Yesterday, 10/13/06, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4954 Security and Accountability for every port act of 2006. Attached to this bill in a last minute amendment was the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act which essentially makes it illegal for players in the United States to gamble online (including Poker) beginning today.

Questions for debate:

1. Were you aware of this amendment before it was signed into law?

2. Will this affect your voting come November?

3. How will this effect the November mid-term elections?

4. Do you believe that online poker will eventually receive an exemption from this ban?

That is not what the law says at all as I play quite a bit of online poker.

The law makes it illegal for banks to make deposits/withdrawls to and from known gambling sites. That being said some places like neteller have revised their business structure and user agreement to clearly state they are not a bank.

The following is a link to the poker players alliance. They seem to believe otherwise.

http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/

2. Will this affect your voting come November?
I'm glad that Bush is taking a stand against gambling, which is something that politicians need to do. However, he and his supporters have made too many grave mistakes during his term for me to support.

3. How will this effect the November mid-term elections?
Internet gambling is not considered to be a major issue like Global Warming or the Iraq war is. So I don't think its going to have any affect.

This is the first statement from their analysis...



I am really sick of mis-information being put out there so quickly. This bill has nothing to do with individuals playing poker or gambling. It is all about how banks and financial institutions cannot legally make deposits/withdrawls with gambling sites.

A libertarian happy that the government is restricting the right of humans to spend their money?

That has to be a first. I have never met a self described Libertarian who thinks the government has the right to take away citizens rights to play games with their money.

This sounds like Cherry Picking. You cannot gamble on-line without a Credit Card/Debit Card and this bill does not allow Financial institutions (Credit Card companies, Banks) to do business or make transactions with gambling sites.....

Am I missing something here? How is this not making on-line gambling illegal or at the very least impossible?

It's like saying driving a car is not illegal but you cannot buy gas at any gas stations or petrol holding facilities.

Does it matter? The end result is that you still cannot drive a car.

I would dispute the implication that this is "mis-information". Yes you are correct in your assertion that internet poker playing is still allowable (if only for play chips) . However, playing poker online for money has been dealt a serious blow to the extent I am now personally (as of 5 minutes ago) unable to log into my online poker room and play for money. The only games I can now join as a customer from the United States are the ones for "play chips".

They state on a pop up that loads when I log in "The President of the United States has signed legislation that now causes us to cease accepting wagers from U. S. customers."

Now i'm not sure Sleeper, but I would assume that you play for money when you play online. I certainly do...or at least did up until today.

Exactly who is giving out mis-information now?

Who gambles online without money?

It isn't even gambling if you can't really lose. The word does not even really apply does it?

Who plays chance games for nothing? This is ridiculous.

I figured i'd add my response to my own questions...here goes.

1. No, I had no idea this "amendment" was added on to the Port Security Bill. From what I understand, this amendment was heavily pushed by Senator Frist and Speaker Hastert at the last moment in what has been characterized as a "backroom deal". It appears to me they wanted to pass this quickly and quietly...probably because they knew that a more public debate over this issue wasn't politically smart. This infuriates me. By the way....since when has online gaming had ANYTHING to do with port security???

2. Yes. I will no longer support any candidate that voted for this. It also has me seriously questioning my loyalties to the Republican party. Its not about gambling or poker. I personally haven't played online in almost a year. Its about the federal government sticking its nose into our personal lives again. Its about the idea that polls show that 75% of the country doesn't want this yet they did it anyway...in a sneaky underhanded way...similar to how they vote themselves pay increases.

3. Depends on what percent of people know about this, but one more attack on our simple everyday freedoms is one too many for me. I suspect that the part of the public that knows about this might start to become more and more concerned that the government is overstepping its bounds and lash back in the elections. This certainly describes me.

4. My first response was yes as their are so many people I know who participate in this. At the same time I don't know. The fact that this legislation was passed in the first place...and in the manner it was passed make me wonder if i've played my last hand of online poker.

Hastert and Frist's careers are basically over after this election cycle. Frist will run for president and get slaughtered. Hastert will step down as house leader.

The perfect people to push this agenda I guess.

