April 29, 2007
Should Online Gambling Be A Crime?
This blogger thinks not. Danny Westneat explores the issue in his column today.
Perhaps I'm biased because I play the occasional game of poker at non-gambling sites, but making online gambling a felony seems beyond ridiculous. The law took effect last year, though not without some questions.
Legislation on the same topic brought down some wrath on former Congressman Jim Leach last fall, though it's debatable whether that issue was a tipping point in his eventual defeat.
Regardless, this sort of restriction seems fantastically out-of-touch with the modern era. More importantly, what benefit does it serve? How is society demonstrably better because someone puts some money on the line in a casino rather than over an Internet connection?
Discuss, please.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 29, 2007
07:41 PM | Email This
1. Oh, the nanny state which now decided what we can enjoy.
I do not agree about such laws. At all. And I go to casino on line or real time only about once a month. Just for fun.
Oh, Gold the slippery slope. What a stale argument from the blue noses crowd, Dem or R. -- so called vices are just a part of life's choices and being adults in a free society.
2. The nanny state has to take care of th Indian donors to make sure the tribes get the government they paid for. Any one who does not see this as the payoff it is needs glasses.
3. The only reason it is being outlawed is because the greedy bastards in the legislature can't figure out a way to tax it and get their cut. The WA legislature better not bring up morality issues either, especially when month after month a new lottery game is introduced, and the motto of the WA Lottery is "It's Good To Play."
4. Eric: In 1998 I retired with everything paid and money in the bank. Then my wife discovered a casino.Now no wife,no money,and deep in debt. On line gambling-never!!! Oh yeah,I do not gamble
5. I'm not comparing casino gambling with poker. Poker is a sport and a skill is required. Casino games are designed for you to lose. I feel terrible for families that are affected by gamblers and their loved ones that can't control their habit and can't afford to lose that money.
I play in WSOP/WPT poker tournaments and I also play online and have won a few there also. Poker is a skill and because it's a skill, it becomes like any other game of skill. I'm hoping that law is overturned shortly. Poker is too much fun to have the Boston FUN police removed it from the sport that it is. Scott http://www.kickyourace.com
6. I'll give you 5 to 1 that says as soon as they figure how to tax the net, they allow gambling on the thing. ;-)
7. It's all part of Prentice's and the D's Washington State Tribal Support Program.
8.
gambling is fine in it's place.
but when it spreads everywhere it becomes a blight.
kids already are getting sucked into it at campus.
Let's keep it adult, and restrained.
9. Eric, no, I think you are way off-base. Obviously, because the Indians and Democrats control it, I can be trusted to gamble away my life's saving at a casino which is less than five miles from my house, right in the middle of a residential area; but I cannot be trusted to play 25-cent hands of poker in the privacy of my home. I need the threat of jail time to prevent me from losing my milk money, else I might end up malnutritioned.
You're just not making sense, man!
10. Scott: calling it a game of skill is true, but misleading. The people who hate gambling don't hate it because it is a mere game of luck, but because people lose a lot of money on it and ruin their lives.
That said, I agree the government has no place in banning it.
A very liberal coworker of mine pointed out to me that very liberal Barney Frank is attempting to overturn the federal online gambling ban, thinking this would upset me. No: Barney Frank used to be my Congressman, and I respect many things about the man (as well as disrespecting a few things about him, and disagreeing with him on most issues). He is a strong supporter of social libertarianism, of civil rights, and he is principled about the things he believes in.
This bill was passed (in WA) by a combination of nanny-statism (on both sides of the aisle) and a (mostly Democrat) interest in the preservation of tribal revenue. Neither one of these interests is, in my opinion, sufficiently legitimate to take away my rights. However, the answer is more-or-less clear, and Barney Frank shows the way: a nonpartisan coalition of elected officials is needed, who are willing to stand up for civil liberties. It won't be a one-party solution, regardless of which party is in power.
11. Did you happen to note that only five members of the legislature voted against the bill in question,
SSB 6613, last year? According to the
roll call, those five were Representatives Chandler (R), Dunn (R), Holmquist (R), Morris (D), and Nixon (R).
The primary argument for the bill was that it was necessary to "protect children". Just about any reduction in your civil liberties can be shoved through the legislature if you can spin it as protecting kids.
12. 11. T Nixon
The primary argument for the bill was that it was necessary to "protect children". Just about any reduction in your civil liberties can be shoved through the legislature if you can spin it as protecting kids.
_________________________________________
You HIT it right on the head... )-:
13. I'm more inclined to believe that the real issue is the government getting its cut or not.
As long as they can slap a tax on it (or take a fat bribe), politicians typically have no problem with any "vice".
14. I oppose almost every government intrusion law that is supposed to protect us from ourselves. Especially this one. It's so hypocritical that the government is perfectly fine with other gambling activities (lotto, card rooms, horses, tribal casinos), yet they ban this, which for many people is just an activity they enjoy in the comfort of their own home.
15. Its so blatant its disgusting! The tribal casinos wanted this ban to protect their revenues, they went out, donated a ton of money to their candidates (read: bought them) and - wa la! - we have a new law. The nerve of the legislature to tell us its for our own good! This type of thing will continue until the good people of this state have had enough. But then again, i'm not holding my breath for that day to come.....
