Legal Online Gambling May Return to US 231
According to a story on News.com, legal online gambling may return to the US. The ban, put into place last year, is now in jeopardy thanks to the efforts of folks like Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services committee. Frank is of the opinion that adults should police themselves for excessive gambling, and the government should stay out of their way. "Friday's hearing included witnesses from companies that process online payments. In general, they echoed the arguments once used in favor of ending alcohol prohibition and that are now being invoked to decriminalize marijuana: It's better to legalize, tax and carefully regulate an industry than let it flourish with far less oversight in the black market. Some countries already do just that. In the United Kingdom, for instance, Internet gambling is legal and strictly regulated. Some of the larger online casino operators are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange. "
hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that he isn't likely to be "taking one for the team" because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
But, there's a larger issue here: The US has repeatedly lost to Antigua [iht.com] in the WTO, who has ruled that the US law against online gambling (while exempting other gambling within the US) is illegal under the WTO treaty.
The US has responded by saying "we will renegotiate the treaty". Needless to say, this hasn't gone over well with other members of the WTO.
Antigua has threatened to retaliate, but their options are limited. One proposal is for Antigua to sell US-copywrited material (i.e. music) online, without paying the royalties.
can you say... (Score:4, Funny)
Antigua could be a major hosting site for torrents...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) restore bankruptcy laws to something sane. there's no grounds for the government to be stepping in and restructuring the law such that it's much less consumer friendly and applying it retroactively to pre-existing debt. it's the fault of the credit card issuers for not having enough of a clue not to extend so much credit to people likely to default.
2) fucking get rid of seat belt laws. if we're supposed to be smart enough to manage our mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Additionally, if we were going to go with total freedom, as those who want unrestricted online gambling appear to desire, then it is up to the passengers to not ride with a non-seatbelt wearing person. What's more, in a traffic accident no one ever gets charged with manslaughter unless it was intentional or they were DUI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet somehow, he still manages to be more of a man than you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe has plans to build a casino [theday.com] in his district (Masschusetts's 4th [wikipedia.org]).
The article mentions three towns, two of which just so happen to be in Frank's district.
I wonder what odds the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe will give for their casino plans and Frank's push for legalizing online casinos being completely unrelated?
Whilst I'm not American, it seems to me that if he's doing this to benefit his constituency, then he's just doing his job properly. After all we elect our representatives to do just that, represent us.
Reversal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reversal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Democrats have been getting steadily more libertarian...
When I stop finding Democrats picking my wallet clean, I'll believe that. I live in California where the Democrat controlled state government seem hell bent on controlling my every waking moment and action. I'm sure legislature involving dreams will follow.
Unless you're in the country illegally. Then they want to hand you the keys to the city for some reason while they kick legal citizens repeatedly in the teeth. Oh, but it's racist to even th
I'm a Democrat. Sorry. We're not Libertarians (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats are not libertarian in the sense that Libertarians use the word. Democrats don't subscribe to the "negative" theories of liberty in which liberty is precisely an absence of government constraint. We have a more utilitarian view of liberty in which opportunity plays an equal role. This means we support interfering with the freedom of the powerful when it constrains the opportunity of the less powerful. Most of us recognize that opportunities will never be equal in society, and in fact for most of us equality of outcome is not a goal; but where the physical well being of the median person can be improved; where that person has the ability to better himself through education or culture; where greater scope of action can be offered through greater opportunity -- there we have no problem taxing people or acting to balance the liberties of the powerful against the liberties of the average person.
For example, our philosophy doesn't have a problem limiting the number of broadcast outlets an individual can own in a market. If somebody has a soapbox, we are happy to see him use it. But also see no problem in denying him the right to buy all the soapboxes in town if that would pose a problem for the average person in getting his voice heard. It's purely a matter of utility for us.
This is a divide in philosophy between us and Libertarians that cannot be bridged.
At first glance, it's hard to see any consistent philosophy in the modern Republican leadership. It alternately talks a libertarian game, then paternalistic, then authoritarian. They also are anti-elitist when it comes to every virtue that does not touch on power or wealth: they are particularly hostile intellectual or education distinction. This alone makes them a pratical enemy of the principled Libertarians.
The most consistent explanation of Republican policy seems to be that they, like the Democrats, subscribe to a utilitarian combination of negative and positive liberties. The difference is that the liberties they favor are for the deserving. The deserving are by definition those that can obtain, hold and wield power, or who are useful to those wielding power. Aside from the lack of economic or political egalitarianism, the Republican political philosophy operates much like the Democratic political philosophy. This explains why it is so easy for a Democrat like Lieberman to become a crypto-Republican. The imperative of holding on to power is a corrupting influence.