I think if I were a Libertarian variety Republican I would take a very hard look at my party allegience.

With the spending policies, size of government and curbing of rights in the name of "morality".....I would see no reason as a Libertarian leaning Republican to support that party. Not that the democrats offer a very clear alternative. I would simply protest vote Libertarian to show the GOP that not everyone is comfortabke being the party of Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and Jerry Falwell.

I play for real money on Fulltilt. They are still full steam ahead as well.

Also the legislation does not go into effect I believe until 250 days, I could be wrong but I believe this is the time from before it take effect. I am still able to deposit and withdraw funds as well.

The mis-information I am talking about is how even here and all over the media reporters are saying that the United States has banned online gambling or made it illegal. This is a complete distortion of the facts at hand, is it not?

In case that I happen to be that liberterian, I'll first say that I don't always toe the party line. I do agree though with their position on gun control, social security, healthcare, foreign policy, and the need for smaller government in general. Gambling, on the other hand, is something that needs to be heavily regulated. In that business, too many gambling addicts have squandered their rent money at the casino, or lost everything and jumped off a bridge. In an unregulated environment, the gambling addiction that comes along with gambling can destroy families. This is not marijuana we're talking about here. Gambling is a drug that has as much potential to destroy as heroin.

Gambling is a drug that has as much potential to destroy as heroin.

Reason enough to legalise, license, tax and regulate both, to put in place what little protection of the weak and the vulnerable can be afforded. The classical libertarian position on drug taking (of all classes) is that if people want to take it, they should be able to, and if they get addicted and their lives fall apart, that's their look-out. What you describe, whatever else it might be, is not libertarianism.

To the question at issue, it seems to me that the main likely outcome of a ban on spending money on internet gambling (which is efectively a ban on gambling for money on the internet) does two things.

It drives more traffic into legal casinos, and it drives the rest underground. That might be to small neighbourhood card schools, where the stake is a couple of bucks and the pots are maybe $50 on a good night. For those vulnerable enough to get a taste for gambling, this will be enough to start, but they will then gravitate towards bigger games. Many of which, away from casino towns, will be run by organised crime.

Excellent Idea.

Maybe I've read too much James Ellroy, but I wouldn't be deeply shocked if it ever came out that this legislation was partially instigated by corrupt politicians in the pocket of the mob, who are the people who stand to lose the most from legalised gambling. (And a legalised drugs industry, for that matter.)

To answer the first question, no. I don't believe that anyone really knew this other than some elected officials, and I doubt some of them even read it. It will not be affecting my vote this november in regards to the House as the candidate I'm voting for is a non-incumbent. The incumbent senator I will be voting for will not be taken to task by me through a letter or anything like that over it as the larger bill is of great importance. I don't blame him for it passing, I blame the use of the "rider" as a tool to sneak in things like this. I'd like to see the practice stopped in some way, though I'm not certain how that can realistically be done. I don't believe that poker will earn an exemption. "Sin" activities which include tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and saturated fats do not have a recent history of being tolerated well in our society. They all have their negative aspects, but the right thing to do would be to allow people to make their free-agency choice in whether or not to use those items and then to create treatment programs for those who can't handle it.

Let me rephrase the above slightly (with apologies to Skeeterses)...

Alcohol, on the other hand, is something that needs to be heavily regulated. In that business, too many alcoholics have squandered their rent money at the bar, or lost everything and jumped off a bridge. In an unregulated environment, the alcohol addiction that comes along with alcohol can destroy families. This is not marijuana we're talking about here. Alcohol is a drug that has as much potential to destroy as heroin.

As you can see, we can make this same argument about alcohol, yet we don't restrict banks from doing business from Anheuser Busch. Likewise, we could make the same argument about cigarettes (a substance that kills FAR more people than online poker ever did) but yet somehow banks are not restricted from doing business with R.J. Reynolds or Phillip Morris. Yes hypocrisy does indeed exist with respect to adult vices.

All of this however distracts from the real, critical issue at stake. This issue as I see it is the decision of a few in power in our government to ignore the wishes of the populace and make yet another small decision about the rights of the people in this country. It would be one thing if we had a full blown debate and then they had decided to follow thru with this. But they decided our fate on this issue in a closed backroom in the space of several hours.