16. The one and ONLY reason on-line gambling is now illegal is because they couldn't tax it.
17. I played a small amount of online poker before this law went into effect (I pretty much stuck to the microlimit tables and cheap Sit-and-Go games) and although I stopped playing more because I lost interest in it (I never lost my original bankroll) than because of the law, I still think the law should never have been passed in the first place. I also think that people underestimate its effect on losing congress for the GOP. This was not only because of the shady manner in which it was imposed, but also because it came across as a really lousy attempt at pandering to a group that probably wasn't going to have enough influence to affect anything anyway, and it probably managed to tick off far more people anyway. At the state level, it was nothing more than protecting the tribal casinos' monopoly.
18. The original argument was that some off-shore gambling sites had ties to terrorists. Most of that was speculation, but because many of these sites are off-shore, it falls under the Patriot Act and the PORT Act for regulation, which is cumbersome for adherence at best.
In addition, there are many cases where credit card numbers have been stolen by a few off-shore sites and they have drained the accounts of some people. So they have regulated it to protect everyone.
Personally, I think it's a bunch of bunk and it's only because they can't tax it.... Yet!
19. The one and ONLY reason on-line gambling is now illegal is because they couldn't tax it.
This view, expressed by several paranoid anti-government commenters in this thread, is nonsense. If the govt can ban something, it can also legalize and tax it. Of course some people will evade a tax -- but even more people will ignore a ban.
I'm not sure whether internet gambling should be legal, but if it were, the government would collect some tax, which is more than it does now.
20. Bruce: taxing it is much harder than banning it. These are not domestic companies. If it is banned, they can arrest people for moving the money around, and thereby much more effectively enforce the ban.
But it doesn't work that way if you are merely taxing it. I can put money into an offshore account, deposit from there into a gambling site, then despoit winnings back into the offshore account, and the government won't have any access to that money.
21. This is the perfect example of the WA nannystate. Let's review some of the nannystate legislation that's come from Seattle's (and WA state's) freedom loving liberals:
Lap Dance ban (probably moreso from a strippers are being subjugated by the male patriarchal racist classist hegemony set vs. some sort of distaste of nudity)
Proposed Fortified Liquor Ban (you can only buy EXPENSIVE liquor). nice "classism".
Online gambling ban - feel free to spend your money on the exorbitant rake at state taxed casinos. but play a $3 online tournament???? you're a felon
Smoking ban - there is no such thing as a private business, apparently. a true liberty loving liberal would let the marketplace decide. anybody is free to open a smoke free bar or restaurant. note this applies many feet from the entrance of buildings, effectively making nearly every foot of every sidewalk a 'smoke free zone'.
Seattle City Council and guns - seattle city council has expressed interest more than once in banning handguns, etc. in the city. unfortunately for them, that pesky state constitution gets in the way. darn rule of law. darn civil rights
Critical Areas Ordinance - need i say more?
Poker is an american tradition, and also a game of skill I might add.
etc.
22. Is Online Poker Legal?
The direct answer to the title question is: I don't know. I'm not an attorney, a Justice Department official, nor a Supreme Court Justice. Nothing here should be seen as legal advice.
blackjack What is here is a collection of court rulings and the best information on this subject that I have been able to find. Use it as you will. (Scroll down for information on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.)
Many recent events have brought attention to the legal standing of online wagering in general. The first thing to understand is the skill game of poker is not the same as sports betting nor even "random chance" casino games like craps and roulette. It may be treated the same eventually, but it may not.
casino online Legal precedent for a lot of this simply does not exist. As of this writing, no person has been charged, let alone brought to trial, let alone convicted, let alone sentenced for playing online poker. But this does not guarantee one or more of these things will not happen in the future.
http://www.gotocasino.com
23. Is Online Poker Legal?
The direct answer to the title question is: I don't know. I'm not an attorney, a Justice Department official, nor a Supreme Court Justice. Nothing here should be seen as legal advice.
blackjack What is here is a collection of court rulings and the best information on this subject that I have been able to find. Use it as you will. (Scroll down for information on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.)
Many recent events have brought attention to the legal standing of online wagering in general. The first thing to understand is the skill game of poker is not the same as sports betting nor even "random chance" casino games like craps and roulette. It may be treated the same eventually, but it may not.
casino online Legal precedent for a lot of this simply does not exist. As of this writing, no person has been charged, let alone brought to trial, let alone convicted, let alone sentenced for playing online poker. But this does not guarantee one or more of these things will not happen in the future.
http://www.gotocasino.com
24. I know. I am not an attorney, but it is quite clear: online gambling in WA is illegal. It is a class C felony. I am giving legal advice: if you play 25-cent hands of poker online, you can be convicted of a felony and imprisoned by the state for more than a year. The state law on this is clear.
i realize you're talking about federal law, but state law supercedes in this case (for now).
But you're right, I believe, that no one has been charged for it yet. However, people have been charged for providing gambling (or gambling funding) services.