Slashdot Mirror
Online Gambling Bill Passed in House
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. Since this bill isn't expected to affect the usual, legal ways of gambling domestically, one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states, rather than overseas.
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.
Is it the gambling casinos in the states. How much money is beig channeled through the lobby system in Washington.
davecb5620@gmail.com
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?
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.
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.
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!
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
...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.
>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)
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.
...exactly how well did prohibition work last time?
They enact laws that are really about preserving their tax base.
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.
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.
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.