Its not so much the loss of the right to play poker online. We will somehow survive this. Its the WAY we lost this right that disturbs me so much.

By the way, I agree with regulating this business. But lets do it in an intelligent way that avoids the potential pitfalls that Julian describes while at the same time addressing the problem gambling in a more effective way.

I agree with you on this Ringwraith. While I am an online poker player, (playing right now as a matter of fact), I am ultimately disturbed by the Lie of American Democracy. We do not have, dare I say, have not ever had, a representative government. There are currently 24,000 players on the site I am at right now. There are other sites where there are 20,000 or more. There are two or three stations, ESPN, Travel Channel, Game Show Network, that are playing televised poker tournaments. This game is as prevalent now as it has ever been. Which creates only one problem. The casinos are missing out on a great deal of money. I speculate that this appendage could have Abramhoff's fingerprints on it. Once again the powerful minority have strong-armed the powerless majority into sacrificing another freedom.

Agree completely. Note the following: Poll Finds Nearly 75% of the Public Opposes Federal Ban. I am NOT an online poker player...been on a couple sites, just for fun, that weren't playing for money. However, I am VERY upset at this bill, and how it came about. It goes against every conservative principle. First, it is the government meddling in things it shouldn't meddle in. Second, it does so in a very backhanded way...can somebody PLEASE explain to me what internet gambling has to do with port security???? Third, it indicates to me the degree to which the Republican party will pander to the Christian right, forsaking all its supposed principles in the process. There isn't any other way this section gets added. Exactly what was the problem being solved here? Has anybody heard a huge outcry against Internet gambling, with thousands of horror stories of people being left destitute? No. This is either a couple lawmakers indulging in a personal whim, or a couple of lawmakers pandering to a lobby group. The fourth thing that irritates me about this is that either they are completely unaware of how many people this is likely to anger (poker going through a MASSIVE popularity boom currently), or they do know and don't care. Neither of those is a good thing. The Republican Party has been paying mere lip service to the core conservatives for a long time, and this just may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Going into a tight election, this move completely baffles me. I can only surmise that it is an attempt to get out the vote amongst the moralists in the party who would support such legislation. This strikes me as a classic example of the failure of democracy, where minority interests often take precedence over the majority. Most people could care less about Internet gambling. However, there is a small group that might be strongly against it. Since most people don't care, the legislation gets passed to cater to the minority interest group. This is what happens time and again in our government. It will eventually lead to governmental failure, as you can only cater to special interests at the expense of the majority for so long before the system collapses on itself. We are rapidly headed to that point.



The conservative in me has to respond to this, as this gets to the heart of personal responsibility. Since when did it become the government's responsibility to get people to stop doing stupid things? I have a newsflash for you...IT CAN'T BE DONE. PERIOD. EVER. As the saying goes, as soon as you make something idiot proof, the world goes out and makes a better idiot. I fail to see why our government should waste its time and effort solving problems that can't be solved. If someone so desperately wants to lose all their money, there will always be a way for them to do it. ALWAYS. If they can't do it legally, they'll go out and do it illegally. Be definition, they're addicts...addicts find a way to indulge in their addiction. Regulation doesn't solve this problem at all. If you doubt this, tell me what currently prevents anyone from squandering their rent money at casinos, or any other legal, regulated gambling place? Further, if those places didn't exist, tell me what prevents that same group from losing their rent money at any number of illegal places that are sure to crop up (and that in fact exist already, have always existed, and will always exist). Gambling has been around longer than the existence of money...it CAN'T be legislated away. Any attempt to do so is NOT an effort to actually solve the problem, it is solely designed to placate an interest group with the perception of effort. Shouldn't we have our government worry about things it CAN actually fix as opposed to things it CAN'T? Or do you prefer smoke and mirrors to actual progress on issues?

Or, let's put it another way....we can worry about this after we get rid of tobacco and alcohol, and any number of other supposed vices. Those are FAR bigger problems, that affect MILLIONS more people to a FAR greater degree. Internet gambling is WAY down the list of things the government needs to worry about right now. And when it does need to worry about it, the government could consider actually putting together such legislation in an above the board matter, where people can actually vote on it, and be judged on their vote....not buried deep in some completely non-related bill.