So, overall, I'd say principled libertarians have little reason to trust Democrats, but very good reason to distrust Republicans. Democratic ideology is incompatible with libertarianism, but it is restrained (in principle) by political egalitarianism. There is one positive reason for libertarians to support the Democrats in the short term: the increasing fusion of private economic and state power. This is a fundamental principle of fascism, and if allowed to continue on this route much longer our country will become a de facto fascist state. Democrats are not immune to this, as I pointed out. Nobody is. But at least we Democrats in principle oppose this fusion. The blogosphere, for all its faults, may give the Democratic party activists some ability to pull our wavering politicans from the brink.
In my opinion libertarians will have little opportunity to sway the course of events from within their own party, not until they can capture at least one Senate seat. If they could capture one in 2008, and if the Senate remains about as divided as it is, the Libertarians would become very powerful i
About that, Mr. Frank... (Score:3, Insightful)
""In the end, adults ought to be able to decide for themselves how they spend the money they earn themselves," said Rep. Barney Frank"
Yeah, about that. You see Mr. Frank, you arrange the taking of a very large percentage of the money I work hard to earn every year, and you decide how it should be spent for me. So if you could go ahead and look into that while you're at it, that'd be great, mmmkay?
So it takes online gambling to get Barney to come around? Looks like someone must've spent a lot of time playing online poker.
He's lying! You can tell, his lips are moving. (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you.
Re:He's lying! You can tell, his lips are moving. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:About that, Mr. Frank... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There of course was plenty of land to sell (as we moved those pesky Injun's out of the way). Unfortunately, invasion and genocide are frowned upon these days, well if it takes longer than 3 years.
Manifest Destiny fueled the war spirit - once that ran out we went towards imperialistic wars in the
wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be?
Re: (Score:2)
When did Frank protest at anyone's funeral, veteran or otherwise?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I'm a big 1st amendment supporter, but I'm also of the belief that one persons freedoms should stop when they directly infringe on the right of someone else. and holding a loud hateful protest at a funeral where people are trying to grieve for their loved one definitely falls under that category.
Well, this is terrible! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I happen to like Barney Frank a lot -- he's often the no-BS guy in a flock of honking geese in suits worth more than my car. And sometimes he's an arrogant jerk. But I rarely feel like I'm getting the D.C. sugar-coating treatment from him. So perhaps I'm biased. But still, I just don't see that this is a bad thing.
In a free society, people are responsible for themselves (and their children). If they can build a boat here in Illinois (we can't have land-based casinos, but we can have permanently docked unseaworthy boats -- go figure) where people can freely walk in and piss away their money, why should this be outlawed on the Web? It's a silly, unenforceable, and reactionary law that deserves to be repealed. The Reverend Lovejoys of the world had their year or two of cleanliness on this one, and it's time to go back to rational laws about things that the government should be focused on.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed. No charge.
Re:With all due respect ... its more to do with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its more to do with this ban being an illegal act under the WTO rules, with two judgements against the US and the threat of sanctions and fines. As has been reported before, US companies could lose international IP protection via Antigua if something isn't done.
The US HAS to move, otherwise Microsoft faces legal copies of software and Hollywood faces legal movie copies. It was always a stupid law, an illegal law - now there is a scramble to save face.
Re: (Score:2)
Given your premises, perhaps one might actually target gambling addicts, rather than driving the legitimate hobby of at least thousands onto the black market? Just a thought.
I mean, I know one has to break a few eggs to make an omelette, but breaking a few cases is just ridiculous.
Re:With all due respect ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not from themselves. You should look into who is REALLY being protected with prohibition laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Another guy: "Not from themselves."
Excellent point.
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling is not addictive, just like guns do not kill people. There are addictive personalities however. I believe there are already laws that protect people with addictive personalities from being exploited by casino's. These laws can also be used with online casino's (if they are not already). Granted no
Re: (Score:2)
I reject this premise. Saying that the government has a blanket responsibility to "protect" the citizenry from everything is a terrible idea. It's not a "slippery slope" so much as it's just pointing the nose of a plane at the ground and wondering what'll happen. Since you can't ever be 'protected' against everything and still have any semblance of free will, the end result is that government will always begin to intrude, further and fu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case, then why do state governments typically run gambling operations that have worse expected paybacks (~ 50 cents on the dollar) than virtually any private operation? You'd think that to minimize harm, the government would strive to return as much money as possible to the people making the bets.
