Internet Gambling Deserves a New Chance

The same can be said about alcohol and tobacco. Personally, if you don't have the will to take these so-called vices in a responsible way, you deserve anything that happens because of your lack of responsibility.

Let's prohibit alcohol.
Let's prohibit tobacco.

Why stop there?

Let's stop dirty movies because God forbids them.
Let's stop video games because of social isolation.
Let's stop sports because of injuries.

Give me a freaking break.

It says it all really when the "Pro" argument is so coherent and the "Con" argument begins with a personal attack on all the members of an international institution.

I am an offshore gaming executive (www.lazerwager.com). I can assure you that the Con is so off base it is not even funny. I personally hate smoking and drinking, two other social diseases that cause more damage to U.S. citizens and the country's economy in one year than gambling online for entertainment ever will. Internet gaming operators are more in tune with clients' well being than any land-based casino. Thanks to technology, we can track and monitor every transaction coming into our system, assuring that no player can lose more than a limited number of dollars daily, weekly, and monthly. Our payment processors are very restrictive as to these policies and ensure that we comply, or we don't get paid (we do not accept cash). And as far as kids playing online, it is virtually impossible. Once again ID verification technology and credit card companies' databases play a major role in preventing unauthorized credit card use. We require proper ID when accepting credit card deposits and payments. The U.S. government fears online gambling only because the profits go to companies domiciled in outlying jurisdictions.

1.The rate of divorce, spousal and child abuse, gambling, bankruptcy, and suicide and accidents are disproportionately high with alcohol abuse and alcohol addiction. We should then ban alcohol.

2. I have to stand in line at every corner market for 10 minutes waiting for folks to purchase their lottery tickets, some purchases totaling hundreds of dollars. Horse racing is on TV daily and a major pastime our community. We also have a couple of casinos within 45 minutes to one hour away. The state lottery is advertised daily in newspapers and on TV and radio--talking about how I can become a millionaire instantly.

But I will go to jail for playing poker or betting online. What hypocrisy.

3. Either legalize Internet gambling or get rid of state lotteries and Indian casinos. The state lotteries and Indian casinos are causing more problems to society than Internet gambling ever could.

Personal freedom and personal accountability are tenets of our society. We should be free to choose the activities in which we participate (i.e., gambling in any form), understanding that these choices may have both positive and negative consequences.

The WTO didn't try to force pornography to be open on the Web in Muslim countries. Why should it then turn around and try to force loosening of moral standards in the U.S.?

I've always stated, if it's good for U.S. residents in Las Vegas, then it should be acceptable for the same U.S. resident who chooses to live in Alaska to wager. Don't penalize people because they choose to live where they want. People in Wyoming, New York, or California should have the same rights as other Americans who live in Las Vegas.

Dear RK,
Let's see you fire up your computer and get alcohol or tobacco out of it. Instant delivery of an addictive product is the issue. You go to a store to buy alcohol and tobacco. You go to a casino to gamble. We don't need it on the Internet.

We have criminalized child pornography, we have labeled video games, and we have stopped a number of "sports."

What you're asking for isn't a "break." It's a license to take other people's money and deliver nothing in return. Play all the games you want on the Net, but leave out the gambling.

To suggest that legalizing and "regulating" Internet gambling will somehow preclude illegal, unscrupulous, and unauthorized gamblers from the Net is absurd. The Pros in this argument already admit that illegal operators are penetrating the shield. Through a screen of legal sites, they would wash through in droves. Legalizing gambling has always increased illegal gambling, because the illegal guys offer better odds, loans, etc. They have "lower costs" and "more effective collection measures." Consumers go where they get the "deal" they want, and that tends to be the crooks. Plus, allowing WTO authority in this argument overrides all states' rights. Regulation would have to be at the international or federal level, and no state could alter that.

Even those who proposed anarchy as a form of self-governance did so with the naive thought that humans could be educated to the point that they would care for and about one another--not because they thought people had a right to do whatever strikes their fancy.

But that notion failed, and we do not live in anarchy. "Personal freedom and personal accountability are tenets of our society." Nonsense. Self governance by definition means we limit our personal freedoms for protection of and from one another. Though we may have extensive liberty to choose the activities in which we may participate, we do not have the right to lure others into traps that will ruin their lives. This issue is driven by people who want to take other peoples' money and give nothing in return.

And what's this "alcohol and tobacco are worse" argument? Do we need to add another self-destructive behavior just because--well, we aren't dead yet? We should have wide-open gambling in our homes because people smoke and drink? I don't get it. Besides, you can't fire up your computer and get a beer and a smoke, one after another after another. It just isn't the same thing.

We pride ourselves on being a law-abiding nation. We signed the WTO treaty and ratified it so it is the law of the United States. By not abiding by the legal rulings of the WTO, we are no better than a run-of-the-mill bandit. Law is law, and we made it part of our law to follow WTO rulings. Internet gambling, especially poker, is none of the government's business. I don't need autocrats in Washington telling me what's good for me. That attitude belongs in totalitarian countries, not a free nation, as we claim to be. If we are a nation of law, we should follow it. The results of this folly will be the same as Prohibition and the failed war on drugs. Failure.