1. Were you aware of this amendment before it was signed into law?
Yes, I was.

2. Will this affect your voting come November?
No, it won't. Especially given this law, gambling is a local issue. My vote in November for various statewide offices may indeed be related to candidates' stance on gaming, but not at the federal level.

3. How will this effect the November mid-term elections?
Not at all, unless it helps turnout among morals voters on the right. Minimal at best.

4. Do you believe that online poker will eventually receive an exemption from this ban?
I was surprised to see this question. When I heard about the law, I hadn't even thought of that. The problem with online gambling is obviously people maxing out their credit cards doing casino gambling or maybe sports betting. Online poker is mostly one person paying another person directly, although it's obviously facilitated by the online site, for a fee. I'm really not sure where this will end up.


I think you are moving from 'heavily regulated' to 'problem solved' so fast you haven't thought this through. skeeterses said that gambling needs to be heavily regulated due to its addictive nature. He didn't say that it would 'solve the problem' - human nature being what it is, of course it won't. But, if you make something harder to do, people will generally do it less. No?



You are free to disagree, but we do heavily regulate alcohol, to the point of silliness. 51 separate jurisdictions, coupled with thousands of municipal codes conspire to give you no alcohol on Sundays in one state, separate liquor stores in another, booze in grocery stores in another, you name it. It's very heavily, yet very locally regulated. Cigarettes are heavily regulated, but there is no 21st Amendment for tobacco, so the regs are mostly federal. Gambling is heavily regulated in its legal form, but the internet has eliminated that. You can post all of the opinion polls you like, but it seems that our society does want this sort of thing regulated. If you disagree, maybe you should propose a casino in your neighborhood and let us know how it works out...


Of course, I agree with you completely here. Our legislative process is a joke at times.

As a sorta-libertarian on issues like this, and a guy who likes to gamble on occasion, I'm torn. Gambling destroys a lot of lives, and making it accessible in your home and office via the internet is probably a bad thing in totality. But our "representatives" need to be held accountable for their votes, and their votes should be confined to one subject at a time.

Perhaps it's a local issue for you but not for the thousands of people that gamble online.



People max out their credit card at Sears to. Debt is a big problem in this country, not just with gambling.



I disagree. I believe, for the most part, people that have problems with gambling will do it one way or another. Making it available in there home through the internet simply give's them a comfortable at home environment to gamble in. Also they may end up spending less, seeing as to how they cannot transfer cash over the internet that's in their wallet.



Yet you can buy alcohol online. Maybe next they should ban that while they are writing up the new DoD budget.

Were you aware of this amendment before it was signed into law?

No

Will this affect your voting come November?

No, i've been counting the days the republicans hopefully lose control of congress and control of school board seats. My main issue with many republicans in office is they attempt to legislate their religion to the country.

How will this effect the November mid-term elections?

I'm sure it will have some sort of impact. As to what i'm not sure, but if online site's are advertising statements that Ringwraith quoted then i'm sure there will be alot of angry people.




Don Makrain voted against port security so Don Makrain doesn't care about your safety just before the election. That's what it has to do with internet gambling.

This is a good example of shady politicians getting there way with backhanded tactics.

This is the issue, to me. Because, if you're actually going to look at this in totality, then you need to factor in that such legislation is restricting the activity of millions because there are a few people that might abuse the privelege. Let's examine this philosophy. Stupid people probably hurt themselves when they <insert activity>. Further, they might hurt others too. So, we'd be better off restricting their ability to <insert activity>. But, of course, we don't have any way to know who the stupid people are, so in the good of society we'll just have to keep EVERYBODY from <insert activity>. Sound like a good idea? Of course not. But, insert gambling as the activity, and this is EXACTLY what is being proposed here. So, NO, in totality it is NOT a good thing to restrict our priveleges because some people feel that other people might abuse them. You can also ask the question 'Why should my ability to do something be restricted because someone else abused the privelege?'. Again, if you feel that this is a good thing for society to do, there are any number of situations that I could apply it to that I'm quite sure you would disagree with. Further, in this example, there's not even a compelling reason to go there. How many people do you know, or have heard of, that have indeed driven themselves to bankruptcy through Internet gambling? What makes anyone think that these same people, if they do exist, won't just find another avenue to go down? Which brings me back to my point about not being able to legislate against stupidity. Even if it were a good thing to restrict all of our priveleges because a few people abused them (which it almost certainly isn't)....doing so doesn't even help those few people. They're going to find a way to do it anyway. Therefore, we are giving up our priveleges for nothing. Why is that a good thing?

