Conservatives screwing things up again...

[Selena_Kitt]

I don't believe the government does any kind of rehabilitation.

There are indeed government-funded rehabilitation programs for gambling addictions. Lots of them. And your tax dollars pay for them.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I do. Between prison programs, school counselling, and homeless/under-developed area assistances... I just kinda have to, y'know?

But those have nothing to do with gambling. There may be a Gamblers Anonymous in prison but the prison has nothing to do with the operation except for providing a place to meet.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

But those have nothing to do with gambling. There may be a Gamblers Anonymous in prison but the prison has nothing to do with the operation except for providing a place to meet.

There are both Out and Inpatient government funded treatment centers for gambling addictions in many, many states...

 

[angela146]

I have nothing really to say about businesses behaving honestly. But, and here's the issue on the table, is it the government's business to invest in people not behaving dishonestly /and/ people behaving in a way that is taxing to others?

Sure. The appropriate way of doing that is to legalize *and regulate* online gambling in order to ensure that it is fair and honest.

I wasn't comparing gambling to clothes shopping. I was comparing gambling on-line (a heavily masked ability to risk credit for actual money) to non-onling gambling (a significantly less masked ability to risk credit for actual money).

The same arugment could be made for the online version of any business activity versus the brick and mortar version of the activity.

You say the proposed law is intended to protect people from themselves, but surely there are arguments (and sound ones) to the effect that it is there to protect /the people/ from people (the former in the Constitutional sense, the latter in the individual agent sense).

OK, so make the argument(s).

Online checking accounts to make it hardly a bit more difficult for fraud. Routing and account numbers could = exploitation.

Which is true of any online business. The danger is that the casinos are not regulated and cannot be hauled into court if they defraud and exploit. The way you get to haul them into court is to make online gambling legal, create some rules of the road and enforce the rules (and you apply some taxes so that you can pay for the enforcement).

You say its a slippery slope (by virtue of mentioning unhealthy products and the like as well as erotica), but we already legislate against unhealthy things (drugs of various kinds, hazardous materials) online

We *regulate*. We don't *ban*. When we regulate hazardous materials and drugs, we do so in order to make sure that they are safe, effective and properly handled. We should do the same with online casinos.

and off as well as porn (child, as an example) online and off. The slope is already had it seems.

I have no problem with banning *children* from gambling for the same reason that we ban them from participating in pornography.

So, are we to say the government should not be in the business of making sure it does what the people want it to do? That would fly in the face of the democratic ideal, no?

Exactly. If a majority of the people want to ban something, they should only be able to do so when and if it interferes with the rights of others. Even then, they should do it in a way that is least restrictive of the rights of the minority who want to engage in the activity. So, for example, banning smoking in public buildings is OK [because of second hand smoke] but banning it in private homes is not OK.

You seem to want to compare this to looking at nudie pictures, but it should be noted that looking at nudie pictures doesn't have the same actual or potential economic or social drain that gambling would.

In your oppinion and in my oppinion. However, there are a lot of people who feel that sexuality is a moral drain on society just as there are those who feel that gambling is a moral drain on society. They are both wrong.

But, as long as there's a practical and actual division between someone stealing your credit card or bank account information and buying nudie access or ordering products or services with it and someone taking that information and risking your thousands of dollars for their thousands of gain /and/ someone risking thousands of dollars they haven't got ending up on the bankruptcy circuit (a confluence of possibility)... I think they're categorically different.

The stealing of credit card information and defrauding of credit cards has nothing to do with online gambling. *Any* business that accepts credit cards has the ability to defraud. The only reason that casinos are more dangerous in that respect is because we don't regulate them the way we do with any other business.

If we didn't regulate online businesses (whether they are clothing retailers, book sellers or whatever), they would defraud people left and right. The only reason that they don't is because we require them to file disclosure forms on a regular basis and we audit them to make sure that they behave themselves.

We should do exactly the same thing with online casinos: regulate, audit and tax.

 

[angela146]

The problem to the government is the sites are likely located out of the country. Since they can't get any of the action they want to ban them.

Lots of businesses are located outside of the US and we are able to regulate them all the time.

Besides, if you made it legal, much of the activity would move inside the US (and be handled by branches of the brick and mortar casino companies).

The online casinos would love to be able to say that they are regulated by the State of Nevada (or New Jersey or whatever) instead of the Kahnawake or the island of Gibraltar.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

So, for example, banning smoking in public buildings is OK [because of second hand smoke] but banning it in private homes is not OK.

Would you ban it because *children* are being exposed to secondhand smoke via their parents?

there's that slippery slope again... dagnabbit...

 

[angela146]

Would you ban it because *children* are being exposed to secondhand smoke via their parents?

there's that slippery slope again... dagnabbit...