On top of that, they hype prizes which have odds of winning that are often less than the odds
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, again, I'm not a gambler, so I don't know the exact nature of that particularly
Taking things out of the black market (Score:4, Insightful)
The side effect would be the companies selling the drugs, just like the cigarette companies today, but it is the lesser of two evils when compared to the mafia or a street gang.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I love hearing about how drug laws are intended to protect people from themselves, yet we allow people to drive automobiles, mountain climb, play football, and engage in a plethora of other "safe" activities. Personally, I'd rather light up a doobie in the sanctity of my home than spend a bunch of money trekking to tourist
Re:Taking things out of the black market (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all well and good except for one thing: You cannot show that a "huge chunk" of the population would become addicted to drugs.
And it doesn't matter if the dealer is selling their crack for $5 a pop, or $2.50 from the gov't, the addicts need to find the money to buy this crap somewhere.
Right. Everywhere I've lived there are roaming gangs of alcoholics and cigarette junkies breaking into apartments and stores, stealing items, and selling them in the pawn shops to support their habit. Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Taking things out of the black market (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior to Prohibition, there were a handful of saloons in New York city, and they were male only. Drinking was a social event, and virtually nobody drank alone. After prohibition was passed, there sprang up thousands of speakeasy saloons across New York, and they popularized drinking among women as well. The desire to leave no evidence lead to more solo drinking at home.
After prohibition ended, rates of drinking did NOT skyrocket, but rather began a long, slow slide. Even better, alcoholism became recognized as an actual illness that deserved treatment. In the prohibition era, suggesting such a thing marked you as a prohibitionist; it was impossible to talk about the subject rationally for as long as the insanity of the prohibitionists was in force.
And it doesn't matter if the dealer is selling their crack for $5 a pop, or $2.50 from the gov't
Try "free." The drug market regularly sees 100% markups, since the majority of drugs have a negligable cost of production. Sure you could charge $1.00 or $0.50 or something for clinical fees, but it makes no difference. Provided at cost, a heroin addict can afford his necessary levels of heroin on a McDonald's salary. (What's more, heroin has very little ill effects when clean and administered properly. People have lived for decades and been productive and valuable members of society while addicted to heroin in the past, but our current law turns them into parasites instead.)
You get rid of the relative few BIG criminals and make tons of small criminals.
Actually trial runs of this sort of thing in Britian showed a twelve-fold reduction in crime rates. So no.
It also showed a drop in current numbers of addicts, a reduction of new addicts, lower rates of prostitution and consequently lower transmission rates of stds and aids.
But I'm sure your idea would work really well.
You *NEVER* get rid of the blackmarket by legalizing something.
Tell that to all the prohibition-era gangsters who went legit after the law was repealed. The mafia dropped in size to less than half its previous numbers. The only thing that saved them was the illegalization of narcotics.
he cure for criminal behavior is making certain folks with these traits can never reproduce again (thats as far as I'll advocate, you can take what ever opinion you wish beyond that).
You really have NO FUCKING CLUE how many people you're talking about, do you? Here's a hint: We haven't got enough police to even hold that many people, much less line them up and push them into incinerators.
Asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to all the prohibition-era gangsters who went legit after the law was repealed. The mafia dropped in size to less than half its previous numbers. The only thing that saved them was the illegalization of narcotics.
Wish I had mod points, you pretty much tore that moron a new one. Hmm, I'm trying to remember the last time I bought blackmarket beer.
I'm not really in favor of legalizing most drugs, but you have a good point that l
Re:Taking things out of the black market (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalization will just get rid of the criminals (thugs, murderers, etc), and stop criminalizing the victims (those prone to addiction, etc).
Why we would want to spend thousands of dollars a year per person (for sometimes many, many years) putting people in jail because they have a psychological problem defies any sense of logic (to me).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that with heroin at your local CVS, you're going to have a hard time convincing people that drug use i
Re: (Score:2)
if you were able to buy crack, heroin, and marijuana in your local CVS, the world would be a much better place
Really? Alcohol & tobacco are legal, and still cause a lot of harm. Crack & heroin are far, far more harmful than booze & cigarettes.
Legalization would be a disaster.