I don't think anyone will be surprised at my response here, but I was surprised by this in particular:I disagree. I believe that people destroy their lives by way of gambling, similarly, people destroy their lives through smoking, drinking, hanging out with the wrong crowd, etc. I'm with Hobbes on this one, government preventing people from being irresponsible or stupid is a horrific abuse of power. As far as I'm concerned, if someone ruins their life because of <insert activity here>, it is there issue, not anyone else's. Now, you could make the case that if someone goes bankrupt due to gambling, welfare and other government programs are used to take care of them, I would say that the same argument could be made to regulate people's diets so they aren't a strain on the health care system.

Yessir.

It won't, I was going to vote Libertarian before this happened, now I'll do it with a bigger smile on my face.

It won't. This isn't a huge issue for most Americans, nor is it to me, rather, it's a symptom of a larger problem, which is the proliferation of big government "conservatism".

Not as long as the aforementioned big government "conservatives" are in power.

CP

Perhaps you can reconcile the two statements above. How is gambling in one's home *not* local?

You will get no disagreement from me. We also regulate what Sears can charge in terms of interest rates, payment terms, fees, etc. Same for VISA and Mastercard, and ultimately via bankruptcy legislation. You may not like the outcome, but we do regulate them.


I'm not sure where "The Great Oak Circle with Druids" is, but if it's in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont, no dice, pal.
From the site you linked:

As I said in my post, this is locally regulated. Some retailers like CostCo are challenging the "three tier" distribution and regulation system, but for now, per the 21st Amendment, alcohol regulation is up to the states. Including internet shipping. And this is supplemented by a plethora of local laws by municipality and county.

Well, since you asked. I really am sorry for doing this.

Stupid people probably hurt themselves when they don't wear seatbelts. Further, they might hurt others too. So, we'd be better off restricting their ability to drive without seatbelts. But, of course, we don't have any way to know who the stupid people are, so in the good of society we'll just have to keep EVERYBODY from driving without seatbelts.

Stupid people probably hurt themselves when they carrying concealed weapons. Further, they might hurt others too. So, we'd be better off restricting their ability to carry concealed weapons. But, of course, we don't have any way to know who the stupid people are, so in the good of society we'll just have to keep EVERYBODY from carrying concealed weapons. .

Stupid people probably hurt themselves when they snork coke. Further, they might hurt others too. So, we'd be better off restricting their ability to snort coke. But, of course, we don't have any way to know who the stupid people are, so in the good of society we'll just have to keep EVERYBODY from snorting coke.

I think you'll agree that we seem to regulate some activities in order to protect indiduals, even themselves, toward some sort of greater societal good. I'm more than willing to debate for and against some of the above, but you'll acknowledge that we do regulate some things as a society of laws.


Well, I'd rather not rely on personal anecdotes. Here is a study on the subject.. When Iowa legalized riverboat gaming, 5.4% of the state's adults became pathological, addicted or problem gamblers. Up from 1.7% before the legalization. 110,000 people addicted to gambling. I think you'll agree it's just a bit easier to fire up the PC than it is to drive to a riverboat? What are the net economic costs of a 200% increase in problem gamblers in a state? Multiplied by 50 states? The study I linked estimate the costs to society at between $10,000 and $52000 per pathological gambler; morever, those at highest risk - the type A personality - are the most productive in society. Hard workers, professionals, well-educated. One author estimates the costs to the US from problem gambling - broken homes, child care, bankruptcy, lost productivity - to be $29 Billion. (page 12)

As I said earlier, I'm usually pretty libertarian on stuff like this, but I can't see a single societal benefit to internet gambling.

