. Additionally, many people (myself included) will transfer money via EFT or credit card. This method will have to be reconsidered or terminated if one wants to avoid being [pro/per]-secuted. This will drive business up for middle man services but will decrease the bottom line as it will reduce the number of people that will use EFT/CC (if they still work) and will also redecue the overall number because people will not want to give a cut to the middle man. Unlike EFT and CC -- the middleman services generally charge a percentage of each transaction and it's generally (relatively) steep.

>> - There is no possible way for ISP's to block access to gambling sites, not with the current development of technology.

I am not sure what technology you have been looking at but this has been possible since DNS began. Now with web content filters, smart reverse proxies, and still DNS controls...this is very easy to do. Now can they actually stop the person from using proxies that go out of the country or something of that sort, of course not? But they can certainly block the sites and easily and rapidly keep that list updated. This again would dramatically decrease the number of people that would participate in online gambling as it would take a level of technical sophistication and will to circumvent the rules to play.

I 100% disagree that they should be able to block online gambling. I play occassionally and have not done so in a good 6 months, but it shouldn't be wrong or illegal for me to do so. Who are they to decide what I can do in such a blue collar activity that is legal in certain locations -in my country- ?

Why aren't anti-gambling laws unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 04:39 · Score: 0

I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.

I am, too. I thought you had freedom of speech there, right?

In fact, if I remember right, the US supreme court decided that the right to free speech included the right to give money to whoever you wish; and denied campaign finance reform legislation under the principle that an individual must be free, under the First Ammendment, to give money to whoever he or she choses.

So, if I can say what I want, and I can give money to whoever I want, and the government isn't allowed to interfere, how do they get to dictate that I can't offer money to someone in exchange for something random happening or not happening? Hasn't this been challenged in the courts yet?

I don't get it. I really don't get it.

Re:Why aren't anti-gambling laws unconstitutional? by QRDeNameland · 2006-09-30 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, if I can say what I want, and I can give money to whoever I want, and the government isn't allowed to interfere, how do they get to dictate that I can't offer money to someone in exchange for something random happening or not happening?

It's no different that prostitution laws. Something that is perfectly legal to give away for free becomes a crime when money exchanges hands.
How to they get to dicate that? Start at "Think of the children," proceed through "The Constitution is just a godamned piece of paper," and wind up at "We are a nation of laws, poorly written and randomly enforced."

--
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Re:Why aren't anti-gambling laws unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 06:40 · Score: 0

It's no different that prostitution laws. Something that is perfectly legal to give away for free becomes a crime when money exchanges hands.
So should everything that you can give away for free--like kidneys and babies--be legal to sell?

The general argument is that all of these things tend to promote a culture of exploitation. At least that's what the nice white man who pays me $5/hour to clean his toilet says.
Re:Why aren't anti-gambling laws unconstitutional? by KDR_11k · 2006-09-30 07:33 · Score: 1

In fact, if I remember right, the US supreme court decided that the right to free speech included the right to give money to whoever you wish; and denied campaign finance reform legislation under the principle that an individual must be free, under the First Ammendment, to give money to whoever he or she choses.

So I can give money to a judge heading a lawsuit that involves me? Or a policeman that just caught me?

I think the legislative should be held to the same standards as the judicative or executive.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Why aren't anti-gambling laws unconstitutional? by bnenning · 2006-09-30 08:41 · Score: 1

So should everything that you can give away for free--like kidneys and babies--be legal to sell?

Kidneys: absolutely. Thousands of people die each year because of a lack of available organ donors. Relying on altruism alone is an excellent way to ensure that this continues. Babies: no, because a child is not actually the property of his parents.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Why aren't anti-gambling laws unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 13:49 · Score: 0

Whoosh.

PayPal by leon.gandalf · 2006-09-30 04:40 · Score: 0

This should be great news to PayPal as they are not a bank...... :)

Re:PayPal by wolfie_cr · 2006-09-30 04:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

funny thing is.........paypal IS a totally legit payment method for online gaming sites in Europe.

Trying to handle the "why" questions by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-09-30 04:44 · Score: 1

One explanation about why people gamble is that they get some entertainment in exchange for their statistically predictable losses. Another is variable-interval variable-ratio conditioning (look it up -- powerful stuff).