Well, this is starting to drift off topic, but...

I might be tempted to put "smoking around children" in the same category as trigger locks for guns. In other words, treat it as a form of child endangerment. (In many localities you can get in big trouble if you leave an unlocked gun in a location where it can be accessed by a child).

So, I would not ban smoking per se, especially for people who don't have children. However, I might be willing to entertain the idea of not allowing people to expose children under a certain age to second hand smoke.

But back to the main point: there are some behaviors that we do not allow children to engage in or that we restrict the level of childhood involvement. Hence, there are a whole bunch of slippery slopes in that arena.

 

[rgraham666]

What are we arguing about again? I've forgotten.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The same arugment could be made for the online version of any business activity versus the brick and mortar version of the activity.

Not the same, a similar one surely--but not the same argument. The argument in question is that security with regard to online gambling is a more dire security risk (with regard to both opportunity and cost) than on-location gambling to a much greater extent than online clothes shopping is to on-location clothes shopping. The argument is premised on the ideas that there is a greater opportunity for more money to be lost in the online-versions, and even moreso with an industry designed to give someone opportunity to turn very little into very much (on top of losing that very little entirely with nothing to show, track, or ship for it).
So, yes, similar--but not same. Someone wastes your money on Gap.Com, and you're out money (that you'll presumably try to get back) and items ship to places and tracking things is possible on a shipping timetable. Someone wastes your money on Poker.Com, you just lost money instantly with nobody to run down and no shipping lag to help.

OK, so make the argument(s).

The existance of free credit is already legislated (and heavily) to, amongst other reasons, prevent abuse and spiralling of massive private debt on the part of your "average citizen"--which has ties to both societal well-being in the form of "not massively indebted citizens are less of an economic drain on the people" amongst other ones. If it is the case that gambling online, making the act available in homes at the convenience of risking large sums of credit (not money, but credit) for the chance to win money (not credit, but money), provides a greater risk for reliance on the credit institutions for individual budget and greater risk for abuse to the tune of "massively indebting citizens"; then, it would be in the government's interest to see to it that this was less available, at least, and unavailable, at best. The question, then, to answer is "does gambling online yield a greater drain on citizens in the form of greater credit debt?"

Which is true of any online business. The danger is that the casinos are not regulated and cannot be hauled into court if they defraud and exploit. The way you get to haul them into court is to make online gambling legal, create some rules of the road and enforce the rules (and you apply some taxes so that you can pay for the enforcement).We *regulate*. We don't *ban*. When we regulate hazardous materials and drugs, we do so in order to make sure that they are safe, effective and properly handled. We should do the same with online casinos.

We ban all the time. I can't get heroin, Traci Lords porno (except "Traci, I Love You"), or an eighteen year old prostitute anymore because of banning. I can't get certain kinds of assault rifles, or endangered species pets because of banning. We don't regulate everything, we seem to ban those things we consider "just a bit too far" into the gray area of freedom-and-poor-societal-investment. It may be that an eighteen year old getting his first credit card and blowing it in an afternoon on the hopes of winning a million dollars, or a forty-something housewife with the gold card winding up on public assistance and considering bankruptcy, are just the sort of situations we don't want to allow for--as a people. It would seem the vote would agree with that.

I have no problem with banning *children* from gambling for the same reason that we ban them from participating in pornography.Exactly. If a majority of the people want to ban something, they should only be able to do so when and if it interferes with the rights of others. Even then, they should do it in a way that is least restrictive of the rights of the minority who want to engage in the activity. So, for example, banning smoking in public buildings is OK [because of second hand smoke] but banning it in private homes is not OK.In your oppinion and in my oppinion. However, there are a lot of people who feel that sexuality is a moral drain on society just as there are those who feel that gambling is a moral drain on society. They are both wrong.The stealing of credit card information and defrauding of credit cards has nothing to do with online gambling. *Any* business that accepts credit cards has the ability to defraud. The only reason that casinos are more dangerous in that respect is because we don't regulate them the way we do with any other business.

Identity theft surely has something to do with online gambling. To say /nothing/? That's a much harder proposition to defend. You may want to argue that it has little to do with it (in which case I might argue that the encouragement of more efficient means of commerce is categorically different than encouragement of more efficient means of statistically just taking more peoples' money than you give back), but to say /nothing/? I just can't get behind that one.

If we didn't regulate online businesses (whether they are clothing retailers, book sellers or whatever), they would defraud people left and right. The only reason that they don't is because we require them to file disclosure forms on a regular basis and we audit them to make sure that they behave themselves.

I don't think I can agree with your proposed causation. Or that the "only reason they don't defraud us all" is quite as simple. Its an awful pessimistic view of business owners and practices (but, beyond the pessimism, it's hardly a sound position).