"Prohibition all over again"?

Oh for pity sakes. Prohibition was when one couldn't buy booze anywhere. If this were prohibition, you wouldn't have casinos and lotteries and scratch-offs everywhere you turn. There are tens of thousands of places to gamble in this country--on the ground. We don't need gambling on the cables and airwaves and phone lines.

This isn't about prohibiting gambling. It's about drawing a line somewhere. So let's draw the line on the ground--not in the thin air of cyberspace.

We don't need gambling on the Internet.

The U.S. isn't alone in this fight, either. Lots of countries ban Internet gambling, and many still outlaw gambling altogether.

There are a lot of people who have weaknesses in the world. This online gambling thing is just another way for shysters to destroy the weak and suck them dry. It's anonymous, so the parasites don't even have to see their victims. It's an ugly thing we are better off without.

Send your representatives letters letting them know you do not appreciate their taking away your personal choices. Now it's poker; what's next?

Prohibition of any vice has never worked, and generally caused more harm than it prevented. "Those who ignore history..."

I recognize the harms of gambling addiction, just as I recognize the harms of alcohol addiction, drug addiction, pornography addiction, etc. But two key points are obvious:

1) Not anything near a majority of people who drink or gamble ever become addicted (I believe the worst figures are around 5%). Why should the 95% of people who drink and gamble responsibly be deprived of their fun because of the small subset who cannot be responsible?

2) Returning to history, we as a society are far more capable of reducing the harm by identifying the addicts and providing them treatment when we have open, regulated markets for these products. Drug dealers openly and willingly sell to children; licensed liquor stores do not.

And another thing, the notion that there is some huge difference between playing poker on my home computer and walking all of five minutes to a store that will happily sell me all the lottery tickets, cigarettes, and booze I want, is absolutely ludicrous.

If we take the con argument seriously, we must ban anything that can be addictive. This means no more alcohol (yeah, that one worked out great in the 1920s), no more tobacco, no more video or computer games, no more sleeping pills, no more painkillers, and no more tanning or gyms since people can get hung up on keeping a bronze tan or going to the gym every day to the point of being addicted to the rush of endorphins. Hey, after all, if people can be addicted to something, a group of people fanatically dedicated to eradicating that something due to their personal beliefs should force the government to ban it, right?

Yes, Mr. Clark, your position as the chairman of a religious special-interest group that attacks legalized gambling on the same fallacious logic that didn't work in the 1950s didn't escape me. For someone like you to talk about the pitfalls of gambling is like a mobster warning people what will happen if they don't pay him protection money. You have such a vested interest in people obeying your words that you have all the incentive in the world to lie and exaggerate.

I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy and comfort of my own home.

It is really simple to not play if you choose not to play. It is another issue for you to choose for me.

I do not gamble on casino games, but I play poker, which is a game of skill.

Your religious zealotry is nothing more than more hypocrisy. I am a conservative and libertarian member of the Republican party, and I am actively working to defeat the religious right wing of the party. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Are you people forgetting where it is you live? This is America. The issue here is liberty and personal responsibility. Irresponsible people do irresponsible things, so what? They have the right to do so. Just because we have addicted smokers, compulsive gamblers, drunks et al in our society--who by the way make up a small minority of the population--doesn't mean we go around through our electorate like some dictator does in some Third World country, and start restricting everyone's freedoms and rights because of a minority group's undesirable actions/conduct. That isn't freedom, and that isn't living in a free country.

Alcohol, tobacco, and prescription medicines are legal and have been documented to cause more harm to people, their families, and society than gambling has or ever will have. So why are booze, smokes, and meds still legal and gambling is "semi" legal (sports gambling on the Net is illegal, for instance)? The answer, of course, is that people have a right, to a certain extent, to be able to do these things, even if they're wrong for them. It's called liberty. People who abuse and are irresponsible with their personal choices are solely to blame for their follies and no one and/or nothing else. But they still have a right to engage in self-destructive conduct, if they chose to do so, because that's what living in America--or any true free country--is all about.

This so-o-o should be a non-issue, but the fact that it is, in all places here, should be disheartening to freedom lovers everywhere.

Dear M,
"Send your representatives letters letting them know you do not appreciate their taking away your personal choices. Now it's poker; what's next?"

How 'bout taking away your choices like other forms of theft, robbery, murder, and rape?

That's what all laws do. They limit our ability to make choices that damage other people. There has never been a Constitutional right to swindle other people out of their money. For bewildering reasons, a good many states have decided such theft by consent is a good idea as long as the states get a cut of the action--but that still doesn't make it a God-given right.

You are advocating anarchy. Self government implies that we will govern ourselves, which means we will have laws restricting some of our personal choices.

I applaud the U.S. for having the courage to ban online gambling. It's obvious from most of the replies I have read that these people have never had a gambling addiction or known someone who has and the true devastation it causes--and not just to the gambler.

There are virtually no controls in place to prevent children from gambling online. It's easy to just check the box that says you are of legal age.