(Statistical losses are worse than they appear: winnings are taxable, losses aren't deductible except to offset winnings).

Gambling establishments aren't guaranteed a living because of the money people lose. High rollers have to be attracted with expensive comps. The house edge is all over the map. Your 15% figure is almost exact for nickel slots in Vegas, with Keno obscenely worse and blackjack almost a breakeven.

Why poor areas? In Louisiana, the first question to ask is always whether legislators were paid off, and the answer is almost invariably "yes". The governor was convicted for taking a six-figure bribe to help someone get a casino license. In South Dakota, figure it's because Indian reservations are sovereign territory for many purposes and exempt from state gambling laws. In New Jersey, Atlantic City had become economically desperate. Mississippi has always been economically desperate

It's more serious than you suggest! by ahalf · 2006-09-30 04:46 · Score: 1

Hang, it's a lot more serious than that post suggests. It has been passed in the Senate, and will become law after the usual 270-day period require to flesh out the details of the law, its enforcement, etc. The bill will make it illegal for "financial transaction providers" (e.g. banks, credit cards, etc.) to allow transactions to online gambling sites. It also appears to require that "interactive computer services" (perhaps hosting companies or ISPs?) remove or disable access to online gambling sites. You can read the full text of the law in this document (from page 213 onwards). Although horse racing and lotteries are exempted, the bill will indirectly make it illegal to do things like play poker online, or make bets on sporting events. Many million Americans enjoy doing either or both of those, but this bill will make it all but impossible for them to find their online accounts, and so effectively put a stop to it. It's going to affect a lot of companies (e.g. the large gaming sites like PartyGaming, Paradise Poker, PokerStars etc, and also the numerous betting sites), but more importantly it's going to prevent many people from enjoying the odd game of poker with some friends, or making a bet or two on a soccer game.

Re:It's more serious than you suggest! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 07:07 · Score: 0

Perhaps the Pirate Party can help out with the IP blockages with their VPN service.

Why wonder? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-09-30 04:49 · Score: 2, Informative

>one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states

I live in a state with an online gambling ban, a remarkably repressive one.

The state senator who introduced the bill had, as her top campaign contributors, offline gambling enterprises.

(flame)This happens all the time, businesses buying legislation to put competitors in prison. It's just that it usually happens in Third World countries.(/flame)

Remind me... by geoff+lane · 2006-09-30 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

...exactly how well did prohibition work last time?

Re:Remind me... by DarkOx · 2006-09-30 07:21 · Score: 1

Actually dispite the popular feelings toward the subject prohibition worked wonders. Rates of Marrige partner abuse and child abuse declined by something like 50% durring the period. The poverty rate also trended down, although its harder to tie that directly to prohibition. Yes it did creat some oppertunities for criminals but I don't think its fair to say that organized crime would not have found other sources of income and gotten just as bad without prohibition; maybe maybe not.

If we had a temporary progibition every 20 years or so to break people of their addictions it might be a real good thing for this country.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Remind me... by oceanstream · 2006-09-30 09:29 · Score: 1

Depends who you ask...
Early race drivers were often involved in bootlegging. The runners would modify their cars in order to create a faster, more maneuverable vehicle to evade the police. The next logical step for the owners of these cars was to race them. These races were popular entertainment in the rural Southern United States, and they are most closely associated with the Wilkes County region of North Carolina. Most races in those days were of modified cars, street vehicles which were lightened and reinforced.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascar

Sooo... by Greg_D · 2006-09-30 05:09 · Score: 1

.... which congressmen have the inside track to invest in an escrow service to act as a go-between for US gamblers and the companies they love to give their money to?

They hate our freedoms... by Rotten168 · 2006-09-30 05:10 · Score: 1

well the ones we have left, anyway.

Er, It did pass both Houses - by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 05:25 · Score: 0

And is waiting the prez's sig.

http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/h r49543_portscr.pdf

Thank goodness. by Dirtside · 2006-09-30 05:27 · Score: 1

Now no more online gambling will occur in the States! The money will instead be spent overseas. Hooray!

Wait, what?

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

This Could Effect State Lotteries... by MadMorf · 2006-09-30 05:30 · Score: 1

A number of States allow you to buy a year's worth of lottery numbers online, VA for instance.

