[bigboydan]

Internet proposal garbles unclear gambling policy


Article Last Updated: 08/16/2007 05:33:31 AM PDT

ASSUMING THAT a proposed initiative from someone named "Tuff-Fish" is serious about bringing California into the Internet poker business, we suggest that anyone interested in signing this petition to first take a tough look at the contents and ramifications.

A measure authored by maverick online gambling enthusiast Anthony Sandstrom would create a state-run Internet poker agency. The proposal would order the state to establish a state-owned Internet poker site within 150 days of adoption. The state would also have to lay out game rules and mandates that players must be at least 21 years old, assuming that restriction can be enforced.

In addition, there are carrots for Indian casinos and other gambling establishments that would set up revenue sharing deals. Card rooms even like the idea. But before anything takes place, initiative supporters need to gather 430,000 signatures by the end of the year to qualify for the Feburary 2008 ballot.

Analysts say California is the world's online poker capital, but it also true that the state could be missing out on some revenue. Before we put our John Hancocks on Tuff-Fish's proposal, some things need to be considered.

One, there's nothing concrete as to how much revenue California would receive, especially considering that gambling establishments are already standing in line for their share. Sandstrom says a small stream of revenue would go to cities and counties to fix local roads. But since billions of Internet
Advertisement
dollars comes from — and through — this state, a "small stream" doesn't sound big enough. We're not convinced that the state or local jurisdictions are even getting their fair share of Indian casino revenue.

Then, if such a proposal gets through, court battles are likely to ensue with gambling stakeholders and, since federal law isn't clear on the issue, this could be tied up in courts for years, flushing more money down the slot machine.

And where does such a proposal really take California? We already have live horse racing, satellite wagering, local card rooms, numerous versions of the lottery and casinos. The state really hasn't planned very well for the ever-increasing avenues of gambling. Are we at the point now where we were with marijuana and prostitution — do we outlaw gambling or legalize it, knowing people will do it anyway and the state could gain revenue?

California thus far has done a poor job of establishing policy, structuring and regulating gambling in the state.

Californians need to read the fine print in Sandstrom's initiative before signing it. We must know the specifics of where the revenue is going, how much the state, counties and cities will benefit, and if the revenue has certain earmarks. And we must consider the bigger picture and implications of legalizing another form of gambling in this state. Then ask yourself, do we really want to go down this path?

[rugbybdyb]

Do you know if this would allow players from other states to participate? It would be pretty hard to keep them out.