That's still no reason to keep certain drugs criminalized. It's social segregation, or as I like to call it, apartheid. Yes, aparthied. I have to run and hide from the cops, buy my drugs illegally, use my drugs in secrecy, while other people can buy their drugs at the store, use them in public. Hell, there is dedicated drug dealers / drug taking houses called pubs everywhere. It's apartheid.
Though just selling it all at a store isn't the solution either. There needs to be education. Dealers should have to
Re: (Score:2)
- Prices are artificially inflated, and cause those who are addicted to commit crime to support their addiction
- Diseases like AIDS and hepatitis are spread to the general popula
Re: (Score:2)
Opiates are highly addictive in any form and also have the potential to fuck up your immune system. I mean you get "harmful effects such as lung edema, respiratory difficulties, coma, or cardiac or respiratory collapse". Sign me up.
Re: (Score:2)
Now to begin:
First off... you are wrong when you state morphine and codeine are not addictive; refer to my original post.
Second, you are wrong when you state morphine and codeine are totally safe; refer to my original post.
What I did say is that heroine is not more harmful than alcohol. This is true. There are many physical, psychological, and social problems associated with the legal use of alcohol, that are just plain abs
Re: (Score:2)
From the same party... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The government is all for gambling... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I cannot dance, I want no part of your revolution.
I would've loved Barney Frank... (Score:3, Interesting)
If his opinion on adults' ability to police themselves extended into non-entertainment areas of life...
If he grew the understanding, that we are likewise capable of saving for retirement, finding job, choosing health-care options, etcetera, I would even have forgiven his copious amounts of non-help in the case of my grandmother's immigration to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed. No charge. Sorry for the PDF.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you — along with Mr. Frank — telling me, that "millions" of natively born and raised Americans have somebody but themselves (and, maybe, their own parents) to blame for not being able to afford anything they darn please by adulthood?
Millions of (would be) immigrants dream of coming to this country — legally and otherwise. And when they do, most of them manage to not only prosper, but to help out their extended families back
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them, yes. Casting everyone's economic situation as the result of their own free will is just moralistic fluffing for the successful. Really, just because someone's parents, neighbors, or history is/are fucked up is no reason to deny that person access to medica
Re: (Score:2)
That would simplify things greatly. For example, if you have a preexisting condition, you could choose your healthcare options from the empty set.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Life is a pre-existing condition. Pay through the nose. Next!
Re: (Score:2)
We need some like the nevada gaming commission (Score:2)
I'm all for legal gambling, alcohol, and drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a wild thought, instead of trying to micro-manage every industry where businesses could endanger the health of individuals with poor standards or swindle individuals we start making the executives and investors in ALL businesses criminally liable for the actions. If food or drug processor took an action that harmed or endangered people then the ones who made the call should go to pound me in the arse prison. The same is true of casinos that use rigged machines that constitute fraud. Right now a company can use a dangerous chemical that will hurt people to cut corners and make hundreds of millions doing so. IF they get caught, the worst they face will be a few million in fines and lawsuits and probably will make a net profit on the affair. Even if they break even they will profit from the practice overall since any punk kid can tell you that the cops don't even know most crimes happen let alone catch the bad guys. If you make white collar decision makers subject to the same sort of consequences as the hungry crack addict on the street you can bet the decisions they make will reflect that.
Aside from enforcing criminal law, the only time the government needs to interfere with industry is fix the fundamental flaw in the free market. The flaw is of course companies that are too large to allow real competition. Of course single company monopolies aren't the only problem that needs to be solved, it is common practice now for several supposed competitors to collude in a manner that has the same effect as a monopoly. In both of these situations it is necessary for the government to step in and the right to property has to be considered secondary to the interests of the nation as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
No but once a company has a monopoly and is the de facto standard they can leverage that position in ways that assures they remain a monopoly. They can also leverage their monopoly to gain more monopolies. They will eventually crash, just as any empire does, but the a monopoly is never beneficial to anyone but the monopolist and empires take a very long time to fall. Mon
On-line gambling is a BAAAD idea (Score:2)
Gambling has such a big downside that it's one place I can see the government having to step in. My observations, some based on fact others on conjecture:
Re: (Score:2)
There's LOTS MORE money from continuing to run an on-line casino. The house is getting a piece of every single bet. Why on earth would they fix one single game for the benefit of a rich player when they're getting lots more money from every single game on the site?
Link?
Prohibition
Right decision, WRONG REASON! (Score:2)
"We need to abide by the trade rules we have forced down the throats of the rest of the world, instead of holding others accountable and ignoring the rules ourselves"
How like the US to continue to ignore the way we screw the rest of the world and focus on how we can encourage our people destroy themselves best.