Fair enough, but again, how far can you take that line of reasoning. There are plenty of people who are drains on society, criminalizing their respective vices would be ridiculous.
I don't know where Hobbes stands on this issue, but I don't belive the government has the right [and I don't believe it should even if it did] to regulate the use of recreational drugs. If you want to snort coke, go right ahead. In addition, I don't think the analogy is a great one because I'd be willing to bet [haha, bet, I'm a riot] that the majority of people who gamble to so responsibly whereas the majority of coke users use cocaine irresponsibly.

CP

So the president calling China is exclusively a local issue? It's the same concept, a person in a home calling across a long distance making transactions is certianly not "just" a local issue.

If you put it that way everything is a local issue if someone sitting in their home gambling on a website based in Nevada is a local issue. You are not the only party involved in the transactions.



Yes we do regulate credit cards, as far as I know you can still order them online though.



Ok so 21 out of 50 state's cannot order alcohol online, I happen to live in one that can. Im not really sure what point you are attempting to make or even your stance about this particular bill. If it's a local issue then why does the federal government need to be involved?



Well I don't see a single benefit to wearing the color red over purple, that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Note: I am not, and never have, argued that we shouldn't regulate anything....I'm just saying that we should be very careful regulating *vices* because of two reasons. First, vices are by definition a very relative term. One man's vice is another man's virtue....so if we start down that path, any number of activities could be restricted due to the whim's of various groups. Second, restricting these activities definitely impinges on our personal liberties, so we should be very careful when we give them up, or we'll soon find we don't have any left at all.

That being said, you have valid points here. While we could dive into the estimates, this type of analysis does at least seek to answer the question 'Why should my rights be restricted because someone else is abusing them?' However, even the study you cited states that this is a problem for the 1-3% of the public most vulnerable to gambling addictions. So, this is putting forward a plan that restricts the ability of the 97-99% of the people that don't have a problem because of that small percent that do. Again, we should be very very careful when we go down this path. Further note that when calculating the cost to society of such gambling, almost everything mentioned that went into the estimate could be, and often already is, controlled by other means. So, the estimates are quite likely inflated, and even if not the costs could be controlled through other means...means that didn't restrict the personal liberties of the other 97-99% of the public. Wouldn't that be a better path?

As for societal benefit, I would of course argue that the simple freedom to persue one's interest without unnecessary governmental regulation is a very significant benefit. However, if we were simply going to argue dollars and cents...Internet gambling is a multi-billion dollar industry. Forcing it elsewhere is simply denying our country the economic benefits.

Well, in my reponse to the "will this affect your vote" question, I argued that this was a local issue. Which it is to me.

So, even given your two examples - calling China is regulated and taxed to death by the feds, and gambling online via the internet is local to you, as well as Nevada. Heck, it's interstate commerce. Here come the feds to regulate that. I never said 'exclusively' or 'only' local, just local.


You can also order credit cards by mail or phone. Is it legal to place a bet that way in your state?

As I mentioned earlier regarding two different 'vices' - alcohol is a state issue due to the 21st Amendment. Tobacco is federal. Again, I said this was a local issue as pertained to "my vote in November."

I presume that internet gambling is considered interstate commerce, but in this case the regulatory change was to financial transaction regulations - governed by the Federal Banking laws.

Right. Well, thanks for taking my points regarding the social and financial costs of gambling seriously then.


True. Actually, from a free-market perspective, internet gambling could provide valuable competition and dissuade casinos from varying their rules to take advantage of newbies who don't understand the impact of the dealer hitting on soft 17, for example.


Hmm. Pursuit of happiness, maybe?

You're starting to convince me but I'm not fully there. Realistically, if the feds prohibit credit-card transactions to these casinos, what is going to take its place in terms of black market? We're talking billions of dollars here, so I'm assuming the feds would catch onto work-arounds like stored-value cards pretty quickly. Casinos want guarantee of payment in advance, and winners would want to be paid somehow. Maybe Steve Wynn could publish an Amazon "wish list" and you could buy him books and DVDs if you lose?

