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 ([email protected]) is sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
