Excellent editorial from Vegas paper on gambling bills

[JC]

Thanks to Clevfan for the find.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-08-Sat-2006/news/8380849.html

EDITORIAL: Internet gambling

Why must everything be taxed, regulated or banned outright?

You don't need a calendar to know elections are around the corner. Just watch House Republicans -- the purported advocates of limited government -- advance constituent-pleasing legislation that expands the regulatory state and criminalizes victimless behavior.

Proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and flag desecration were big hits with loyal conservatives. And now, to further please the "family values" bunch, House Republicans are set to pass legislation that would make it almost impossible -- and illegal -- for Americans to place bets with offshore Internet gambling sites.

A bill sponsored by Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa, which would prohibit credit card companies from making transactions with virtual casinos, is expected to pass the full House next week. The bill could be combined with separate legislation from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., which explicitly bans gambling over the Internet.

Internet gambling is a growing, $12 billion to $15 billion per year industry with millions of U.S. customers. Like every other form of Internet commerce, virtual casinos and sports books draw their popularity from convenience. Gamblers don't have to leave their homes and trek to a casino.

But those who oppose gambling on moral or religious grounds and fight the construction of casinos in their communities can't stand the fact that gambling can enter their neighborhoods through personal computers. For these people, the solution is to introduce a regulatory presence on the Internet -- how many bureaucrats would be needed to enforce such a law? -- and authorize even more federal snooping on financial transactions.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., has sponsored alternative legislation to authorize an 18-month federal study of Internet gambling. Among the bill's 47 co-sponsors are Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. Rep. Porter's bill, which is supported by the American Gaming Association, could lead to support for regulated, taxed virtual casinos based in Nevada. That legislation is now all but dead.

But why does everything have to be taxed, regulated or banned outright? Why can't Congress simply keep its mitts off the Internet and let Americans choose whether and how to risk their money in games of chance?

If, in fact, a bill to outlaw Internet wagering clears the House, the Senate should let it die of neglect.

[SBR_John]

Looks like our hopes will hinge on Senate inaction. Looking more like it will pass and be signed by Bush.

[isetcap]

I'm not sure I would classify that as an excellent editorial. In fact if I had an 11-year old child I would hope that he/she could put together a better commentary than that on such a rich topic.

I guess if your a gambling advocate and your looking for someone to encapsulate a thoughtless opinion then this is a great editorial.

Unfortunately I don't think we as gamblers need to pat each other on the back and hope that is enough. I'd rather see an editorial that causes people who aren't gamblers to give unbiased consideration to our position. I would consider that an excellent editorial.

[JC]

I thought it was excellent because it articulated a position I have aften said myself. whether it be gamblings, drugs, or other.

Too often when people discuss making a vice legal someone always says, "Yeah, and then they can tax it." Well how about just getting off people's back without getting a piece of the pie. That's why I liked it.

[kalmikrazy]

Even if they banned online gaming, could one not still call a pinny or greek and still place a bet over the phone? They are usually 800 or 866 numbers.

[Ganchrow]

I thought it was excellent because it articulated a position I have aften said myself. whether it be gamblings, drugs, or other.

Too often when people discuss making a vice legal someone always says, "Yeah, and then they can tax it." Well how about just getting off people's back without getting a piece of the pie. That's why I liked it.

A man after my own heart.

Check out this opinion piece on gambling prhibition in general by Reason's Magazine's Nick Gillespie: Wagers of Sin - Dealing with the anti-gambling backlash.

Over the past two years, the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling has stymied casino and slot-machine plans in 23 states. The backlash is worth pausing over not only because it threatens yet another personal liberty but because it also allows insight into the prohibitionist mindset.

Prohibitionists are in the difficult position of telling people that certain choices are so misguided that they simply can no longer be allowed. But since the targeted behavior is usually highly popular and widespread, prohibitionists must redefine it as an unconditional evil that cannot be resisted, even by men and women of character. Ironically, in the name of morality, prohibitionists must strip individuals of the right to make moral decisions.

This is certainly the case with gambling, where opponents traffic in metaphors of invasion and addiction that define bettors as passive victims. The Rev. Tom Grey, the Methodist minister who heads the NCALG, describes himself as "a man committed to all-out war" against the "predator" gambling industry. The middle Americans who fill the casinos, you see, don't really want to spin the wheel, throw the dice, or take the chance. Pat Buchanan rails that "gambling should return to the swamp whence it came," ignoring the fact that 125 million Americans willingly choose to go to casinos every year. MORE

[Ganchrow]

Another Reason editorial on the Goodlatte bill.

Excerpt:

The online gambling ban, which dictates what adults may do with their own money on their own computers in their own homes, is part of what Republicans proudly call their "American Values Agenda." Evidently those values do not include privacy, freedom of choice, individual responsibility, or free markets.

Goodlatte wants us to know he likes the Internet just fine—as long as no one uses it to do anything of which he disapproves. "The Internet has transformed the way we communicate, how we work, the things we buy and the way we buy them," he says. It "has created thousands of new businesses, tens of thousands of new jobs and made our lives more efficient." But it also has brought "some unfortunate challenges" such as online gambling, the prohibition of which "is a critical first step in eliminating this scourge."

Given how people who are not Bob Goodlatte actually use the Internet, it is striking that his list of benefits does not include any reference to entertainment. ...