We should do exactly the same thing with online casinos: regulate, audit and tax.

Banning them seems to work, though, too.

 

[Guest]

 

[JamesSD]

I'm mostly only mad about poker. People who play online casinos are suckers, unless they view it as spending money for entertainment and excitement. But Poker is a game of skill. Sure, there is luck to it, (it ain't chess), and in the end the house always takes its cut. But as someone who has won a decent chunk of change playing online poker, I really don't want that taken away from me damn it!

More does need to be done to protect minors from online gambling. Still, as it is, it's very hard for minors to lose money online. You really need to at least have a checking account.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I have nothing really to say about businesses behaving honestly. But, and here's the issue on the table, is it the government's business to invest in people not behaving dishonestly /and/ people behaving in a way that is taxing to others?...

This law doesn't really do anything to manage societal risk, though. CC companies (ie, banks) aren't required to be accepted at online casinos, or anywhere else for that matter. Personal bankruptcy laws have already been tightened to the point where individuals are screwed far more than creditors, even for things like costs of healthcare. In terms of 'societal good', this Congress and Administration has only made it a lot tougher for people to escape their debts, and attributing this online gambling bill to some sort of true desire for reducing societal costs just ignores the overall thrust of their legislation history.

Banks which issue credit cards are experts in managing risk. The whole hesitancy to accept online use of credit cards early in the Internet era was because they had no history to base their risk calculations on. Banks have stopped dealing with online companies that have too high a rate of charge reversals in the past, and they set credit limits on an individual basis.

There's really no governmental risk at all, except the possible loss of tax revenues or shift of state-sponsored gambling revenue to commercial gambling revenue.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Not the same, a similar one surely--but not the same argument. The argument in question is that security with regard to online gambling is a more dire security risk (with regard to both opportunity and cost) than on-location gambling to a much greater extent than online clothes shopping is to on-location clothes shopping. The argument is premised on the ideas that there is a greater opportunity for more money to be lost in the online-versions, and even moreso with an industry designed to give someone opportunity to turn very little into very much (on top of losing that very little entirely with nothing to show, track, or ship for it).
So, yes, similar--but not same. Someone wastes your money on Gap.Com, and you're out money (that you'll presumably try to get back) and items ship to places and tracking things is possible on a shipping timetable. Someone wastes your money on Poker.Com, you just lost money instantly with nobody to run down and no shipping lag to help....

Identity theft surely has something to do with online gambling. To say /nothing/? That's a much harder proposition to defend. You may want to argue that it has little to do with it (in which case I might argue that the encouragement of more efficient means of commerce is categorically different than encouragement of more efficient means of statistically just taking more peoples' money than you give back), but to say /nothing/? I just can't get behind that one...

Again, Identity theft, credit default, credit limits, charge reversals... Banks manage these things amazingly well. Credit divisions are highly profitable, due largely to a lot of deregulation over the last couple of decades. North (or South, I forgot) Dakota would be even more of a wasteland than it is, were it not for their bank-friendly credit laws and the court decision that found that it was the state where the card issuer was located, not the state where the cardholder was located, that determined the credit agreement applied to the account.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

But... and correct me if I'm wrong, of course... is it not the government's business to (1) promote or encourage social welfare and societal wellbeing /and/ (2) protect people and business from fiscal hazards?

OK I will correct you: You are wrong. That is not government's function. Its function is to prevent invaders from taking over our country, arrest and lock up criminals, and establish authoritative adjudication procedures for civil disputes. We have also given it a role in facilitating the instrumentalities of commerce, like roads etc., but much more than the first three items that role could theoretically be accomplished by other means. Your "government's business Nos. 1 and 2" are completely open ended; to the extent government is given a role in those things you are giving it the authority to micromanage every aspect of your life, as a parent to a child - bedtime, dinner menu, relationships with friends, etc. If you accept that those things are its role then in principle you have no complaint about this legislation and a thousand similar laws.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

OK I will correct you: You are wrong.

There is a difference between making a point (Huck made several good ones) and being a dick.

You're more than flirting with the latter. You may or may not care, but its worth mentioning.

 

[R. Richard]

So, why not legalize it? Then they can have their piece of the action and they can regulate it.

The Internet gambling operations are in foreign countries. Even if the government makes it legal, they get no cut. Therefore, the government will not make it legal.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There is a difference between making a point (Huck made several good ones) and being a dick.

You're more than flirting with the latter. You may or may not care, but its worth mentioning.

You are right. I apologize. I do care. I was drunbk-ish when I wrote that (not an excuse, just background info) and thought I was being cute. I asserted an extreme position in a simplistic way without making any argument. My sincere view is actually a bit less extreme, and is not simplistic. I can provide the premises on which my view is based, and others can accept or reject them. At that point the conversation ends for time being while both sides gather evidence to confirm or disconfirm the premises. We come back in a week or a year or a century with the additional data and match it up. Maybe one side or another revises some or all of their premises.

