It's still a crime to play online poker in this state, at least for cash. The legal logic in upholding the law is understandable, the purpose of passing it to begin with is much less so.
Past local criticism is worth revisiting on the occasion of this litigation, given that it is a display of the nanny state at its preening worst.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 16, 2008 07:22 AM | Email ThisI hope the appeal goes on. I gamble everyday on the internet, but it's not called gambling- it is the stock market.
I also get somewhat concerned that a self-appointed attorney is arguing this case. Is he the right guy to carry the fight? No one knows because he doesn't pay himself. There is something about paying for something that makes the individual 'vested' and make the individual get the best representation possible.
Posted by: swatter on May 16, 2008 07:16 AMBut it makes perfect sense that Gregoire thinks I should not be able to gamble at home, or in the bar eight miles away, but that it is perfectly OK to gamble -- and to expand gambling -- in the casino that's only three miles away.
Doesn't that make sense to you?
Because if so, can you explain it to me?
I gamble for money online, playing poker. I won $2 the other night. If they want to arrest me for that, they can go right ahead. They will rue the day. :)
Posted by: pudge on May 16, 2008 07:35 AMI am social-liberal/economic-conservative. I wish that either the Dems would practice the social liberalism that they profess, or the R's would practice the economic conservatism that they profess. Right now I'm getting the worst of both worlds from both parties.
Posted by: russell garrard on May 16, 2008 07:59 AMWashington is indeed a "Nanny state".
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 08:32 AMGregoire is just a puppet of unions and tribes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 16, 2008 09:10 AMAs mentioned, DC passed a similar measure.
Follow the money. All of it. Not just the Tribes.
Posted by: jimg on May 16, 2008 09:13 AMIsn't it the liberal mantra to stay out my my bedroom?
I thought the GOP mantra to enforce the laws and protect people against criminals. Don't like the law, better talk to the morality wing of the GOP.
Haha...internet gambling is against the law, been that way for two years. You saying laws should not apply to my bedroom? Possessing Marijuana is is illegal, but your saying it's ok as long as the person keeps it in their bedroom? Supreme Court doesn't think so.
I could care less if you want to gamble your savings away. Oregon has video poker in bars, I have no issues with that. Nanny state applies to both parties Ricky.
[social conservative logic/trolling] But as for myself, I think gambling is stupid because I know how to calculate odds. Also I think it's a sin because I'm a Christian. So it doesn't affect me, and if you aren't doing anything wrong then it won't bother you either ;) [/social conservative logic/trolling]
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 16, 2008 09:54 AMStarting July 1, about 1,100 [online] retailers will start charging tax to buyers in Washington. Their names are a secret, because they are granted amnesty from Washington for any taxes that should have been collected in the past.
I wonder if there is a way to obtain their names through public disclosure request?
Posted by: DopioLover on May 16, 2008 10:03 AMAnd Cato, while I opposed that legislation too, there was zero chance you would have been prosecuted for playing online poker under that federal law without the state law banning it. That federal law was a deterrent to online gambling websites, who have all moved off-shore anyway.
Posted by: Palouse on May 16, 2008 10:07 AMWow, all of 2 years.......what a long standing legal precedent.
Actually I don't on-line gamble, but I can't help but see the hypocrisy of the State endorsing gambling by selling Lottery tickets and receiving huge sums of contribution money from Tribal and other Casinos. If you took off those partisan blue blinders once in awhile you'd recognize it as well. But hey,power to the Sheeple , right? Nothing short of a racketeering operation to most sane Washingtonians.
But hey, it's the best Government money can buy right?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 10:10 AMIt does not make gambling illegal on the internet, it makes the transfer money to/from gambling websites illegal. Get your facts straight.
Most politicians will cite the outdated Wire Act (which makes the placing of wagers over telephone lines illegal) as the vehicle for judging that online wagering is illegal, but the fact is Congress has never directly addressed the issue of U.S. citzens placing wagers over the internet.
The fact is, if gambling can be regulated and taxed by the Government, as it is in almost every state, why is it not being done on the internet?
The answer is because Congress is so busy trying to make things illegal that they can't see the forest for the trees. They could tax and regulate online poker that they could generate billions in revenues from legal online poker companies. It would also protect U.S. players from some of the current online websites that cheat players, such as Absolute and Ultimate Bet. Currently, all online poker sites are overseas companies, and U.S. players are at the their complete mercy.
Why don't regulate it instead of imposing laws against doing something (playing a game called poker) that does not negatively impact the rest of society that decides not to play?
Posted by: Easycure on May 16, 2008 10:14 AMhttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4411
- Look at the sponsor and cosponsors. I did see a D in there, but I also saw about 34 R's.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-3125
- Sponsor - R. Cosponsors - mix of D/R
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4777
- Oh boy, look at all those cosponsors and all the R's, I'm surprised that one died actually
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4954
- Now this one has more Ds in there, since it's actually the 'SAFE Port Act'. But it is the one that finally got the gambling law into effect.
