Online gambling facing a lot of opposition

posted at 10:31 am on November 30, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Sheldon Adelson gained a lot of national attention during the 2012 election for his massive financial support of Newt Gingrich. The source of Adelson’s wealth was also a prominent topic of discussion in the media, given that he runs a number of casinos around the world. Now Adelson is back in the news, this time leading the charge to stop online gambling from taking hold in the United States.

Andy Abboud, senior vice president of government relations for the Las Vegas Sands Corporation — whose CEO is Republican and pro-Israel mega-donor Sheldon Adelson — gave a presentation on the dangers of online gambling at a Nov. 10 meeting of the RAGA.

His presentation included poll results suggesting Americans oppose online gambling; technical warnings that it can be manipulated; and even a glimpse of an unusual campaign against the practice with the slogan that “online gambling just takes gambling too far” — a remarkable departure for an industry that typically insists its business be called “gaming” not “gambling.”

At the same event, David J. Satz, senior vice president of government affairs for one of Adelson’s competitors, Caesar’s Entertainment Corporation, also made a presentation to the RAGA on Nov. 10 in favor of tightly regulated, legal online gambling.

Adelson’s presentation seemed to focus on social protection issues, claiming that the technology was too open to abuse where consumers could be ripped off. He also said that it would be more difficult to keep children from being involved and nearly impossible to stop people who were too inebriated to make responsible decisions about wagering from playing, all of which can be better handled at land based casinos such as his.

If you’re finding yourself feeling a bit cynical and wondering if Adelson might just have some ulterior motive in his opposition, your suspicions might not be too far off base.

But Adelson also thinks that online gambling is “suicidal” for the U.S. casino industry in the long run and will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. In the short-term, Adelson predicts that U.S. casinos could make money from their branded offerings online, but that non-branded web sites would quickly saturate the market with financial incentives that casino-branded offerings would inevitably need to match to stay competitive, eating away at their profit margins. At the same time, Adelson claims, the casinos would be cannibalizing their existing land-based businesses, eventually hurting their revenues and making them vulnerable.

Obviously, none of this makes the two arguments mutually exclusive. One could, I suppose, have concerns about the effects of online gambling on various people and still be worried about their own business profitability. But somehow I don’t think his objections would be quite this strenuous if the home of online gambling could be restricted to Vegas.

While realizing that gambling addicts may have even easier ways to wreck their lives if online poker becomes widely available in the US, I don’t find it a very compelling argument. People are responsible for their own decisions, and just as a drug addict will eventually find a way to get their hands on that next hit, a gambler will find a game someplace. During the relatively brief time that online gaming sites like PokerStars were up and running for Americans with real money games, I’ll admit that I was playing there. I found it enjoyable and never had more than a hundred bucks tied up in it. (When they shut down access, they kept my $67.00 but I’ll just have to live with that.) People asked me more than once why I used the site, pointing out how easy it would be for the owners to rig the software and rip off the users. My attitude was, of course the game is rigged. But you win sometimes anyway and it’s fun.

Frankly, I think if there’s a regulated version of online poker going through established American gaming companies, there’s at least a slight chance of it being more honest and above board. But given how much money is at stake and the inevitable questions which will arise regarding how easily the federal government can get their hands in the pockets of the players and the owners, I wouldn’t call this plan a sure thing.

For more on this, here’s a video of Chuck Todd interviewing some of Adelson’s representatives on the subject.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Adelson’s concern for the people is so touching. If a person lost his life savings at one of his casinos, I’m sure Adelson would refund the money, right? And for the record Sheldon, I don’t need you to help protect me from myself.

Flange on November 30, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Hey Jazz, I appreciate your effort to counter the often unstated impression that it is men who are gambling addicts by using a front page image that shows only women gambling.

