OPINION & EDITORIAL
Gambling ban nonsense
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
- Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
- Pakistan nears extremism (November 9, 2007)
- ASM grocery store deserves chance (November 2, 2007)
- Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Online Gambling should be legalized (March 11, 2005)
- Bingo! Casino a no-no (January 29, 2004)
- Protect freedom, promote gambling (February 2, 2004)
- Students should take responsiblity for credit card debts (April 12, 2007)
- Fact vs. Spin (February 12, 2004)
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, October 13, 2006
Slightly less than two weeks ago, the U.S. Congress passed an anti-terrorism bill that was supposed to improve security at the nation's ports. However, as with many important spending bills, this particular bill contained additional legislation, which attempts to shutdown the online gambling industry. The act specifies that online gamblers are unable to use credit cards, that gambling companies cannot accept credit cards, checks or other fund transfers, and that it is illegal for banks and credit card companies to process online gambling payments.
Personally, I have never tried online gambling. In fact, I rarely gamble, though I do sometimes enjoy it. However, several of my friends have tried online poker and occasionally play. Now, as with any activity, including drinking alcohol, eating or even taking vitamins, as long as moderation rules, the activity is not usually harmful. Furthermore, these are all legal activities. The same rule of moderation applies to online gambling. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it unless people stop exercising their judgment. At this level, online gambling is no different from many other activities that people might spend money on to occupy their time.
A further concern in this area is that gambling offline is acknowledged as perfectly legal provided a person is over 18 or 21, depending on the state. The federal government allows this gambling to exist, whether in Las Vegas, on Native American reservations or in horse racing. The federal government should not give preferential treatment to these established forms of gambling when online gambling in its pre-ban form was just as legitimate.
Supporters of this bill cite the dangers of underage users participating in online gambling as well as the possibility of some losing their life savings doing it. The hypocrisy of the proponents of this bill is astounding. After all, it's not like people could ever lose money at a casino, right? Or their life savings? Or their house or their marriage? As can be clearly demonstrated, this argument makes no sense. As for underage users, this is also nonsensical. If the most common way to gamble is to use a credit card, how do minors achieve access to these? I suspect most credit card companies would turn down an application for a regular credit card from a 16-year-old. This absolutely screams "parental problem" to me.
The most pressing concern above arbitrarily legislating what forms of gambling are legal is the spirit of this type of legislation. After a certain point, government needs to step aside and let people make their own decisions. The evolution of the "nanny" state that helps protect people from themselves represents an unnecessary intrusion into the lives of citizens. The responsibility for restraint in every activity should rest on individuals. If they screw up, it's their fault and they can deal with the consequences. The burden of interventionist government should not be shared by those capable of regulating themselves and taking responsibility for their actions.
Now that I've got that little libertarian kick out of my system, let's talk about whether this legislation has any hope of even working. This legislation will probably cut many casual online gamblers out of the market. However, plenty of loopholes exist in the law for a semi-determined person to get around them. For instance, U.S. law applies only to U.S. banks. Some offshore bank in the Caiman Islands would have no problem routing a payment to an online gambling company. Therein lies another problem. Driving online gambling underground raises the possibility of fraud. All the large and formerly reputable online gambling companies have withdrawn from the U.S. market. This leaves smaller fringe companies who are willing to take risks and more likely to steal your money.
This attempt to ban online gambling is destined to fail for the same reason that the Prohibition of the 1920s failed: People who want to gamble still can. Whether online or in a casino or at a racetrack, gambling is not disappearing. Furthermore, the choice in this matter should not be for Congress to decide. The government could have chosen to regulate the industry, maybe even tax it. Instead, they made an absolute choice that is unpalatable and unenforceable.
Andrew Wagner (aawagner@wisc.edu) is sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
Anonymous (October 13, 2006 @ 7:51am):
The government is going to tell you that al Qaeda is running all the online gambling sites. Therefore, gambling online supports terror.
You know what else supports terror? Filling your gas tank. Ironically, no one is trying to stop us from funneling money to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran.
Thanks, Uncle Sam. Way to keep your eye on the ball.
Anonymous (October 13, 2006 @ 2:54pm):
For the most part Andrew covered the main topics on the issue but one statement is completely wrong.
"All the large and formerly reputable online gambling companies have withdrawn from the U.S. market."
Party Poker just withdrew from the market today. PokerStars, Full Tilt, and Ultimate Bet will not withdraw.
The fraud concern is not much of a concern for players as long as familiar sites remain.
Also, you left out a huge piece of information: Gambling in Wisconsin is illegal. Wisconsin is one of nine states that has explicitly prohibited placing "bets" on the internet. So, it doesn't really matter that Congress passed this legislation.
I'll continue to play poker and i'll continue to pay taxes on those winnings in Minnesota because Wisconsin can kiss my a$$.
-Mr. Pirate
Anonymous (October 14, 2006 @ 7:53am):
I applaud your post...I tried to express this to many, and can only say that most people had no idea. I truly think this may well be the most cowardly act of late in our country's history. They never gave a chance for the public to vote before it was a law. I think balance is key, but consider poker a game of skill, and have visions of all the new ways to get money from the most trusting...our seniors...We, as a country could have regulated it, and
used the proceeds to fund much needed programs...bleh...that was too easy...so we attach it to a bill for port security. I say they are cowards. Your post is well written, and thank you for addressing this issue. Lady Daughtery
Anonymous (October 15, 2006 @ 6:09pm):
Since I enjoy reading many of these comments, I've decided that in the future, I'll try to respond myself to some of them.
The second post states "For the most part Andrew covered the main topics on the issue but one statement is completely wrong.
"All the large and formerly reputable online gambling companies have withdrawn from the U.S. market.""
I apologize for somewhat overemphasizing the withdrawl. However, many companies, especially several large UK based companies have left. BetOnSports, SportingBet, World Gaming, and 888 Holdings are just among a few of the companies affected. The legislation does not just ban poker, but also affects sports betting.
I did not know about the Wisconsin ban. Quite a shame...
Anonymous (October 17, 2006 @ 10:14pm):
but betting on horse races is still legal
Milf Crusier (November 16, 2006 @ 3:36am):
ELEVEN Carlisle women have stripped off to raise cash for families hit by the crash of the Farepak hamper firm.
national dental insurance (December 11, 2006 @ 7:49pm):
I've just been letting everything wash over me. I've pretty much been doing nothing. I've just been sitting around not getting anything done.
I've just been letting everything wash over me. I've pretty much been doing nothing. I've just been sitting around not getting anything done.
I've just been letting everything pass me by. Shrug. Basically not much notable going on lately.