Yes, as I have stated before I work mostly in the GAMING industry (read gambling) so I have seen the carnage. The younger we
Too little too late (Score:2)
Frank is of the opinion that adults should police themselves for excessive gambling, and the government should stay out of their way.
When I hear politicians saying the same thing about prostitution, drugs, and real world gambling outside of protected enclaves (Vegas, Atlantic City, Indians, etc.) and a host of other issues too long to list I'll believe we're making some sort of progress.
Right now I could get fired for having a $1 football pool at work because, if discovered, the state can prosecute my
just remember... (Score:2)
If not an outright ban, some type of legal protection is required.
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know much about Ben Frank's other political views, but he definitely seems more pragmatic (as opposed to dogmatic) than most high-profile US politicians I know of. I think that's a good thing. Where I come from (the Netherlands), the attitude against for example softdrugs, smart drugs, alcohol and other possibly harmful things people can do to themselves is comparable, and from 27 years of experience I can tell this has lead to lower softdrugs usage than in the countries surrounding us, less health issues, less drugs-related crimes etc.
Funny thing is, the Dutch government still has a really stupid and dualistic stance on (online) gambling. Online gambling is specifically prohibited here, as is organising (for example) small-scale poker tournaments etc. The *only* institution that is allowed to offer legal gambling opportunities is 'Holland Casino', which is a government-controlled (but still commercially exploited) casino that has a monopoly on all things related to gambling. This includes, for example, all variants of poker, even though the most popular variants don't even qualify as gambling. Now, over the last few years, playing poker has become a real hype here. Lots of people play it now, and they want to play tournaments against different opponents. What's happening right now, is that small-scale 'illegal' poker tournaments (with buy-ins in the $10-$50 range, or $0.5-$2 cash games) get busted every now and then, and the people entering and organising them are criminalised. This has lead to more people finding their ways to 'Holland Casino' for playing poker, which only offers tournaments starting at $100 buy-ins, or $5-$10 cash games. Just yesterday a study was published that showed a lot of dutch students have gambling debts from playing poker on limits that are way too high for their skills...
Re:Barney Frank. (Score:4, Funny)
Why not? His day job involves the world's most profitable brothel - seems like a smart bit of career choice.
Now, why exactly is this relevant to, you know, online gambling, which generally involves a minimum of hot man-on-man action?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember jesus went unto the tomb and then rose after three days to eat THE BRAINS OF THE LIVING ARRRRGH
Re: (Score:2)
Remember jesus went unto the tomb and then rose after three days to eat THE BRAINS OF THE LIVING ARRRRGH
Now *that's* the movie Mel Gibson should have made! :) Fuck, I'd buy that on Blu-Ray!
Re: (Score:2)
I have, you presumptuous, anonymous ass. Now, please direct me to the passage in the New Testament that declares gambling a sin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what do I really care; I didn't accept it either.
But sort of back on topic: I don't understand what the fundamental difference here is between in person gambling and online gambling. I would wager a guess
Re: (Score:2)
Re:READ YOUR BIBLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:READ YOUR BIBLE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's poker hand.
Re: (Score:2)
And the bible doesn't say drinking is a sin either. It has some warnings about drinking too much, but it doesn't say anything is wrong with drinking in moderation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But you should enslave, murder, rape, and pillage to excess...
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legalized gambling (Score:2)
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/main.php [interactivebrokers.com]
Thanks for thinkorswim - bookmarked it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may disagree with the argument -- and you're welcome to articulate why, if you're capable -- but saying "only gamblers who can't make a living any other way make that argument" is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
By making a market illegal, supply is hindered and price is raised. This draws in risk-taking, and often desperate & dangerous suppliers. Because the market is illegal, all law-based and peaceful routes of dispute resolution are removed.
Re:Online gambling A-OK but don't forget the nativ (Score:2)
You just can't replicate the experience of a real live casino with the experience of an online browser. American Casinos, even Native American casinos, are more than just about gambling. They're an experience that is difficult to replicate. Case in point, British casinos -- British casinos suck. British casinos, by law, can not be above a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For tonights' homework, however, I want you to write a paper on paragraphs.
Re: (Score:2)
It was pretty cool, actually. You played the computer in 5 card draw, and the computer AI (such as it was) was pretty good.
Republicans used to stand for less government. (Score:3, Funny)
Bush isn't even in the top five. Even Carter did a better job at keeping spending under control.