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."
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.
.. if you do it in the State of Massachusetts as long as your money doesn't leave the State of Massachusetts. Hmmm ... what if the online casino is located in Massachusetts?
Actually this article only concerns the state of Massachusetts in the USA. So, I'm really not sure why this is on /..
How in the world do you enforce this? RIAA style dragnets?
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
And how many rapists will have to go free to fit in people who just play on line poker / sports bets?
any ways this will just give Argentina even more free IP.
It's not that strange, it's illegal here in Connecticut also. http://www.ct.gov/dosr/cwp/view.asp?Q=291440&A=2031 It competes with the state lottery, and Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos, diverting money out of the state. I sure that Massachusetts faces a similar situation--I've never been to the Sulfolk Downs but I imagine they have slots?
Yes. That's why both the subject and the summary mention Massachusetts. It's a state. You may have heard of it. It is part of the United States of America.
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.
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.
I think that the Red Socks play baseball there...
-- Sig under construction...
Press: "Mr. Speaker DeLeo! How come only two casinos?"
DeLeo: "I only got two friends."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
A spinoff of the World Poker Tour TV show is called ClubWPT where people pay about $20/mo. to subscribe to a poker club that offers frequent games with small prizes. This is legal in most states because the subscription fee is for a Las Vegas-based e-mail newsletter, and the games are considered promotions that don't have an individual cash buy-in. Would this go away in MA under the new law?
It's a commonwealth and not a state...
Casinos are specifically and carefully designed to exploit people's natural instincts (for example, no windows so you have no sense of time) and mental illnesses; the layout of the floor is done purposefully, as are the style of the games. There's a wealth of information out there for anyone with access to Google Scholar, for example, like this:
I don't care if my neighbor plays poker. I do care if I have to pay money because my neighbor plays poker.
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. Or the person becomes homeless, with no health insurance, and ends up in the hospital. Or goes mentally insane and stabs you on the street corner for the $10 in your wallet.
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.
Please help metamoderate.
"While the plaintiff's story is compelling and her evidence against her attacker incontrovertible, it has come to the attention of this court that web poker is now illegal. I find the defendant not guilty and motions to appeal are hereby dismissed. This hearing is adjourned, get out of my court, you whiny victim. NOW LET'S TRY THESE GAMBLERS."
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
No, but the Red Sox do, scumbags that they are.
GO ANGELS!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I think that the Red Socks play baseball there...
Then obviously this bill sucks!
Go Yankees!
Slashdot is mostly centered around the United States. And in case you're unaware, the United States is a bunch of united states with their own separate laws. Not that much is legislated federally; news about Massachusetts law (a particularly influential state, in fact) is as notable as any other legal news.
That only works as a mockery of the sort of bizarre illogic that leads to the argument that rapists would be displaced to jail gamblers.
Mod parent up. In Washington it is a *felony* to gamble online. Is it because gambling online is a much more serious crime than the misdemeanor of, say, punching a stranger in the face? No, it's because lawmakers want to keep receiving lobby money from the Indian casinos and small poker houses that are the established, profitable businesses already in the state.
The only thing they care about is lining their pockets with the money they steal and extort from us.
Citation?
.... why?
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.
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.
Not that much is legislated federally
From your lips to Washington's ears...
LOL! Unobtainium!
Oh wait, wrong article....
Not that much is legislated federally
So why did we elect Obama?
$ make available
This is actually far more scary than the title would lead you to believe.
Scaring online poker players and internet gambling aficionados in Massachusetts is text found on page 123 of the 172-page bill. It reads, “Any person who knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device, including telephone, cellular phone, internet, [or] local area network or knowingly installs or maintains said device or equipment for the transmission or receipt of wagering information shall be punished.” The penalty is a hefty one, up to two years behind bars and a fine of up to $25,000.
Translation: if you are in Mass, and you send an email to a buddy along the lines of "Five bucks says Lumburgh is gonna make me come in on Saturday" can get you put in jail and fined.
Warning, knife is sharp. Please keep out of children.
Full Tilt, Poker Stars, etc.. have all been caught red-handed cheating. They rig both the tournaments and the cash games.
Signed,
Someone who sucks at poker, lost their money on these sites, and is looking for something to blame.
Robert Deleo is a house speaker for Massachusetts? What happened to Stone Temple Pilots?
Serious online poker players keep logs of their hands. Are you saying that we can't run simple statistical analysis with millions of data points? In online poker, it is not in the interest of the house to cheat the players. They take their cut in each normal hand. Why would they jeopardize their popularity trying to cheat players? They make more guaranteeing fair play.
Well to be fair, I think that's already illegal. Gambling is tightly regulated, and without a license even petty betting such as "I bet you ten bucks x" and office Final Four pools are just as illegal as throwing dice on the street.
Poker is a great form of gambling because like the casino, a player can put the odds in their favor.