Sorry brother, but you've been betrayed by your own party on this one as well as the dems. Washington just happened to have nanny state people in power with a D behind their name instead of an R when they passed it locally.
It's the same 'I'll tell you what you can do in your own home attitude', whether it's a D or an R.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 16, 2008 10:19 AMNow Mr. Brown. Why is On-line gambling a sin, but State sanctioned gambling not a sin? A little consistency on your part would be nice seeing as you're a good christian and all, right?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 10:32 AMGood luck convincing the Pam Roach/Ellen Craswell wing of the GOP to accept expanded gambling in this state. They got Morals which they would like to impose on you via the Govt.
Why is On-line gambling a sin
Gambling is a sin in Judeo-Christian religions.
but State sanctioned gambling not a sin?
State sanctioned gambling? You mean tribal casinos on tribal land which operate in semi-autonomous regions located in isolated locales within the Washington State? Treaties with Native Americans state that they can do this if they are a federally recognized tribe. Don't expect your boy McCain to argue in favor of changing this, he rebuked Sen. Gorton a few years ago for messing with the treaties.
I don't believe any gambling is a sin in itself. I guess my sarcasm wasn't clear :\
I also don't believe in forcing my beliefs on others like the enemies of liberty who created both the national and local versions of this law.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 16, 2008 11:05 AMinre: @ 25-
"Gambling is a sin in Judeo-Christian religions."
Then the queston begs, why is the state complicit in this sin?
I thought I made it clear @19 that my reference to state sanctioned gambling was "lottery". I see you conveniently "glossed" over that little tidbit, while trying to negotiate the obvious hypocrisy of this law.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 11:25 AMIt's illegal to transfer money to online gambling sites. If you play online poker for money then you are breaking the law. You saying the Govt. should only enforce certain laws while looking the war for others?
The label "Nanny State" title only applies to laws you don't like...funny how the GOP have no issues with other nanny state issues like the sodomy laws...I seem to recall Ragnar getting in a big whiny tantrum about the decline of American values when the Supreme Court overturned that law.
There is a HUGE difference between that federal law and the criminalization of online poker by the Washington legislature/Gregoire.
Posted by: Palouse on May 16, 2008 11:38 AMAgainst the law is still against the law...drunk driving is against the law...lets let all drunk drives off because the Nanny State is enforcing the laws passed on behalf of the voters who elected them.
This should be investigated under the RICO statutes.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 12:20 PMSure, state can regulate something like the lottery and horse racing, set the odds, define the terms for which you can gamble. The state cannot regulate the online gambling industry which may or may not exist within the states borders. They can't set the odds or even prosecute individuals/companies that do monetary harm to Washington State residents. So rather than try to regulate something they can't control they just ban it.
Sooner or later someone would get burned and try to sue claiming they were defrauded while playing AnyoneCanWinAtPoker.com. They ask the state to shut it down, state has it's hands tied since the internet companies physical locale could be in the Cayman Islands or out of reach of US law.
You can still play online poker, just not with US Currency.
www.PokerWithPaultards.com =P
Will these goalposts keep shifting Cato? or is this your final answer?
Margarita Prentice proposed and urged the bill in order to protect her large investment in "legal" gambling operations which had money flowing into her coffers. When on-Line gambling began eating into her profit margin, Margarita (like and good mafia boss would do) decided to shut them down the easiest way she knew how in her position...by making it illegal!
Google Ms. Prentice and you find all sorts of interesting things about her including her ties to the Washington state gambling commission and is known to be "extremely loyal and just as extremely vindictive".
As they say, Follow the money.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 16, 2008 03:14 PMPersonally I don't care. I don't gamble because I think it's a waste of money, I have no problems letting others waste their money doing it. I'm also not a member of the "Judeo/Christian Morality via Govt." wing of the GOP which encourages and trumpets the passage of legislation like this.
I'm just stating how the state likely sees it...they want to avoid situations like this.
Lottery and Horse Racing are heavily regulated by the state...internet gambling is very likely beyond the reach of US law. Tribal land is run by local tribal govt, the US has stated that if you are a recognized tribe you can build a casino on your land.
Hecj, the tribes can't even get slot machines, why would the state expand off-tribe gambling?
-----------------------------------------------
Initiative 671 . Shall amended tribal/state agreements be authorized permitting limited electronic gaming on Indian lands for tribal government purposes, with joint regulation and specified use of revenues?
Yes 751,103 (44%) | No 945,486 (56%) .
...um yeah, kind of like the strict state enforcement of our federal immigration laws, Right? Cops can't even ask the citizenship of a person stopped for a criminal violation except in one or two counties in this state.
If it is such a problem statewide you obviously can put forth some Washington state cases correct?
As I said, I don't on-line gamble (and if I did I wouldn't admit it here), but I'd like some consistency in the laws in this state.
To have the State running the largest gambling enterprise in the state and then coming down on a fairly innocuous and in most cases harmless pasttime that consumers can pursue in the privacy of their homes, I see a real chasm in logic.