Dusty on November 30, 2013 at 10:47 AM

“While realizing that gambling addicts may have even easier ways to wreck their lives if online poker becomes widely available in the US, I don’t find it a very compelling argument.” – J.Z

Uh Huh. And what about the inevitable societal ruin? While compulsive gambling is not a recognized “addiction”, just ask the families of those who have squandered their family’s food and rent money. Unfortunately, the “players” cannot be vetted.
Allowing these “games” to be played over the Internet from ones basement in the middle of the night is not a good idea. This is one of the very rare instances in which I must side with the “nanny state”.
To be sure, I have enjoyed betting on sporting events, poker games, and sometimes not-so-friendly dice games for decades, I must agree with those who see this as a threat – no matter their motivation(s).
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on November 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM

That picture on the front page is all wrong. It should be a copy of that “Dogs Playing Poker on Velvet” image. Get a Clue!

ExpressoBold on November 30, 2013 at 10:55 AM

A slight edit to bring perspective:

But Adelson also thinks that online gambling the horseless carriage is “suicidal” for the U.S. casino tack and buggy industry in the long run and will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Henry Ford: Destroyer of jobs and the American way.

BobMbx on November 30, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I think it is noteworthy that in most reputable studies on gambling, the social costs of allowing gambling far outweigh any benefit to the state or federal government in the form of taxes. In other words, there are social costs paid by the state for bankruptcy, divorce, etc that result from gambling. For this reason, my tendency toward allowing people the freedom to do as they please has has run headlong into the realization that voting more access to the gaming industry is leading lambs to their slaughter. I think this is a bad idea.

STL_Vet on November 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Hey Jazz, I appreciate your effort to counter the often unstated impression that it is men who are gambling addicts by using a front page image that shows only women gambling.

Dusty on November 30, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Dusty:0
===========

*********** War on Women *******!!

(Jazz, I’m kidding)

canopfor on November 30, 2013 at 11:04 AM

What are the odds this will work?

platypus on November 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM

(Jazz, I’m kidding)

canopfor on November 30, 2013 at 11:04 AM

No, you’re not. You Cannooks just pretend to be sarcastic. Deep down, you’re just …

platypus on November 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM

He’s like a dry county bootlegger sitting in the front pew.

Knott Buyinit on November 30, 2013 at 11:08 AM

canopfor on November 30, 2013 at 11:04 AM

No, you’re not. You Cannooks just pretend to be sarcastic. Deep down, you’re just …

platypus on November 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM

platypus:Lol, d*mmitt, you have seen through my “Stealth Politeness”:)

canopfor on November 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM

My personal opinion:

If you think you’re ‘gambling’, and there is a microchip involved, you’re sadly mistaken.

trigon on November 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM

The problem with online gambling is that, once it gets established, you’d probably be playing against someone who is using a computer to play statistically perfect poker, and doing it for a living. There’s nothing fun about that.

Fenris on November 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM

The problem with online gambling is that, once it gets established, you’d probably be playing against someone who is using a computer to play statistically perfect poker, and doing it for a living. There’s nothing fun about that.

Fenris on November 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Have you seen that movie Now You See Me?

platypus on November 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Have you seen that movie Now You See Me?

platypus on November 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Haven’t heard of it, I don’t see a lot of movies in theater unless they beg for the big screen. But it looks like a fun film now that I’ve read the entire plot, LOL.

Fenris on November 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Fenris on November 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

It is a fun film. Ignore Rotten Tomatoes – their name reveals their desire.

platypus on November 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Allowing these “games” to be played over the Internet from ones basement in the middle of the night is not a good idea. This is one of the very rare instances in which I must side with the “nanny state”.
To be sure, I have enjoyed betting on sporting events, poker games, and sometimes not-so-friendly dice games for decades, I must agree with those who see this as a threat – no matter their motivation(s).
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on November 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM

“It is/isn’t a good idea” has been used to justify more government tyranny in my short (35 years) lifetime, let alone throughout history. Perhaps you should re-examine this sentiment, particularly in light of the fact that you have gambled in the past yourself. There are few people in the world more annoying than reformed addicts on a crusade.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Hmm, on one hand the government directly runs gambling operations which they heavily advertise specifically to poor people. On the other hand, they want to protect me from the “wrong” (i.e., non-governmental) gambling operations. I can’t imagine why this would be the case….