I am still playing on money that was in there since the first law came out that said,"US citizens can't deposit money to online gambling sites." Yet, the FBI have taken everyone's withdraws from Pokerstars one month last year. What if people were just withdrawing their money they had in their accounts before the bill was past? Isn't the government trying to do ex post facto?
No one ever stands up for gambler's rights because they're like,"Whatever, they're just gamblers", just like how no one stands up against "sin tax" on alcohol and cigs. Depending on how far it is down the shade of gray depends on how much the government will try and abuse their power. It isn't like they even care that they're abusing their power. They're more worried someone will call them out on it. When they try and censor the web, the first things they try to censor are things some people may find immoral.
God spoke to me.
Bottom line, IMHO? NEVER legislate anything based on "morality". If we adhered to that simple policy, we wouldn't have the huge fight over whether or not gays can get married in various states, and we wouldn't have all the nonsense about prostitution (illegal to pay for something it's illegal to get for free, even from the SAME people). We wouldn't blow MASSIVE amounts of tax dollars on the "war on drugs" that's impossible to win either.
And as for laws preventing people from "parading around naked all day long"? I agree. It doesn't make much sense to enforce "indecent exposure" laws, as we have them currently. (In fact, some of the people charged with such a thing for simple public urination during past Mardi Gras celebrations in my city led to them getting put on the sex offender registry! Nice, huh?)
I'd rather say that private establishments are free to enforce their own rules and restrictions on who is welcome on their property. So if your local grocery store still wants to enforce a "no shirt, no shoes - no service!" rule, great. Failure to comply means law enforcement can have you arrested, but not just for "indecent exposure" .... for trespassing.
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"?
Instead of trying to ban or restrict online gambling, why not simply license these sites on the condition that they pay the same gambling taxes as would be paid by a physical casino.
So if someone from Massachusetts plays on a site, the site has to pay gambling taxes to Massachusetts.
"I'd rather say that private establishments are free to enforce their own rules and restrictions on who is welcome on their property. So if your local grocery store still wants to enforce a "no shirt, no shoes - no service!" rule, great. Failure to comply means law enforcement can have you arrested, but not just for "indecent exposure" .... for trespassing."
No Niggers, No Kykes, no Catholics?
Because you don't understand how the Constitution works at all? I mean, the President does EVEN LESS legislating than Congress after all, so if you voted for Obama to get legislation...well, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Who needs proof here on /.? Poster had their AA beaten - definitive proof that teh online pokahz iz rigged!!1! A few of the smaller sites have been busted for dodgy things, I have never seen any proof against Full Tilt or PS (being a fairly serious player both online and live I keep a very close eye on these things). Stars especially has a reputation for solid service and refunding $ to players if anything shady was discovered in any of the games that player played in.
If by any chance the poster does have proof there are many people who would be very interested in seeing it. Trouble is - proof has to be a bit more definitive than "I don't trust their RNG" or "they cheat cause I am the worlds best poker player but can't win online". In re the random number generator - proof or STFU. In re being a good player but can't beat online, the reason for that is because online players tend to be, at least at the small to mid stakes, orders of magnitude better than live players.
In this case, off topic stands for "outside our country".
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Gambling addictions are one of the most insidious and dangerous "legal" addictions, not only can it destroy lives and families it does so invisibly with no physical warning signs unlike alcoholism or other drug abuse.
It's not victimless.
That being said it is a vice we tolerate, much like drinking and smoking (if you do not gamble, drink or smoke, your vice is being an arsehole who thinks they are too good for other vices) and much like drinking and smoking problems it has real victims when abused. However it should not be made illegal as it is a vice that can be enjoyed responsibly much like alcohol but cannot be regulated like sales of alcohol and tobacco which involve a physical product changing hands (I.E. when I buy alcohol from overseas, it's stopped by AU customs when the product enters the country, not by the AFP when I make the transaction).
This bill is being done for the tax revenue, I assume MA has legalised and regulated casinos, thus driving up gambling revenues, in which case it will not work. If this bill does pass, it will just do to gambling what prohibition did for alcohol, drive it underground. The people who are addicted to online poker will not stop, instead they will go to seedy underground poker dens which are rigged and likely run by organised criminals.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
As an adult, one is expected to figure this out on our own and stop. Yep, hows that working out for us. Even if one does it not for the winnings but for the game (I know retiree's who play pokies just as something to do, they know its rigged and they will never break even) and stop when they are out of money who are we to be so bloody self righteous and tell them what to do with their spare cash.
I know I've been harping on about how gambling is not a victimless crime (it's not victimless nor a crime) but the truth is the vast majority of gamblers know when to stop or have no dependents. In the other cases the family courts (social services) already have systems in place to remove dependents from harm and/or get the addict some help.
It's a vice we accept because it does little real harm and even then only in the most extreme of cases. But enough of this, more then a few people have pointed out this is a tax grab, not an attempt to clean up the gambling industry. Even if it did pass it would just drive compulsive gamblers to other means (proxy servers, offshore bank accounts, poker dens run by American (read: Italian, Asian or Russian) organised criminals that are just as rigged).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
as it is a restriction (or extreme discrimination against imports) of trade which is not allowed under the current version of the WTO to which the US is a signatory. Hence the 'harmed' nations with affect internet poker sites will be entitled to discriminate against US trade.
