Congressional Hearing Provides Momentum to Reverse Internet Gambling Prohibition

[JeffreyS]

In another promising sign for reversing the prohibition of internet gambling, representatives of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and financial services sector testified before Congress yesterday that the proposed rules to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) are unworkable.

The witnesses, including representatives of the American Bankers Association and Financial Services Roundtable, unanimously agreed that U.S. financial services companies would face serious regulatory burdens in attempting to enforce UIGEA, a law that is not likely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online.

There has been significant media coverage of the hearing, some of which can be viewed on our web site. Here is an editorial from today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal.

We believe that rather than trying to implement a ban that is unclear, burdensome and doomed to fail, Congress should instead look to regulate Internet gambling.

To learn more and contact your elected representatives to support regulation, we encourage you to visit www.safeandsecureig.org.

Thanks.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[kres24GT]

The Casino lobby is what got this bill passed in the first place. Casinos have a lot of money, will be tough to outbid them.

[disrupter]

I am sort of split on this.
Can government, should government try to protect citizens from themselves?

My libertarian side says let adults do as they will, you are going to find it difficult/impossible to stop the all the determined ones.

My decent government/community side knows there can be tragic consequences for families of addicted gamblers.

Maybe small wager gambling should be allowed, while trying to do something to restrict or minimize reckless large wagering.

I suppose ultimately education is the best tool to get people on the edges to avoid reckless gambling, while understanding that a very small percentage will simply do what they compulsively can not control.

Perhaps a small tax on gambling that goes towards research understanding the roots of & managing destructive compulsive behavior.

[kres24GT]

I am sort of split on this.
Can government, should government try to protect citizens from themselves?

My libertarian side says let adults do as they will, you are going to find it difficult/impossible to stop the all the determined ones.

My decent government/community side knows there can be tragic consequences for families of addicted gamblers.

Maybe small wager gambling should be allowed, while trying to do something to restrict or minimize reckless large wagering.

I suppose ultimately education is the best tool to get people on the edges to avoid reckless gambling, while understanding that a very small percentage will simply do what they compulsively can not control.

Perhaps a small tax on gambling that goes towards research understanding the roots of & managing destructive compulsive behavior.



Like I said, you will always revert back to your big government matters when freedom is one the line.


I can gamble responsibly, but others cannot, so we have to try and make it illegal. If gambling is wrong, then why is it legal some places? Because those places have enough money to influence government to keep it legal.

Make people responsible for themselves. Stop bailing people out of poor decisions, stop making it where they can't make bad decisions. If it is the job of government to make sure we don't act foolishly with our money they should seize 100% of our income and spend it as they think it is best for us to spend it.

[disrupter]

I can rob you at gun point, just exercising my adult free will.

How hep are you with that?

You are a hypocrite too.

[kres24GT]

I can rob you at gun point, just exercising my adult free will.

How hep are you with that?

You are a hypocrite too.

If I agree to let you rob me at gunpoint, yes, although by definition you cannot rob me if I am willing. Easy distinction between forcing someone to do something under duress and individuals willingly doing things in agreement.

You are not this stupid, but good try pretending to be.

[bigfootzx]

Screw this, this stinks of wall street and its desire to game the system. First they repeal the law, then they teach the casinos how to better cheat customers, then they teach casinos how to hide the crimes and finally, the investigations and the "we neither admit nor deny any wrong doing".

Doesn't this remind anyone of the mortgage crisis and the repeal of the glass stegal act?? It all started in 1991. Making the industry safer is like saying trust us were the "real and honest" online casinos. Ever been to a casino, many have shifted to electronic games...... no more cards. The odds are even greater in their favor........another great idea sure, but weren't people already losing money before techology hit the table??

[disrupter]

You are right kres i am not that stupid,
i would shoot you in the back & take what i wanted,
no witnesses to impune me.

You PRESUME there is some set of things it is ok for government to enforce & some that it is NOT.

That is absurdly arbitrary, especially when the things i speak of are about the survival of YOU & the rest of humanity.

The gunman doesn't agree to your 'agreement',
is it 'ok' to force him through government fiat to stop intimidating or shooting people?

Your whole position is baseless and INCONSISTENT.

YOU ARE A FENCE SITTER,
playing it one way here,
& another there.

Ficklely going this way & that way on a whim.
Maybe your panties are wedgied & you aren't thinking straight.
ha ha.