Clark1 on November 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Online Gambling is even dumber than casino gambling. That said, far be it for me to tell anyone else here you don’t have a right to be an absolute idiot. This is what true liberty and freedom is about. You get the right to choose to be on the other end of Darwin’s law about survival of the fittest.

paulsur on November 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Finally, something Harry Reid can get passionate about.

portlandon on November 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

My personal opinion:

If you think you’re ‘gambling’, and there is a microchip involved, you’re sadly mistaken.

trigon on November 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM

So all those electronic games on floors of casinos in Vegas are set up to cheat?

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 30, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Weird what goes into moderation.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM

My personal opinion:

If you think you’re ‘gambling’, and there is a microchip involved, you’re sadly mistaken.

trigon on November 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM

So all those electronic games on floors of casinos in Vegas are set up to cheat?

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 30, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The only difference between poker in a virtual card room and a casino is that you can’t get a tell on your fellow players online.

As for video poker and the other electronic games at casinos, if any of those electronic games deviate too widely from a mandated payout percentage over a given period of time, those games must be pulled immediately. There is always a house advantage, but state law in various jurisdictions limits what that may be.

Poker isn’t gambling in the sense that you’re not playing against the house. You’re playing against your fellow players. It’s the only game played casinos in both Atlantic City and Vegas that has a positive expectation (in other words, you can expect to make money in the long run). The house “advantage,” such as it is, comes in the form of a “rake” or “viggorish,” two terms for the house commission; it’s a small percentage of every pot won. Truthfully that is why casinos love casual poker players. It doesn’t matter how much they win or lose — they get a cut every time money changes hand. It may not be much for a single player’s afternoon at the card table, but in the scheme of things, it adds up, especially for casinos like Binion’s Horseshoe where hundreds of players may be playing all day.

But hey, who cares, right? The government’s job is to protect us from ourselves./

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:11 PM

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Chill. Nowhere did he give any indication he was a “reformed addict on a crusade”. Is there anything that you think the state should forbid? And, if your answer includes the phrase “it doesn’t harm anyone”, then you’re really not paying attention.

This is one of the few places where there is a legitimate argument for possible state interference. The question is how much and how do you maximize freedom while constraining the monsters from running amok.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Chill. Nowhere did he give any indication he was a “reformed addict on a crusade”. Is there anything that you think the state should forbid? And, if your answer includes the phrase “it doesn’t harm anyone”, then you’re really not paying attention.

This is one of the few places where there is a legitimate argument for possible state interference. The question is how much and how do you maximize freedom while constraining the monsters from running amok.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

He said he gambled, at least in the past, and it was on that basis that I can reasonably assume he formed his argument

As for how much and how you maximize freedom? That’s a silly question from a “conservative.” Error on the side of freedom. If you’re not free to be stupid, you’re not free.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:18 PM

One of the few vices I’ve never had any interest in, but if others want to engage in it I couldn’t care less.

DarkCurrent on November 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM

“It is/isn’t a good idea” has been used to justify more government tyranny in my short (35 years) lifetime, let alone throughout history. Perhaps you should re-examine this sentiment, particularly in light of the fact that you have gambled in the past yourself. There are few people in the world more annoying than reformed addicts on a crusade.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

1.) einstein, I said “friendly” games, save the occasional dice game where a newcomer is involved,
2.) Gambling is not an addiction. Get over it! Feel free to check out the snappy new DSM-5 … Assuming you can understand it. *chuckle*

At a mere 35 years old, you have a few years until yer old enough to retire from the military – oh wait … . Never Mind.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on November 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM

As for how much and how you maximize freedom? That’s a silly question from a “conservative.” Error on the side of freedom. If you’re not free to be stupid, you’re not free.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I disagree beyond a certain point. What you’re describing is not conservatism but unmitigated libertarianism. There are boundaries that need to be drawn. Some need to be drawn by civil society, others by law. I’m very much a conservative. But that means I don’t believe in an unbridled dog-eat-dog scramble for survival. Online gambling is open to all sorts of problems that do affect someone other than the mark, or affect the mark unknowingly (such as rigged games). And, being online, they don’t even have to skip town when the gig is up – they just have to change servers.