The sad answer to this is that I suspect the banking will also just go offshore, to less reputable institutions (as has most of the gaming already). I think this has already started to happen. This is worse for the participants, as they lose all the safeguards inherent in our institutions, and further drives the revenue off-shore. All without really doing much to impinge on the activity itself--ESPECIALLY not for the addictive types we would presumably be trying to protect.

Uncle?

Questions for debate:

1. Were you aware of this amendment before it was signed into law?

2. Will this affect your voting come November?

3. How will this effect the November mid-term elections?

4. Do you believe that online poker will eventually receive an exemption from this ban?

1. I found out about this after the bill was voted on

2. No it won't affect my vote

3. Hopefully Congress can repeal this bad amendment after the new Congress comes in Jan.

4. Actually I support what most in the Poker community have been calling for a long time regulating it like all casino's are regulated now to protect the interests of the player and the companies, because there are sites out there willing to ripe off unsuspecting people. Even though once they do and the reputation gets around they know they will lose business its different with the internet compared to an actual real business cause internet sites can be recreated overnite to get new unsuspecting people.

I completely agree with Hobbes and ConservPat on this issue and actually had this discussion while driving my mom somewhere recently and she saw this woman almost hit a cop car because the woman was on her cell phone. My mom remarked "driving while talking on a cell phone should be illegal", and I was like WHAT while yes there are stupid people that do stupid things, why should we punish everyone for the stuff that only a small amount of stupid people do. When we got home I showed her a site I often go to that talked about this exact issue with the online poker ban and another ban congress just passed recently under the Adam Walsh bill. We often talk about things like this and it refreshed her memory of what has been happening over the last few years of different rights that have been being chipped away so very slightly.Glenn Greenwald

There are so many issues that government tries to protect us from ourselves that they need not to. Whether its violent video games I would agree children shouldn't be playing them and yes some adults shouldn't be playing with them either, but people when they become a certain age and are of a sound mind and body need to be responsible for their actions . With that said I do believe government has a role in helping us better our lives as a society but not infringing on it.

Driver Distraction Causes Accidents


Driver In Fatal Crash Ticketed For Cell Phone Use


The Greenwald post you linked is typical of his "analysis." Those big, bad Republicans restricting our freedom. As if taxing death, regulating guns or mandating universal heath care wouldn't restrict our freedom. If you like Greenwald, you should read his sock puppets, Thomas Ellers," "Ryan," and "Wilson." He is truly multi-faceted.

I think cell-phone use in cars is something that should be regulated. A headset should be sufficient, at that point it's basically like talking to someone else in the car but without the distraction of them being in the vehicle with you or trying to hold the phone to your ear and talk. So a headset is a good compromise, not banning it outright.

Somehow I doubt the government had in mind the poor people that can get addicted to gambling and are attempting to stem it by banning bank transactions with gambling websites in the US (the web is worldwide so I see alot of ways around this) but to my understanding they don't get a cut of the action.

I remember watching a show called modern marvels on the discovery channel and they were talking about wine. A restaurant owner who wanted to build a wine processer (distiller?) inside his store so people could look at it up close. While he was looking through the govt. regulations he found that the main concern they have is getting the tax. So he has to label them and ship them to the government, then buys it back from them then sells it in his restaurant.

I don't have a problem regulating online gambling but attempting to ban it is just not justified at this point seeing as to how there isn't a huge exodus of people abusing it and destroying their lives, especially in the underhanded way it was passed. Let's regulate it but let's also be reasonable about it and not go throwing around the big "B" on it.

Besides the internet create's more competition which is almost always good for consumers which means it's good for the economy.

Not in all states, work blocks the TVG site so I can’t confirm which ones, but I know here in Kentucky you can bet on the horses over the phone. So why not apply the same law here?

Locally they’re putting the finishing touches on anti-smoking laws. It’s being made illegal in all public places with the exception of Churchill Downs (the horse track). Although I smoke and love to bet the ponies, I’m more than sickened by a single entity being give an exception because of their local power and influence.