The US can always choose to ignore the ruling since it is a powerful nation. But that will only encourage smaller nations to set up internet poker sites and obtain compensatory damages - preferably calculated by the RIAA lawyers. Then the fun begins where the compensatory damages can be in the form of ignoring US intellectual property 'rights' in the host country.
Not that much is legislated federally
So why did we elect Obama?
I'm not even American, and I know that the President is an executive position, not a legislative one.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Plenty of clubs magically become less full if attractive ladies want to get in, it would be far more reasonable if they were allowed to tell you the reason you're not getting in.
Ignoring the current anti-discrimination laws, "No Catholics" would be a fairly silly rule, since the only way to tell if a person is Catholic is to either ask them, recognise some identifying item of clothing (which round here would pretty much only be a World Youth Day shirt, since all the other Catholic organisations with shirts or whatnot are too small for a non-Catholic to be likely to know, and a lot of non-Catholics attend Catholic schools because most private schools are Catholic), or by knowing them personally. "No Kykes" would be even more pointless because there are almost no obvious Jews (ultra-orthodox, or visibly ethnic Jews) round here.
"No Blacks" (or at least "No Abos") would be a sensible business decision in some places, since there is a perception that they are more likely to be disorderly or objectionable than white or asian people, so a bar or nightclub might be more profitable if they refuse entry to all Aboriginal people. I have heard of that being done on the sly in Alice and the more racist parts of Queensland. Of course, if such behaviour was legal, then in publicly-traded companies it would still have to be in the best interests of the shareholders.
Of course, all that ignores the fact that "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is currently legal, whereas the examples you gave are currently not.
This is just an expansion of the ban on gambling on the internet from a while ago.
The people who host the site are either not in the state or the country so the revenue generated leaves the taxable area so government effectively loose money on it.
TBH I think they should offer incentives for local businesses to start up on-line poker rather than ban the whole thing.
There's a little thing called the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) provides:
"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
The Supreme Court has ruled this to prevent the states from interfering with interstate and international commerce, because that's supposed to be the exclusive domain of Congress.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
One of my family members is a kleptomaniac - all shops should be closed immediately to remove temptation;
Another one is an alcoholic - let's bring back prohibition;
His sister is bulimic - let's ban food.
Seriously, get a grip. The 'menace' isn't 'online', it's inside your family member. The sooner you face up to that fact, the more help you are going to be to them.
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
Two points, one, as I posted in another post, all laws are based on morality.
Two, the "no shirt, no shoes - no service" is a health regulation, not one about being dressed "decently". Whether that health regulation is a good one or not is another question. It is, however, still an enforcement of a moral code ("don't endanger the health of others unneccessarily").
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And now, you know why I'm a Libertarian.
Exactly what benefit to society is it to lockup or fine people who participate in an office pool?
A friend of mine is a police officer, and he was telling me about his office pool for the big game in February, I just said "Oh the Irony".
Stupid laws that aren't enforceable should be repealed.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I used to have a friend who went bankrupt and lost everything. Did this happen because of gambling? No. He would spend all his money on the latest car modifications for his corvette that he couldn't afford. Every month he was buying stuff or making mods or getting tests done on his corvette. He got way behind on his credit card bills and apartment rent but kept buying crap.
Another example is I used to have a friend who kept buying the newest and greatest home theater stuff. It never ended and our friendship ended at a time when he was getting hounded by debt collectors over who knows what.
I know lots of people who gamble, including relatives, and none of them have ever gone broke. Why? Because it's ENTERTAINMENT. If I want to spend $200 a month on poker, why shouldn't that be just as free to do as spending $200 a month on car upgrades? On audio upgrades? On a single football game?
People go broke doing anything you can imagine, it's not fair to only hone in gambling
"Well to be fair, I think that's already illegal."
In Massachusetts the following things are also illegal: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts
It is illegal to give beer to hospital patients.
Candy may not contain more than 1% of alcohol.
Shooting ranges may not set up targets that resemble human beings.
At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.
Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.
An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.
Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.
All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.
Hunting on Sundays is prohibited.
It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.
A woman can not be on top in sexual activities.
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.
Tattooing and body piercing is illegal. (Repealed in 2000)
Children may smoke, but they may not purchase cigarettes.
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.
Quakers and witches are banned.
Bullets may not be used as currency.
Massachusetts liquor stores can only open on Sundays if they are in Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Middlesex or Worcester counties and are within 10 miles of the Vermont or New Hampshire borders.
Alcoholic drink specials are illegal.
Public boxing matches are outlawed.
All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.
I would love to see someone actually do this. But do they mean into the church building? Or would leaving it in your car be sufficient to be in compliance with the law?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Oh please. Almost all of the laws you listed are at best just taken out of a particular application of a more general law.