Long Odds For Online Gaming Legislation In US

crimeandpunishment writes "The odds of Congress passing legislation to legalize and tax online gaming are probably no better than those of filling an inside straight, but some lawmakers are pushing for it anyway, hoping to lay the foundation for future passage. At a hearing Wednesday, one lawmaker cited numbers from industry analysts that Americans bet nearly $100 billion a year on the Internet, generating $5 billion for offshore operators. He said laws to prevent online gaming are no more effective than Prohibition was to alcohol."

Comments

Re:First Thought

[jimbolauski]

They will probably just attach it to the net neutrality bill.

Correction: gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

NewSpeak is not spoken here. The word you are looking for is gambling, not gaming. Big difference.

Re:Correction: gambling

[musth]

Of course it has, because Nevada has every reason to sell gambling with an image of harmless fun, just like all gambling profiteers do. Just because a bulls**t locution has been around a long time doesn't make it less of a bulls**t locution.

Re:Correction: gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it has, because Nevada has every reason to sell gambling with an image of harmless fun, just like all gambling profiteers do. Just because a bulls**t locution has been around a long time doesn't make it less of a bulls**t locution.

Your bias is thick.

"gambling profiteers"? Anyone who is in the entertainment industry is a "profiteer", i.e. one who does it for the profit.

Laws against Gambling, Drugs, and Prostitution are artifacts of a puritanical government. Our culture should be evolved enough to trust individuals to make their own decisions.

Please present your argument why I, as a free adult in supposedly the greatest country in the land, cannot use my money to entertain myself.

I am not victimizing anyone, I am not affecting anyone else's property, and I am not causing any harm to anyone else. You would deny me my freedom? You would deny me what is essentially a basic American ideal (the concept of property rights)?

Waiting and loving to hear your answer.

Re:Correction: gambling

[Antisyzygy]

In practice drugs and gambling can cause people to destroy themselves. Ask any recovering addict. Though gambling and drug use is not inherently immoral, I dont see the harm in preventing people from killing themselves on heroin, or from gambling their life savings away. Now, where to draw the line? I dont know. Hence the reason is probably better for the government to stay out of it. Thus I contradict myself.

Re:Correction: gambling

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. Where does the line get drawn? Alcohol does all these things, and is the most commonly used drug out there, and yet, despite whatever good the Temperance Movement hoped to produce by prohibiting its sale and intake, it proved an absolute failure, for precisely the same reason that prohibitions on narcotics, gambling and prostitution have been dismal failures.

The only reason alcohol, and to a limited extent gambling, are more permissible than narcotics and prostitution is because of what amounts to an irrational motivation based on prejudices. Alcohol is seen, quite wrongly, as a largely harmless recreational drink (despite the clear short-term physiological and mental effects and the absolutely horrible effects of long-term heavy consumption). Gambling is somewhat lower on society's list of vices, so governments opt to allow it with one degree or another of state control, and attempts to shut down illegal gambling don't amount to enforcement of public morals so much as enforcement of a state monopoly. But yet again, an addicted gambler is an addicted gambler, regardless of whether he's punching the money into a heavily taxed slot machine or he's doing it through some online gambling site in the Grand Caymans or, heck, playing an illegal craps game in the back alley.

As to prostitution and narcotics, well, yes, they're bad. Are they worse, overall, than alcohol and gambling? All of them have the capacity to destroy lives, and certainly alcohol has to be the king of destroying lives. When we get rid of a motivation that amounts to legislating based on ick and fear factors (I mean, what other reason would you be able to buy a case of beer legally but get nailed for buying a couple of joints), it becomes awfully hard to justify these morality laws. You will never get rid of prostitution, no matter how harsh the laws. You will never get rid of narcotics use. The issue then should be not pointless and endless wars against them, but rather finding ways to accept that prostitution and narcotics and, yes, online gambling, will happen and then work to mitigate them. For the state, that usually amounts to taxation and control. Admittedly doing that online is a considerable challenge, maybe even impossible, just as impossible as it would be to stop all street walkers even with legal brothels or all back alley craps games even with legal casinos.

Re:Correction: gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because prostitution is usually associated with drugs and addiction it doenst make it bad per se. I can't see the distinction between Escort services/Prostitution and, lets say, being a miner. Working in a mine will certainly expose you to a harsh environment (chemical and biological infectants, as with prostitution) that will significantly shorten your life span. Should we ban mining? No, we should legalize it and enforce safety laws. Same thing with prostitution.
If mining was illegal, probably it would pay a lot more than it does, and probably all sorts of people desperate for money would work in mines, and so it would get bad reputation.