Bingo. Whenever legislation like this (last second, unrelated addendum) hits the books you can almost guarantee the pressure came from those who were being squeezed the most. The irony with behind the scenes deal making while fighting gambling and other vices is the interesting bed fellows it makes. It nearly took down the Christian Coalition’s uber neo-con poster boy Ralph Reed:


When this legislation hit the press/web I thought it was the casino lobby that exerted their influence, but in today’s world you just can’t tell.

The libertarian/conservative in me agrees with the arguments made by CP and Hobbes. I’d just like to add that our country has a proven track record that when something is in demand by the public but the government legislates against it the only true benefactors are usually organized crime.

On the upcoming November election in Nevada, there’s a proposition to make pot legal up to one ounce (for non-medical use), setup government regulated stores, lay down a heavy tax and ear mark the tax revenues for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I’d like to see a similar tax-earmark-rehab service established in the gaming industry. An interesting side note here relating to my earlier comments about unusual bed fellows, this legislatin is being endoresed by churches!

I also think that gambling, either casinos or internet, should be a state or local issue.

I would agree Vampiel with regulations whether its with online poker, smoking ordinance, cell phone usage while driving etc.. Because as carlitoswhey showed how bad and evil driving with a cell phone can be some people shouldn't. But that shouldn't stop everyone, all you have to look at is police officers with their walkie talkies. My cell phone I use is a nextel phone so basically I have the same capablity as they do so I don't have the phone up to my head and I don't drive with both hands on the wheel anyways most times unless its raining or snowing.

But to get back to the what the thread is about I would rather have the government regulate rather than ban because there are so many work arounds that its impossible for them to completely ban it and this is not from someone that has any interest in online poker, just someone that hates seeing the encrouchment of government on us where its not necessary when it can and should be regulated much more successfully.

1. Were you aware of this amendment before it was signed into law?
Yes, I was. Unfortunately, there is very little that the average citizen can do to prevent the passing of legislation, particulary in an election year where the hopefuls have to be all things to all people.

2. Will this affect your voting come November?
Nope, I'm voting for whoever is not the incumbent, likely regardless of political affiliation.

3. How will this effect the November mid-term elections?
It won't. There aren't many candidates out there running on the "restore Internet gaming" platform, so I'm afraid that 95% of the general public are still not aware of the wool scratching their faces. I would love to be proven wrong, but I'd wager that I'm right. (yeah, bad pun... sorry about that)

4. Do you believe that online poker will eventually receive an exemption from this ban?
No way. Why would Congress provide an exemption for non-taxpaying entities to continue not paying taxes? If there was to be an exemption, it would be that US-based companies only could conduct online gaming activities under direct and impossibly difficult supervision, while forcing them to turn over a huge portion of their profits to Uncle Sam.


Alright, my main point in posting to this topic... Jaime sent me a link to The Agitator that is discussing this from a WTO perspective in relation to Antigua. Particulary, the post asserts that the US, according to the terms of our membership in the WTO, cannot ban any activity between WTO members that is allowed domestically.

From the post:


The retaliation mentioned is the rejection of US copyright and trademark laws, potentially establishing Antigua as a safe-haven for those who disagree with intellectual property law.

I have a feeling we haven't heard the end of this.



Mike

I know it's old, but here is an update from my email inbox. I played in a (legal) tournament and thus joined in the Poker Players Alliance, so get their correspondence. Glad Barney Frank is looking out for my freedom today!

- - - - - - - -

Dear Fellow PPA Member:

I have wonderful news to report! On Thursday, April 26, Rep. Barney Frank introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. HR 2046 will lift the prohibition on playing poker online. Your efforts are making a difference!

Representative Frank is the Chairman of the important House Financial Services Committee. And he understands the injustice that we have suffered. When he introduced the bill, he told reporters that “The existing legislation is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans and this interference should be undone”.

But he can’t do this job alone. Now, we need to help Congressman Frank build support for his bill.

You can regain your right to enjoy safe, secure online poker – but only if you stand up for your rights. And PPA is here to help you do just that.

This is a landmark day for freedom. But it is only the first step of the process. Join me in celebrating this milestone – and take action to build support for HR 2046.

Click here or below to make your voice heard in our nation’s Capitol.

Sincerely,
Michael Bolcerek
President
Poker Players Alliance