Slashdot Mirror
Mass. Gambling Bill Would Criminalize Online Poker
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."
What's more, even the victims of gambling (friends and family who are abused to fund the gambling and the addicts themselves) are not helped by this bill. Why? Because gambling addiction is generally a psychological addiction or a bad coping mechanism, all of which will express themselves in other areas if the addict can't gamble.
All that this is the establishment of a monopoly to the benefit of a few existing operators, and a guaranteed income stream for the government establishing the monopoly. The funding promises are mere figleaves to make the law more palatable to everyone.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This is a fairly common ban... even in Las Vegas you have to submit yourself to the whims of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and you can't get an Internet casino approved by them. Most states have lotto laws that makes the state-run game the only legal gambling in their jurisdiction.
It's already proven that a lot of MA residents are traveling to the two CT casinos. I'd rather stay in MA to play poker if only there was a legal game in town.
and how do you diferenciate between diferent games of skill? What is the diference between say a poker game with a $20 per player entry fee and say a Warhammer (minature wargames) competition with the same entry fee with the entry fee being used in the same way to provide prizes.
You, as a participant in online gambling, have ZERO ability to determine if you are being cheated.
I would go so far as to say it is almost a 100% certainty that you are being cheated, systematically, in a way you can never detect.
And I don't mean by the ordinary odds against you. I mean by the fact that the server you are interacting with has full information and control of every aspect of the game, and can thus modify the play of the game and the odds against you at will.
It is not necessary for them to kill you in every hand. Only to ensure that their shills win at a slightly elevated rate.
You are a complete retard if you let them take you for that ride.
I have no problem at all with banning online gambling worldwide.
Assuming that the online poker game is *NOT* based in MA, then under the Commerce Clause (abused though it may be) and the 10th Amendment (ignored though it may be), the power to regulate/ban is reserved to the Feds, and the States may not ban it.
Of course, if the game *IS* based in MA, then no problem.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
That wouldn't be a new problem, nor is it a difficult one. State laws in the United States regulate gambling by stuff like the number of tables in play and the number of machines in play, as well as whether the company makes a business out of operating a gambling establishment. Even non-casinos are (and should be) subject to regulation like the rule saying that no purchase can be necessary to enter a contest or else it's legally a lottery.
Also, why would you say that a Warhammer tournament with entrance fees and a big prize should be less regulated than a poker tournament?
That makes no sense. They can regulate and tax online, intrastate gambling as easily they do a brick-and-mortar casino. But ensuring the games aren't skimmed, and preventing gambling addiction, is far more expensive and difficult online.
This law doesn't change interstate or international law one bit. It is redundant with them. It is, however, banning intrastate internet gaming, while at the same time legalizing gaming in the state.
If in the future someone finds a way to prevent compulsive gambling, or to ensure 100% compliance of internet systems to tracking rules, then maybe the law can be changed. I don't blame the state for not wanting to go down that road right now, though.
Difficulty in policing something isn't a reason to allow a crime to be legal.
The jury has been out on that for a few hundred years now. Consider 1.) An unenforceable (de jure) law ultimately rewards the dishonest while punishing only the honest who confess their crime (Hobbes). And 2.) From a political standpoint, unenforceable legislation creates the appearance of real moral authority without risk of alienating those constituents who would be punished if were enforceable. Public disregard for enforceability therefore promotes dishonesty of both the citizen and the official -- exactly the sort of business an ethical society should avoid.
so i do not know if online gambling is victimless. but let us assume there is harm. In the state of washington, the state was doing advertising campaigns around the slogan "playing is good"
more generally, if you think the phrase "casino economy" has significant meaning, I expect you do not want the state supporting actual casinos.
Washington lottery structure is for a 50% payout, assuming the tickets were claimed. It is I think tricky to say playing the lottery makes sense for the individual player. and if you use a competent definition of wealth, it does not generate wealth
I recognize that the premises of your argument are factually accurate, but why does all that have to lead to a ban? People can engage in lots of compulsive/addictive behaviors that result in harm to themselves and, indirectly, their families and society. Overeating, alcoholism, playing MMORPGs all day. And many such behaviors are encouraged by companies that profit from them. And yet those things aren't illegal. Maybe it would improve a few people's lives to have the government play mommy and teach them what is and isn't good for them, but I prefer to live in a society where adults have the dignity of being free to make their own mistakes.
How much of other people's money should you get to blow before they get to have a say in how you live your life? How much of their rights do other people have to give up so you can avoid having to take any responsibility for your choices?
Social Security isn't welfare. The amount you receive is based upon how much you contribute. If you didn't contribute, then you don't receive anything.
Given that Washington State has similar issues, and laws, and casinos... and given that this is largely about the medium (internet), I think it's relevant enough to warrant discussion. Besides, if we don't put it out there and let people discuss, learn and spread, how are we supposed to do anything about it before it becomes widespread and "accepted"?
Are you implying that all tournaments in all forms be regulated by a (currently non-existent) body? Poker is one thing. Warhammer is quite another. Meanwhile, how do you regulate a masquerade contest? What about Halloween costume contests? How about the COD4 ladder I was in? Got rules for that? What if they differ from the ones we agreed to on entering our clan? How about the Corps in EVE online that take isk cuts from their players? Isk has a cash equivalence, which fluctuates like real currency. Should that be included and regulated? How about the in game site that lets you pay isk to see nude pictures? Or the one that lets you pay isk to play "slots" and you might get a fat isk pay out. Got regulations and enforcement for a game based in Iceland, hosted in London, and which the sub game gambling system is made and hosted by a random_player in random_country. Should this be "regulated"? by who?
This is one of the few times I think that the free market will do just fine. People will put their gambling dollars where they get the best experiance, and that should be up to them to choose. If it's an outright fraud, they'll get busted and sued. If it's only a slight fraud, then that's fine since it's supposed to be like that, and everyone knows it. Are we going to set state endorsed odds? Who's to say what "fair" odds are?