But I did not do any of those things. Sorry. WWCD - I'll try to do better.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

But... and correct me if I'm wrong, of course... is it not the government's business to (1) promote or encourage social welfare and societal wellbeing /and/ (2) protect people and business from fiscal hazards?

I have one question about this Joe. Can you show/quote in the Constitution these two items? After re-reading it I am sorry to say that I just can't seem to find anyting in the contitution that covers these.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Joe Wordsworth
But... and correct me if I'm wrong, of course... is it not the government's business to (1) promote or encourage social welfare and societal wellbeing /and/ (2) protect people and business from fiscal hazards?

I have one question about this Joe. Can you show/quote in the Constitution these two items? After re-reading it I am sorry to say that I just can't seem to find anyting in the contitution that covers these.

I will offer one opinion: The "general welfare" clause has been used to justfy No. 1, although I believe that the drafters had a very different meaning in mind, and my belief can be supported with evidence. On No. 2, it would be impossible to make a case that the founders beleived the government has a role in protecting individuals from their own folly. Many of them may have thought anti-gambling laws were legit on moral grounds that probably all of those on this site do not accept, but I'm guessing on that. The founders addressed the government's role in establishing currency, which could be included under "fiscal hazards" in a sense. Anti-fraud laws likewise. But both of those are protecting individuals against others, not against themselves.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I will offer one opinion: The "general welfare" clause has been used to justfy No. 1, although I believe that the drafters had a very different meaning in mind, and my belief can be supported with evidence. On No. 2, it would be impossible to make a case that the founders beleived the government has a role in protecting individuals from their own folly. Many of them may have thought anti-gambling laws were legit on moral grounds that probably all of those on this site do not accept, but I'm guessing on that. The founders addressed the government's role in establishing currency, which could be included under "fiscal hazards" in a sense. Anti-fraud laws likewise. But both of those are protecting individuals against others, not against themselves.

Well I guess you could make an arguement about both after reading just the preamble, but only if you never read any further. It is my under standing what the constitution does is limit the government in what it does, not tell the government what it can do!

But I guess that may depend on who taught you about the Constitution

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

But I guess that may depend on who taught you about the Constitution.

Gosh, I hope we can do better than that. There are different interpretations to be sure; some are more plausible than others, and have more evidence to back them up, but a legitmate case can be made for others, and individuals can judge for themselves based on logic and the evidence. Then you get into the whole "living constitution" debate, which in my view is a slippery slope toward no constitution at all. That debate is less amenable to factual evidence and logic, and instead is one of those "fundamentally different premises" things.

 

[JamesSD]

The Internet gambling operations are in foreign countries. Even if the government makes it legal, they get no cut. Therefore, the government will not make it legal.

They're in foreign countries now because it's illegal. Dozens of US based sites would spring up tommorrow if it was legalized.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Well I guess you could make an arguement about both after reading just the preamble, but only if you never read any further. It is my under standing what the constitution does is limit the government in what it does, not tell the government what it can do!

But I guess that may depend on who taught you about the Constitution

The Bill of Rights and other amendments spell out what the government is not allowed to do but Articles I through VII describe the various duties of the different branches. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 says that Congress shall have power to pass laws to carry out their assigned duties. Paragraph 1 says they are to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and the combination of these two might give them the authority. That would be up to the courts to decide.

 

[angela146]

The Internet gambling operations are in foreign countries. Even if the government makes it legal, they get no cut. Therefore, the government will not make it legal.

A lot of the business would actually move *into* the US if it was made legal.

Two reasons:

1. The Las Vegas and Atlantic City casino companies would get into the act.

2. Many of the offshore casino companies would dearly love to have the "seal of approval" of being regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission.

The ones who moved their "official residense" into the US would have more credibility than the ones that did not and would tend to crowd the others out the business.

The taxes they would pay to the government (maybe 20% of net revenue?) would be more than offset by the explosion of business that would result from being one of the "legitimate" online outfits that was actually regulated by the same folks who regulate Las Vegas.

 

[angela146]

The Bill of Rights and other amendments spell out what the government is not allowed to do but Articles I through VII describe the various duties of the different branches. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 says that Congress shall have power to pass laws to carry out their assigned duties. Paragraph 1 says they are to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and the combination of these two might give them the authority. That would be up to the courts to decide.

Actually, Congress proabably has the authority to do this because of another part of Section 8, namely the power:

"...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Regulating interstate/international commerce gets them in a lot of doors.

My contention is not that they *can't* ban banking transactions to online casinos. My contention is that they *shouldn't* do so.