Wouldn't this Bill make that illegal as well?

--
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!

I don't get it.. by DNite · 2006-09-30 05:33 · Score: 1

I haven't read everything there is to read about these new bills that are being proposed, but I don't get how they will really effect online poker and such? I've used my fair share of poker sites and programs over the last few years and I think I've only used ONE that actually allows you to take money out directly from your bank. Most bank debit cards and other credit card prohibit the use of their card for 'gaming charges' so, 9 out of 10 gambling sites out there usually go through another site to deposit money. NetTeller and FirePay being the 2 most popular. So technically the banks aren't 'involved' in the online gambling in that case anyway. Is this not true? or is there something I'm missing? I really don't see this doing much of anything against the online poker business.

--
dnite

Re:I don't get it.. by Pfhreakaz0id · 2006-09-30 06:47 · Score: 1

The real question is, can/will the banks block transactions from NetTeller and FirePay, etc, on the grounds that most of there business is gambling related? If so, the business is big enough that I would think a large, Non-U.S. bank would step into the void. If that bank (obviously) had significant non-gamlbing business volume and could object to the U.S. government classifying it as a "gambling business", it might work.

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE

We thank you. by houghi · 2006-09-30 05:45 · Score: 1

We thank you that you are finaly don't let banks on into this gambling.
Let us do it instead. We have experience in this filed.

Don Corleone
"The family" LTD/Inc.
Offshore Gambling, Savings an Loans
Sicily - Moscow - Cayman Islands
Contact us for insurance as well.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Not a troll by sejmeister · 2006-09-30 05:47 · Score: 1

This is obviously not a troll.

It's a link to a blog by a highly-regarded poker player.

--
http://sejje.net/

Re:Not a troll by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-30 09:12 · Score: 1

Hehe. Good one. Almost didn't recognize yr name.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

re: That's a crock.... by King_TJ · 2006-09-30 06:02 · Score: 1

As far as I can tell, the only real reason fed. govt. has been concerned about off-shore gambling sites is because they have no way of regulating them to ensure they do, in fact, operate the games as stated.

If gambling is done on U.S. soil, it's possible to send in government regulators to verify that the posted odds really are correct, to place daily betting limits, and other such rules. They can't realistically put any such controls on some web site running in a foreign country.

And how fair is it to let some guy in the Ukraine run a poker game site where the cards aren't really shuffled quite right, or a blackjack game where the computerized dealer manages to cause players to "bust" an unusual number of times - when all the real casinos built here and bringing in revenue have to play by different rules?

State-sponsored gambling has nothing to do with discouraging education, hard work or wise investing. The only scam along those lines has been govt. promising they'd use revenues generated by casinos to fund education, and then managing to siphon off the funding for other uses.

Realistically, taxation itself discourages hard work, education and wise investing, if we follow your line of thought. (EG. Why bust my butt to work so hard, when government is going to come along and forcibly take at least 1/3rd. or so of my income as taxes before I even see the money? Why worry about saving as much as possible for my future, when govt. already takes out part of each paycheck for "social security"?)

FASCIST by Doc+Ruby · 2006-09-30 06:11 · Score: 1

What the fuck does outlawing gambling have to do with theocracy? THEOCRATS PROHIBIT GAMBLING. Unless it's their own, like bingo, or state lotteries/horceracing.

Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?

You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.

Even if actual humans save your insane ass from the Republicans you keep in power, you're still going straight to hell.

--

--
make install -not war

I bet this won't pass the Senate... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 06:15 · Score: 1, Funny

...anybody want to give me odds?

Spam by Anne+Thwacks · 2006-09-30 06:23 · Score: 0, Redundant

So when are they going to do the same for banks handling transactions related to spam?

That would stop spam overnight.

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII

Ah, America. by Tim+C · 2006-09-30 06:24 · Score: 1

Truly the Land of the Free.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

CowboyNeal is wrong; Senate Passed It by MattW · 2006-09-30 06:24 · Score: 1

CN did not RTFA, but Frist used some procedural trickery to attach this to the Port Security bill late last night. Frist is from Tennessee, where they have a Lotto. (AKA: A tax on people who are bad at math) Frist's amendment carves out a ridiculous exception for horse racing, also. But playing poker - a game of skill - will now be nearly impossible if you are in the United States.