It’s not a “silly question”. It’s a fundamental question – unless you don’t believe in any limits at all.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM

1.) einstein, I said “friendly” games, save the occasional dice game where a newcomer is involved,
2.) Gambling is not an addiction. Get over it! Feel free to check out the snappy new DSM-5 … Assuming you can understand it. *chuckle*

At a mere 35 years old, you have a few years until yer old enough to retire from the military – oh wait … . Never Mind.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on November 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Whatevs. I don’t smoke, and ex-smokers still piss me off with their priggish self-righteousness. If you claim to be “conservative” but you support government saving people from themselves, you’re doing it wrong — especially since Poker without a rake doesn’t meet the legal definition of “gambling” in any state where it’s played.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I disagree beyond a certain point. What you’re describing is not conservatism but unmitigated libertarianism. There are boundaries that need to be drawn. Some need to be drawn by civil society, others by law. I’m very much a conservative. But that means I don’t believe in an unbridled dog-eat-dog scramble for survival. Online gambling is open to all sorts of problems that do affect someone other than the mark, or affect the mark unknowingly (such as rigged games). And, being online, they don’t even have to skip town when the gig is up – they just have to change servers.

It’s not a “silly question”. It’s a fundamental question – unless you don’t believe in any limits at all.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Okay. So you do, in fact, believe that government should save people from themselves. I guess you and I understand conservatism somewhat diffeerently, but that’s a difference of opinion and a ideological gulf we’ll never be able to bridge.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I mean, come on! If we’re going to outlaw every vice that people have stolen for and/or has destroyed families, how come we haven’t outlawed alcohol yet?!

Oh yeah…nevermind.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Every government action — every last one — should be viewed through its potential to raise tax revenue, buy votes, or some combination therein. This issue is no exception to that rule. And I wonder how many of you chuckleheads suggesting that gambling is inherently bad have bought lottery tickets lately?

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Okay. So you do, in fact, believe that government should save people from themselves. I guess you and I understand conservatism somewhat diffeerently, but that’s a difference of opinion and a ideological gulf we’ll never be able to bridge.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I generally believe government should save others – from criminals and from … let’s say ‘people not in their right minds’. In other words, the state should be able to protect a family from an alcoholic parent (and there are ways to do it that don’t include something so broad as prohibition), and they should be able to protect a family from someone addicted to gambling. How to do that without a version of prohibition is the issue to me.

One way would be for the credit card companies and banks to simply refuse transactions with online gambling establishments. That would be a non-governmental, civil society method. Unfortunately, they wouldn’t ever do such a thing. (Though, I think there was an off-brand card that tried something similar for a while; I’m pretty sure it’s now out of business.) How do we protect people from fraud and from a mate stealing everything they possess to feed an addiction? Do you really think that letting that happen is perfectly ok?

I’m saying it’s a question, mind you. I’m not saying I agree with the idea that a governmental ban is the right solution.

If that’s an “ideological gulf we’ll never bridge”, then I’m truly sorry.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I’m saying it’s a question, mind you. I’m not saying I agree with the idea that a governmental ban is the right solution.

If that’s an “ideological gulf we’ll never bridge”, then I’m truly sorry.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You ban it, you drive it offshore. You tax it, you still drive it offshore. You ban it, you get the social conservative James-Dobsonesque anti-gambling bloc. You tax it, you don’t get that voting bloc. You see a pattern here?

As for the possibility of fraud, that exists in every legal casino as well. Online gambling always exists in the jurisdiction where the company resides. And online gambling will always exist. The only question is, will it exist in or outside of the United States?