Prostitution is faced with terrible prejudice and contempt, but if you take away the radical Christian/Muslim morality laws, you would see that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Pimping? They are like the owners of the hypothetical 'outlawed mines'. Take away the illegality and they would surely crumble

No more effective than Prohibition

[H0p313ss]

I'm sure that depends on who you talk to. Lots of people made lots of money because of Prohibition.

Re:No more effective than Prohibition

[H0p313ss]

And what I was inferring is those attempting to create legislation may well be those attempting to profit on the legislation.

Your money is not yours

[exigentsky]

I find it strange that there is a discussion about this issue at all. What people do with their money as long as they aren't hurting others is their business. The government has no right to snoop around and play Big Brother.

Moreover, it gets even more ridiculous due to the sheer hypocrisy of it all. The government is just fine with lotteries or land-based gaming interests (with powerful lobbies) but suddenly when it's online everything changes. They want a piece of the pie but are too stupid to know how and so they try to destroy everything.

The whole thing is completely absurd and incoherent - especially when it comes to poker. Poker is not even gambling, it's a game of skill. It's not chess but the skill element is still undeniable - as players who've won millions of dollars over millions of hands have proven. It could almost be considered a branch of applied mathematics for some forms that are almost solved like limit holdem. Yes, luck plays a big role in any hand but once you get to a reasonable sample size like 100k hands or more it's negligible. I play poker in my spare time and I think it's an interesting challenge that also helps me better understand myself. The variance and multitude of situations will help you become more disciplined, aware when you're not at peak performance and help you deal with failure better. Poker players constantly face failure even when they are ahead but good players don't let it affect them and play the same logical, disciplined game - weighing the odds and understanding their opponents. Online poker is still legal but the thought of the government intruding into one of my hobbies disgusts me.

Re:Your money is not yours

[Pharmboy]

The government is just fine with lotteries

Because THEY are making the profit. Here in NC, alcohol is considered so evil, that only The State is allowed to sell it. In both cases, it is a scam for politicians to insure that the government makes the money instead of private businesses (ie: socialism), and it is easy to get the votes from people who are against gambling and alcohol, because "at least the state is making sure people aren't abusing it", which should send you into a laughing fit.

Here in NC, the justification for the lotto was that it became the "Education Lottery" (ie: think of the children). This way they can give "extra money" to schools. Of course, general funding goes down as it supplanted by the lotto money, so the net result is that the money really goes to the general fund, but unfortunately, most people just don't understand this shell game even if you explain it. "Well, its a good thing we gots the lottery! They cut the budget and the lotto money will make up the difference! Think of dah chilren!"

The worse abuse is that part of the justification was "well, people are going to gamble anyway, we are just providing an outlet". Then wtf do you need to advertise? Why do you need to drum up new business, if your goals are so honorable and only to take care of existing demand? Again, it is a socialistic way to control something popular and take the profit, where it can be divided up by special interests as pay back for the money that lobbyists invested in our elected officials.

Re:First Thought

[Darkness404]

No it shouldn't be taxed. People should only be taxed for what they use, when I buy an online good for physical money what service of the government am I using? I use paypal which is a private company to use my private credit card on a private site to get something online which go through the privately owned internet lines which I pay for out of my own pocket, to another privately owned server where I play my game.

Pay for what you use, the government doesn't even enter into the equation except for a very, very, very, small amount. Such exchanges should never be taxed. The government should be a service provider, nothing more. If you don't use the service for a transaction you don't have to pay. Taxing such things is like adding shipping and handling to them, they don't need it so it shouldn't be paid.

Re:First Thought

[Enigma2175]

They will probably just attach it to the net neutrality bill.

Why would they attach it to something that was even remotely related? When they passed the current ban it was attached to the "Safe Ports Act". It's a common practice to attach unrelated amendments to popular bills (What, you don't want safe ports? You terrorist!), I'm sure they will just attach a new ban on the "Safe Children Act" or the "America, Fuck Yeah! Act".

Re:First Thought

[Antisyzygy]

Yes you should. By that argument my income should not be taxed.

Re:First Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

... Those transactions should be taxed. ...

Why? What is this statement based on?

Just going through life, assuming that everything "should be taxed" is ridiculous! This thought process of feed the machine so it can take care of us, is just plain naive.

Re:First Thought

[wmbetts]

So the government can spend more money, duh.

Re:First Thought

[johnsonav]

People should only be taxed for what they use, when I buy an online good for physical money what service of the government am I using? I use paypal which is a private company to use my private credit card on a private site to get something online which go through the privately owned internet lines which I pay for out of my own pocket, to another privately owned server where I play my game.

That's all well and good, I suppose. But when you pay money for an online good and the seller reneges on the deal to deliver, just don't come crying to the government-run courts or police, okay?

Re:First Thought

[Darkness404]

...Because after all the world is going to grow even larger so we need even more nuclear weapons?