I'm just glad Frist is considering a run for President, so I will hopefully get a chance to oppose him with my vote.

Under the guise of trying to protect people... by DaveCBio · 2006-09-30 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

They enact laws that are really about preserving their tax base.

For those persons who live near Mexico or Canada by LouisJBouchard · 2006-09-30 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

For those persons who live near the International Border (both north and south), why not open a bank account in another country. US laws only affect US banks. Plus, you do not have to tell anyone if you take less than $10,000 across the border.

Freedom Fries by truthsearch · 2006-09-30 06:35 · Score: 1

Remember when renaming french fries in the cafeteria was more important than debating war? I don't think it's an issue of fundamentalists being in control. It's career politicians who care most about their image (and yet have no concept of what the people really think) that are the problem. When the democrats are in control they're only slightly better.

--
Developers: We can use your help.

Re:Freedom Fries by malsdavis · 2006-09-30 06:41 · Score: 1

I suppose your right. Most of the fundamentalist style decisions made that I can think of off the top of my head do seem opportunistic rather than idealistic.

I guess thats a good thing. Just.

Re: That's a crock.... by malsdavis · 2006-09-30 06:37 · Score: 1

"Realistically, taxation itself discourages hard work, education and wise investing, if we follow your line of thought."

This neo-con line is kind of disproven though by the fact that the Scandinavian countries (along with much of northern Europe) are always at the very top end of producitvity per capita and GDP per capita indexes despite having amongst the proportionally highest taxation rates in the world (often around 50% for many). As a result of the high taxation though they also get to be at the very top of the living standard's indexes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ GDP_(nominal)_per_capita - GDP (nominal) index per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ Human_Development_Index - HDI index (standard of living)

It's just a pity they all have such crappy climates! :)

It might as well be old news. by psu_whammy · 2006-09-30 06:51 · Score: 1

Pretty much every bank in the country has already disallowed the use of their accounts for online gambling. (I should know, I've tried two or three times now, and I'd much rather not give my account information to some approved affiliate who I've never heard of.) This bill isn't really relevant; just the government being late to the party, barking orders, then wondering why people are looking at them funny. Par for the course that the government is the last to react to the trend.

Re:For those persons who live near Mexico or Canad by BearRanger · 2006-09-30 07:18 · Score: 1

Because you're still required to declare all foreign holdings and earnings at income tax time.

fingers in the no on-line gambling pie by Anomalyst · 2006-09-30 07:23 · Score: 1

There are many fingers in the no on-line gambling pie, all trying to increase the piece they got now.

There, fixed that for you.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.

Gambling and national debt, another perspective... by moosehooey · 2006-09-30 07:49 · Score: 0, Troll

I see that a lot of people are looking at this whole thing from the point of view of what people should be allowed to do to themsleves, but online gambling is also against the US's interest as a whole.

We have a big trade deficit with China. They make lots of stuff that we buy. Basically, in exchange, we owe them stuff in the future (since the whole idea of money is to exchange for stuff). Hopefully the kind of stuff we'll be selling them is intellectual property, since it takes less effort to produce than real goods. Americans won't work as cheap as the chinese.

We're also going to owe a lot to oil-producing countries for all the oil they send us. It's much better for us both environmentally and financially to produce our energy locally (whether that be solar/wind/biodiesel/nuke/etc.). Coal is better financially, too, even if it's horrible for the environment. God knows *what* we're going to use to pay back all the oil debt.

This brings us to online gambling. Casinos in the US hire US construction workers to build the huge buildings, hire US people to work there, and are at least somewhat owned by US stockholders. Overseas casinos aren't monitored, and thus probably cheat. They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them. They contribute nothing to our economy in exchange for the millions of dollars they extract from US citizens.

In other words, I think that prohibiting online gambling is good, even if the libertarian prospective says that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money. It will also protect some of the stupider people from casinos that are unregulated and cheat.

I hope this passes, I think it will be good for the country to keep more money here to avoid contributing to the national debt, keep people from being cheated, and avoid contributing to future debt repayment and erosion of the value of the dollar.

Re:For those persons who live near Mexico or Canad by trewornan · 2006-09-30 08:36 · Score: 1

So make sure there's no money in the account the day you sign the form.

Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective by aronschatz · 2006-09-30 08:54 · Score: 1

You sir are an asshole. What I want to do with my money is my business, not yours or any politicians. Why is ILLEGAL to run an online gaming site in the USA, then? If that was the case, then your post would be what? The whole reason people are spending money elsewhere is because the US can't grip with the fact that gambling is NOT HARMFUL.

Nope. by Pfhreakaz0id · 2006-09-30 09:00 · Score: 1

Sorry, the Feds keep saying that online gambling is illegal (due to the Wire Act), but no one has ever been prosecuted for it (sports betting aside, as the Wire Act clearly applies to that). see a link here: linky for some more info. Simply put, no one has been prosecuted, so the best you can say is that certain people say it is illegal but have chosen to enforce it. A more reasonable point of view upon researching it is that no one has been prosecuted because the prosecutors are aware that they would probably lose.

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE

Well I bet by Monsuco · 2006-09-30 09:02 · Score: 1

Well I bet you they will ban it. Oh wait, I can't bet you :(

--
The Gospel according to lolcat

It's A Difficult Call by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2006-09-30 09:13 · Score: 1

Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.

I believe that gambling, as well alcohol, nicotine, guns and organised religion, harms a lot of people. It destroys more than a few lives. Millions have been caught up in the backdraft from hardcore gamblers going critical.

On the other hand, I realise I really don't have the right to judge the opinions and decisions of grown adults. If someone wants to gamble, drink, smoke, go to church or whatever, why should I try and stop them. They are grown adults, capable of making their own decisions. What if someone came after me for playing too many video games or posting too much on Slashdot? But then again, people always seem to bring up things like heroin and cocaine and methamphetamine, stating that addiction is powerful enough to rob people of their sense and they need to be protected from themselves and those who would exploit them.

Personally, I'm dubious as to the power of addiction to rob people of their free will. I understand people do have powerful cravings and very real and physical withdrawal symptoms, but in the end as human beings we are supposed to have the will and sentience to change our behaviour. I understand people can be in a bad way, but I refuse to believe that those intoxicated by gambling, alcohol, drugs, or religious ceremonies, are somehow "possessed" by a chemical or by their behaviour. I don't believe in evil spirts and I don't believe in the ability of addiction to completely rob a person of free will.

In the end, I believe that people are not controlled by their addiction, but rather that they ultimately decide to act on it. Very often, this takes the form of actions harmful to our society. My position is; if you make legal any action know to cause addictions, what you are doing is accepting that a substantial amount of people will as a result take actions harmful to society. If you legalise alcohol, you are accepting a certain amount of violence in society. If you legalise nicotine, you are accepting a certain amount of death in society. Legalise gambling, accept poverty. Legalise religion, accept intolerance.

You're accepting these things on the basis that most people who partkae in this new activity are not going to harm society. You have to weight the freedoms of people to participate in an activity against the freedoms of others no to be harmed by that activity. The people you should be most concerned about are those that do not participate in the activity, but end up being harmed by it.

I'm a big believer in having the industries that provide such activities, make reparation to such innocent third party victims. Casinos, publicans, tabacco companies and dioceses should be make in some part accountable for the victims of people who participate in their activites. They after all, were the ones calling for us all to weigh their freedoms against the victims. If those that offer such activities are unprepared to accept the freedom of non participants not to be harmed by those activities, then the activity should not be made legal.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:It's A Difficult Call by Toby+The+Economist · 2006-10-01 01:10 · Score: 1

> You're accepting these things on the basis that most people who partkae
> in this new activity are not going to harm society.

Not *quite* - the view I have is to consider if an activity will cause harm to other *people*.

Society is a whole 'nother kettle of fish - not least of which is the question "what is society?" and the question "who decides what's good or bad for society, whatever it is?"

When you pin the question down to harm to *people*, it becomes a lot more clear cut.

Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective by bnenning · 2006-09-30 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Overseas casinos aren't monitored, and thus probably cheat.

In some ways it's harder for online casinos to cheat, because you can keep a perfect record of your history and analyze it for statistical discrepancies. There are guys with databases of millions of poker hands they've played. If the cards were non-random, they'd have found it.

They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them.

Except that people seem to enjoy playing. But the preferences of mere mortals are generally of little importance to those who would be all-powerful central planners.

