Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mass. Gambling Bill Would Criminalize Online Poker

Posted by kdawson on from the put-up-then-you-won't-have-so-much dept.

timothy writes "Awesome: 'A gambling bill introduced by Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo criminalizes Internet gambling and online poker. The bill calls for two casinos.' Not that they're against gambling, you see... just against being deprived of a monopoly in such a perfect fleecing opportunity."

8 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Victimless crimes.. by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that in 2010 we still try to create even more victimless crimes? Even if I'm against the object of the crime itself, I'm very much opposed to my tax dollars being wasted on people who want to do it.

    I don't care if my neighbor plays poker. I do care if I have to pay money because my neighbor plays poker.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Victimless crimes.. by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that the states really care about you gambling, they just want to have the revenue from it themselves instead of it going to someones Internet business.

    2. Re:Victimless crimes.. by blankinthefill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never understood how we can claim to be such a progressive, forward thinking country while having such a ridiculous number of blue laws (regarding laws that are meant to enforce certain 'moral' standards, not just the Sunday laws) on the books. In all honesty, it's time to get rid of these. Who cares when people sell things, or if people gamble with their own money, or who sleeps with whom (or whoms), or even if people want to parade around naked all day long? Hell, for a country that claims to have a separation of church and state, we sure have a lot of religious laws. (Okay, I kind of care if people want to parade around naked all day long, depending on the person, but that doesn't mean that we should have legislation in place banning something that doesn't have any victims other than our sense of taste!)

    3. Re:Victimless crimes.. by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I hope they meet more resistance than just the minority of people who play.

      I'm willing to bet they won't. People can't be bothered to resist things like two wars that are costing them hundreds of billions each year, they sure as hell won't get off their asses for the poker player down the block.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
  2. Of Course MA Wants Monopoly by cmholm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It shouldn't be a shock to anyone that MA, or any state, would want to limit on-line gaming. The only reason any US state has permitted gaming at all is to generate revenue. Being as the states don't have a good mechanism for that on-line, they don't permit it.

    One can moan about libertarian ideals and Puritan ethics all one wants. But, all of the players are fully aware of the situation, and have no inhibition against saying so in public, so pointing it out isn't going to make it go away.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  3. Re:...in USA by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that much is legislated federally

    Say what? Congress may not pass all that many bills but the ones they do are multiple warheads filled with scatter bombs.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
  4. Re:About time!!! This needs to pass immediately by hodet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't be stupid. Maybe you posted as AC because you know you are full of it. The big sites make money hand over fist because they offer a straight game. They stand to lose way more if they don't. The small shady sites maybe, but Pokerstars and FullTilt are fine. These are legitimate enterprises that run legally in many countries.

  5. Re:Gambling leaves a trail of victims by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gambling isn't even remotely victimless- why do you think there are recovery groups for gambling addiction?

    Non sequitur. The existence of a recovery group for addiction to X does not indicate that doing X results in a victim. For instance, there's groups for shopping addiction, yet shopping is victimless.

    You have to pay when your neighbor robs the local convenience store to pay the rent/mortgage/grocer (or their gambling debts, or just to gamble more), loses the house/apartment anyway, and their spouse and child are now homeless and on welfare.

    Same as I have to pay if he robs the local convenience store because he bought too much house for his income, or spent all his money on a business that failed, or any number of things. It's already illegal to rob the local convenience store; making the reasons someone might rob a local convenience store illegal is not compatible with a free dociety.

    Take a look at the police spending in any community pre-and-post casino. It always skyrockets after the casinos move in, because casinos attract the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal.

    Casinos attract a lot of people full stop. But this is about _internet_ gambling; the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal can stay right where they are.