I don’t think credit card companies refusing to do business with them is necessarily a bad idea, but there are lots of people who have ruined their lives with credit cards in other ways besides gambling. Some people just shouldn’t have credit cards. I don’t. All my plastic is in debit form, and that’s just two cards for accounts at two different banks. Even that doesn’t keep me from going into debt every now and again or being stupid with my money, but at least it keeps my debt manageable, and that because of the choices I’ve made on my own.

Besides, let’s face it. With over 100 years of overpreening government, they have yet to figure out a way to stop people from being stupid. When being stupid is against the law, you’ll just force the dumbshits underground. When all stupid commerce is banned or even taxed to excess, it will pop up in the black market.
You wanna save the people around you from stupidity? Don’t be stupid. (e.g. I don’t smoke because it’s bad for me and it stinks, contra the fact that I am most certainly NOT an anti-smoking nazi!)

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:55 PM

The problem with online gambling is that, once it gets established, you’d probably be playing against someone who is using a computer to play statistically perfect poker, and doing it for a living. There’s nothing fun about that.

Fenris on November 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Meh. There have already been players who do that. In fact, even without computers there are players who are math majors, MIT grad students, all who can run the numbers in their heads work entirely according to the statistics. It’s an accepted method of play. It isn’t perfect or else Chris Ferguson and Andy Block would have been trading WSOP titles between themselves for the last two decades. Instead it’s always some kid who doesn’t overthink, and plays from his instincts with a bit of help from luck. Skill is very useful in poker, as is knowing the percentages, but there’s no player strategy that a computer can substitute or rig unfavorably and still be within the parameters of the game. There are of course cheats, but they’re not that hard to find out.

I don’t understand people who act as if the legalization of online gambling would bring the downfall of society. Access to online poker was fairly easy until Black Friday – (not buying Christmas presents) that is April, 2011 when the feds illegally trashed Poker Stars, Full Tilt and screwed both the business and players out of their money. Claim a moral crusade if necessary, but the government simply overran and trashed an entire industry. Very few destroy themselves with online gaming. Most use it as simple entertainment playing with minor sums. (Look above, where Jazz says that he account had all of $67). Some skilled players are steady enough that it was a reasonable supplement to income. Overall, it was a relatively safe way for poker players to be part of the community and the best had actual opportunity to advance into free rides or sponsorships at real events to play for bracelets.

But of course Holder’s DoJ does what it wants and figures that an acceptable follow up to handing guns to illegal Mexican drug lords is to reclaim a little bit of cash here and there from small time American poker players. A full national legalization of online poker (or more properly the feds washing their hands of this issue and letting the states decide) would only be a small part of writing that wrong. Most players are still waiting for the DoJ to restore the balance of their accounts, but the government already decided they give no concern to the piddling affairs of such peasants.

Gingotts on November 30, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Sometimes freedom can be a big hugely smelly SOB. I don’t like the government telling me they know what’s best for me and you so called conservatives and progressives that love telling other human beings how to live their lives shouldn’t cry when your all powerful government tells you what’s best.

MoreLiberty on November 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM

So all those electronic games on floors of casinos in Vegas are set up to cheat?

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 30, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Depends on how you want to define ‘cheat’. Almost any game in a casino tends to favor the house. Some are designed to favor the house by a small percentage. That adds up over time and is most likely legal. But, if you play a game that favors the other player by design, I’d say you are being ‘cheated’, at least from a philosophical standpoint.

Some games are even, but the house is favored simply because few players are adept enough to play competently. Craps comes to mind. I wouldn’t consider that being cheated.

Where microchips are involved, I have some friends who are engineers. They have told me that there really isn’t any such thing in programming as a true ‘Ran’ or random statement. Chips aren’t that good. For truly random number generation, government agencies that need to encrypt things randomly use number generators tied into data sources like the background noise of the universe and things like that.

Would a regular casino try to stack the odds on a machine in their favor beyond what the law allowed? I tend to doubt it, so I’d say I probably wouldn’t be ‘cheated’ in a legal sense.

Would some guys running a server in the Cayman Islands try to cheat me over the internet? I wouldn’t bet against it.