I hope this passes, I think it will be good for the country to keep more money here to avoid contributing to the national debt, keep people from being cheated, and avoid contributing to future debt repayment and erosion of the value of the dollar.

This argument works equally well (i.e. poorly) for banning all spending on foreign goods and services.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.

Why doesn't Slashdot check facts? by mbstone · 2006-09-30 10:44 · Score: 2, Informative

rkcallaghan writes, "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless.

Googling the topic or checking thomas.loc.gov would have quickly told you that the House ban passed months ago and today's passage by the Senate makes it likely that the measure will become law.

ONTOPIC!!! by yndrd1984 · 2006-09-30 10:58 · Score: 1

What the fuck does does have to do with online gambling or this law at all?

Both bills were passed by the same group of people. He isn't changing the subject, he's just expanding the scope from one specific bill passed by the House to several bills passed by the House. Showing a pattern of behavior is a basic, necessary part of many types of argument.

Oh, damn. I didn't read the "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on my way in. Sorry, guys.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. by raehl · 2006-09-30 11:34 · Score: 1

Look, we all gotta pay taxes. I'm an empoyee, and I pay income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes; a property owner, so I pay property taxes; a business owner who pays income taxes on that... ...There's no reason that the economic activity of gambling online should not ALSO be taxed.

The problem here is not that government is trying to protect a tax base. The problem is that, despite the online gambling industry pretty much BEGGING to pay taxes, the government is trying to ban something other people want to do.

This effort has nothing to do with taxes. It's the result of a combination of social 'it's bad for people and we shouldn't let it happen' coupled with lobbying by established gambling interests.

If the government WAS trying to preserve it's tax base, it would REGULATE online gambling. They would get a LOT more tax money from taxing online gambling than they would from banning it.

--
paintball

Re:For those persons who live near Mexico or Canad by LouisJBouchard · 2006-09-30 13:23 · Score: 1

Yes you do but you do not have to tell the government through what method you made the money. If you put the figure on the 1040 line where you put in gambling income, then the IRS will not question it (especaially if they do not receive a 1099G). The only place it could look weird is if you get interest income on the account and have to list the bank on Schedule B. Other than that, the IRS only wants the numbers.

In fact, if you are a real savy taxpayer and good at record keeping, you can deduct the expenses of going to Canada/Mexico as an expense related to the income you received up to the amount of income you earned.

Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-30 13:28 · Score: 0

"NOT HARMFUL"

You sir, are a fucking spastic.

who does this affect? by Treates2 · 2006-09-30 13:30 · Score: 0

not me!! :D *does a dance around the dinner table.*

Online Gambling Is Already Illegal by Elf-friend · 2006-09-30 16:19 · Score: 1

This came up on another site yesterday, and I'll tell you the same thing I told them: Online gambling has always been illegal in the U.S.A. Heretofore, it has been implicitly illegal, under federal laws against betting over-the-phone. The federal government has already prosecuted overseas casino owners (including at least one from the U.K., where internet gambling is legal and regulated) under these laws. 60 Minutes re-aired a story on this issue just a couple of weeks ago.

The new legislation aims to make internet gambling explicitly illegal, forcing banks to prevent the transactions. Even before now, however, many banks have been co-operating with the government, blocking even merely questionable transactions (as they do on the child porn front, as well).

Personally, I think this is wrong-headed. As many have pointed out, many of the states make a substantial percentage of their income from lotteries (a far more insidious form of gambling); so how can we honestly claim to be honouring morality here? Online gambling will still take place, and all that this move guarantees, is that poorly-regulated overseas sites will have a monopoly on the trade, rather than directing the trafic to well-regulated domestic sites (and sites in countries with a decent regulatory structure, like the U.K.).

Re:Online Gambling Is Already Illegal by jshazen · 2006-10-01 00:15 · Score: 1

I think this was already said further up, but to clarify:

The wire act has been ruled by the supreme court as pertaining specifically to *sports betting*, over the phone.

The company executives that were arrested were working for companies that took sports bets over the phone (US numbers, advertised to US customers). Nobody providing or playing online casino games has been arrested.
Re:Online Gambling Is Already Illegal by Elf-friend · 2006-10-01 16:11 · Score: 1

I almost mentioned that, but didn't because I thought it was a point still in dispute, as far as the fed's were concerned. Although the 60 Minutes piece did mention the wire act as being intended to pertain to sports-betting, the authorities interviewed clearly expressed the opinion that all online gambling was illegal under current legislation. Indeed, poker was the general focus of the discussion. Of course, the current government seems to dispute numerous points that have already been decided by SCOTUS (I suppose, as well, that the problem involves the definition of "sports" and the fact that the internet and telephone systems overlap significantly).

They did mention that the specific U.K. executive mentioned was offering sports-betting as part of his casino operation (as most Las Vegas casinos do, as well - though only on site, of course), but also that he was acting legally as far as British law was concerned. It was at least implied that this was done over the internet, via a website based in the U.K. It's possible they had their facts wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Somebody Please Invent P2P Poker by mbstone · 2006-09-30 18:00 · Score: 1

Will somebody please rise to the occasion and develop an open-source P2P poker application so that people who wanted to play poker could arrange a game amongst themselves, and assure one another of the game's integrity, all the while abiding by the law, without involving some poker hosting site. The two problems would be, insuring the randomness and fair dealing of the cards, and how payments would be made. The first problem could be solved by rotating the dealing -- Texas hold'em already theoretically rotates the "dealer button" and some mechanism to certify or check up on the integrity of the deal -- maybe a second player would query the designated dealer's dealing .dll with a public key and/or supply the RNG seed. The second problem could be solved by having players paypal each other money, or communicate with a (offshore?) banking site at the conclusion of the game to settle up, maybe with an ebay-like feedback system to track welshers. Who needs the big poker sites and their rake-offs anyway.

Australia has a similar law by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · 2006-09-30 20:12 · Score: 1

Australia passed a similar law about five years ago. Commentary here. Short version: ignoring for the moment the question of whether this is a case of over-governing, cutting off the point of payment is a really clever and effective way to get a legislative grip on the situation. You can't regulate a gambling establishment that's beyond your borders, but you can prevent the local banks from paying them, and that works just as well.

--
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.

Desperate republican grandstanding.. by plasmacutter · 2006-09-30 22:03 · Score: 0

As more astute posters have pointed out.. this will have no effect on online gambling at all.

Despite the recent red-shifting of CNN (yes.. red-shifting.. they characterize mexican opposition to a border fence as "mexican insistance on interfering with national security"!), the polls are showing nothing but gloom and doom ahead for that party's grip on congress.

What do they do then? They try to gandstand on puritanical red herrings as if to say "don't look at the debacle in iraq, the crashing housing market, the plummeting median wage, the pro torture bills, the patriot act, gitmo, the domestic spying, etc... look over here!.. OH NOES!!11oneone.. online gambling.. and mexicans.. oh my!!!"

grandstanding, pure and simple.. let em do it.. the content of this whole response thread shows none but the most blinded are now buying it.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!

Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective by Valar · 2006-10-01 04:58 · Score: 1

"They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them. They contribute nothing to our economy in exchange for the millions of dollars they extract from US citizens." There's nothing I hate more than a mercantilist. Firstly, online gambling provides entertainment. Entertainment is a service. It has every bit a much value as the movie theater or a golf course. Secondly, your argument was stricken dead in 1776, but unfortunately is still in its dead throes. No, not by the declaration. By The Wealth of Nations. Both countries prosper when they trade in goods they have an advantage in. Since online gambling is not even legal in America, there is an unsatisfied demand that online gambling takes care of. In exchange, they get dollars, which they use to buy american products or invest in american business. Any reasonable person would see this as a good thing, unless you are of the radical nationalist "OMG THE CHINESE ARE BUYING AMERICA" school. And in a minor point, no, intellectual property does NOT take less effort to produce than physical goods. It may take less physical effort. It also requires more mental effort (over the span of years, including roughly 20 years of school). Additionally, it requires capital, just like factory production.

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games

Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective by aronschatz · 2006-10-01 05:19 · Score: 1

Thank you for your well thought out arguement. We are all much better off after reading your post.

LIBERAL by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-01 06:57 · Score: 0

Gambling is wrong. Gamblers are the ones who should have body parts ripped out, not good conservative Americans.

How are bingo and state lotteries gambling? They're perfectly legal.

And as I've said before - we don't torture. Other countries made that up!