Truthfully, I seldom gamble and never for any greater amount of money than I would consider an entertainment. I’ll lose 20 or 30 bucks and hit the buffet. If I get up by the same amount, I’ll go hit the buffet and leave. I do tend to stick to games like Craps or Blackjack or even Roulette (which I know is a sucker game). What I find most fun about them is that you play with other people as well as the dealers. I seldom play Slots anymore as most of the machines are electronic.

trigon on November 30, 2013 at 1:19 PM

the social costs of allowing

STL_Vet on November 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

More proof that so called conservatives and progressives are too different

MoreLiberty on November 30, 2013 at 1:27 PM

With over 100 years of overpreening government, they have yet to figure out a way to stop people from being stupid. When being stupid is against the law, you’ll just force the dumbshits underground. When all stupid commerce is banned or even taxed to excess, it will pop up in the black market.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:55 PM

And this I agree with.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Biggest impact: Elizabeth Warren’s family.

DarthBrooks on November 30, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Some people just shouldn’t have credit cards. I don’t. All my plastic is in debit form, and that’s just two cards for accounts at two different banks. Even that doesn’t keep me from going into debt every now and again or being stupid with my money, but at least it keeps my debt manageable, and that because of the choices I’ve made on my own.

gryphon202

Per the logic of those you’re responding to….credit cards are bad. We should make them illegal so we can protect the chiren and the womens from their husbands irresponsible charging habits.

And health care? Much much too important an issue to leave in the hands of regular folks. Guess we need Obamacare after all.

And of course big gulps need to be banned.

/sarc

If you’re a conservative who believes government needs to protect people from themselves in regards to online gambling, you’re probably a hypocrite, and probably not much of a conservative.

xblade on November 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I wonder if he is so adamant against lottery tickets and whether drunk people are buying those….

None of it really matters though. Google ‘Bitcoin’ and ‘gambling’ This is just peeing in the wind

ChrisL on November 30, 2013 at 4:44 PM

For this reason, my tendency toward allowing people the freedom to do as they please has has run headlong into the realization that voting more access to the gaming industry is leading lambs to their slaughter. I think this is a bad idea.

STL_Vet on November 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Go back to DailyKos you Obama supporting Statist.

rndmusrnm on November 30, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Small government! Freedom and liberty! An end to social engineering!*

*Except for the things WE would like to use it for.

It’s all a lie. A game. A charade. A shame.

Genuine on November 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM

With over 100 years of overpreening government, they have yet to figure out a way to stop people from being stupid. When being stupid is against the law, you’ll just force the dumbshits underground. When all stupid commerce is banned or even taxed to excess, it will pop up in the black market.

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 12:55 PM

And this I agree with.

GWB on November 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Then that kind of shoots the whole “something must be done” argument to crap, dontcha think?

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Riddle me this, concerned individuals: What clause in the constitution gives government the authority to regulate online gambling?

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM

…I don’t even play office pools…since I’ve seen what gambling addiction has done… to some of the people I know…it can be like crack!….I don’t want them to be able to do it from home!

KOOLAID2 on November 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Riddle me this, concerned individuals: What clause in the constitution gives government the authority to regulate online gambling?

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM

The same that lets them regular “offline” gambling. State sanctioned monopolies good, private ones competing against established monopolies (private or government) that have paid off politicians are bad.

Online gambling is yet another glaring case of corrupt politicians/government screwing over the average joe and jane. If gambling is so bad, why do states run their own lotteries? Cause its an idiot tax that makes them money.

oryguncon on November 30, 2013 at 9:46 PM

…I don’t even play office pools…since I’ve seen what gambling addiction has done… to some of the people I know…it can be like crack!….I don’t want them to be able to do it from home!

KOOLAID2 on November 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM

So you believe that government has a role in preventing that from happening, even though it really can’t? You sure you’ve never so much as purchased a lottery ticket? I have. I’ll cop right to it. I don’t think gambling is inherently bad. But you gotta get the anti-gambling voting bloc somehow, right?

gryphon202 on November 30, 2013 at 11:45 PM