And what are the Republicans doing wrong? They're doing everything right! Gas prices are going down. Jobs are coming back to our great country. Israel beat up those Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorists and the Iraqis are voting! So tell me, how are the Republicans ruining the country?

I think you're just another senseless whiny liberal who's repeating all that MoveOn.org anti-American rhetoric because an adulterer and perjurer and justicial obstructionist isn't in power.

Re:LIBERAL by Doc+Ruby · 2006-10-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Anonymous FASCIST Coward, you're supposed to call me a "Communist".

Gamblers should have body parts ripped out? That insane comment made me think you were joking. Then that bit about bingo and state lotteries not being gambling - still must be joking, no one's that stupid. But then "perfectly legal" making them not gambling made me start to think you really were raving mad.

Then that bit about "we don't torture", which must be true because you put it in boldface, and insisted with an exclamation point that other countries made it up. That's got to be a joke.

So I was laughing at you when you asked what are Republicans doing wrong. The gas prices manipulation by Republican Saudis made me think again, because that's not funny since it's true. Though that flat lie about jobs coming back to our country isn't funny because it's not true. Then you make a claim that's barely even parseable because it's so crazy, about Israel and Iraqi victories.

Then you get back onto the standard Republican "But Clinton..." nonsense.

The simple fact is that Republcian fascists are so stupid and crazy that they're indistinguishable from a mere Anonymous Troll Coward. George W Bush, is that you?

--
--
make install -not war

on line gambling by freedom3000 · 2006-10-01 07:55 · Score: 1

At least you are intelligent enough to realize gambling shouldn't be abolished. I get so tired of these conservative holy rollers trying to run the US like some religious dictatorship from the Middle East. I believe we are all fairly tolerant of religions, but there is no excuse to enforce some gambling morality law on everyone. This country is based on freedom. We should have the freedom to do as we see fit with the money we earn. Its ridicules. I realize some people spend their money gambling when they shouldn't, but lets not limit the things people shouldn't spend money on to gambling alone. There are more ways to financially devastate yourself than I can possibly list. Lets start with church offerings. This latest attempt to shut down online gambling is a waste of our tax dollars and time. The real issue should be why US companies aren't running these sites, employing US citizens and generating tax dollars. Instead, because we are so righteous and moral, we prefer to send the millions of dollars overseas to support who knows what. If you think passing some law is going to stop this, you are sadly mistaken. Online gambling is here to stay. This is just another stupid law that will cost us tax dollars to police instead of earning us tax dollars. Please answer me this, why is it ok to run state gambling lotteries? You can go down to any gas station and gamble your paycheck away with the worst odds known to man. Why do we have dog and horse tracks? You can bet on that remotely. Why is ok for churches to run bingo gambling? Why are all of these things ok and on line gambling wrong? I guess we would be better off letting the criminals run the sport betting tax free and breaking legs. This is just another attempt by conservatives to dictate the way we live.

Casinos are IMMUNE by S1LK · 2006-10-02 01:40 · Score: 1

in light of some recent NJ events, this should be no surprise to anyone. Casinos are simply immune to any legislature. two examples come to mind: NJ passed a law forbidding smoking indoors (just like NY). Now according to this law, no smoking in any public indoor places...resteruants, bars, etc etc. Guess where this law does not apply? guess why? Similarly, a while ago there was a budget mis-hap which put a hold on the operations of many state-run organizations. there was a deadline after which all non-essencial municipalities were to shut down untill budget aprooval. once again, casinos were immune. this time casino lobbyists bought something bigger. no surprise to NJ.

How the hell does stuff like this pass? by jodzilla · 2006-10-02 07:53 · Score: 1

Even though I am a Brit, I am a big fan of the U.S constitution, well, when its upheld anyway ;-) And I really do not understand how gambling can be illegal? If anything, all it is, is a moral law / church law. Its your money isn't it? You do what you like with it. Or should be allowed to anyway.

I recently read an excellent book all about the absurdity of consenual crimes in America so I'd like to recommend it right here. link
It's worth a read just for the vast array of excellent quotes that occupy each page :-)

--

Even if you are a minority of one,
the truth is the truth.

- Mohandas Gandhi

--

Slashdot Mirror

Online Gambling Bill Passed in House

170 comments