I feel sorry for people uneducated about the true cost of gambling, period. There are no other vices out there that can ruin a person's life so quickly. You could never drink or take drugs equal to the amount of money spent in a day on gambling, or you would be dead. Remember, this is the invisible addiction that you cannot see in your eyes or smell on your breath. You may be surprised at the people you already know who are suffering because of gambling, but are hiding it.

I'm in Canada. The gambling fever has caught on throughout the world. The government has recognized a way to bring in more money at no matter what the cost to the people who have given so much to provide those profits.

As for making a conscious choice, I don't know anyone who became addicted by gambling for "entertainment purposes" and thought, wow I'm going to become a gambling addict. Once addicted, you have no choice.

May the rest of the world follow the U.S. in banning online gambling and eventually start banning many other forms of gambling that have created such disastrous results, even death.

Debbie Langille, Communications
GameOverVLTs.com
Nova Scotia

George B,
Your analogies are absolutely ridiculous. All your examples deal with victims and perpetrators who commit wrongs on otherwise unsuspecting or unwilling people.

When you play a game of basketball with your buddies and you are getting your butt kicked because your buddies have more skill, do you start screaming rape to the cops?

When you go out with the boys for a night of bowling and you reckon that by the fifth bowl you're gonna lose big to these guys, do you yell murder to the cops?

When you go out to a casino to play some slots, maybe some blackjack, and God forbid some friendly poker, and by the end of the night when you're about to leave, you reach into your wallet and count that you are down $150, do you shout theft as loudly as you can to the cops?

Please be serious, and show some education here.

I love the idea from Jono: "I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy and comfort of my own home."

Like building bombs, cooking meth, or taking people's money from all over the globe?

It's not like you're doing something "private" when you're gambling on the worldwide net.

And poker is not a game of skill. It is a game of chance with some skill involved. If it was skill, the same guys would win the big tournaments every year. There is nothing skillful about which card comes up next.

Debbie,
The actions of a few irresponsible people do not and should not dictate public policy.

Hence, we still allow people to drive. Ever heard of drunk driving or driving under the influence?

Hence, we still let people get married. Ever heard of divorces? Spousal abuse? Broken families?

Hence, we let people drink alcohol in the comfort of their own homes. Ever heard of alcoholics? Alcohol-induced rages?

And so on.

By your rationale, Debbie, we ought to outlaw things that can be potentially bad for us, if abused.

So Debbie, should we outlaw cars? How about marriage? How about liquor licenses? Why stop at gambling?

The stupidity of a few in society is not reason enough to outlaw the practices that a lot of people in society already (and responsibly) enjoy.

Yes, this issue is about freedom, but it is also about the appropriate government response to Internet gambling.

In full disclosure, I am executive director of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA). I would argue that the PPA and our more than 740,000 members agree with the stated goals of those who promoted the UIGEA--preventing underage gambling, helping problem gamblers, combating fraud and abuse--we have a drastically different approach to addressing those legitimate issues, however.

A prohibition won't work; Americans learned this long ago. In order to have safeguards and controls to protect vulnerable populations, the federal government must regulate this industry. Some common-sense legislators understand this, and they are working to promote legislation that would regulate the industry and put in place the necessary protections. Interestingly, Internet gaming, particularly Internet poker, provides opportunities for operators to deliver responsible gaming programs that meet or exceed what is currently done in the "brick and mortar" industry.

Our organization and our nearly 1 million members will continue to educate lawmakers about the benefits of regulation. Someone once said that Americans will always do the right thing, once they've exhausted all other alternatives.

It is not the job of our government to protect people from their own choices when they do not involve the taking of another's rights. Murder, theft, and other crimes are illegal because they take away rights to life, property, etc. We have an agreement with our government called the Constitution. It says that I have rights including the pursuit of happiness. If I choose gambling as a pleasurable pursuit, that is my right--as it is my right to spend too much money on a pair of sneakers or $500 on a concert ticket that others would not consider attending. Gambling can ruin lives, no question about it, but many trappings of a free society can be abused. Also, the hypocrisy of the government is laughable. I work in an inner-city neighborhood and see poor people spend their last dollars on state-run lottery tickets that probably have the worst odds of any type of gambling. I think that responsible disclosure of the risks by government, casinos, etc. is fine, but a ban on activities that do not take away the rights of others is not part of the agreement between the people and our government, and I don't want it to be.

I lead the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand, the largest problem gambling agency in the world. We are not prohibitionists, but we are anti-harm. Internet gambling should not be allowed until it has significantly improved safety features such as pre-commit systems and player-tracking software that ensure responsible use by both player and gambling provider. Technology now exists to prevent gambling harm, and that is important because no one can avoid gambling harm, player or not. Gambling related crime--and there is a lot of it, including theft, robbery, drug running, money laundering and domestic violence--harms not only gamblers but millions of innocent victims.

If the USA were to adopt real responsible gambling measures on all gambling, then offshore Internet gambling would be illegal, even by WTO definitions, if it did not have the same duty-of-care standards.

Raising the bar on host responsibility, as we have done by prohibiting alcohol sales to minors and those intoxicated, is the only long-term solution.

John Stansfield
CEO
PGFNZ
www.PGFNZ.org.nz

SK, you are living in a dream world. It's OK for local governments to approve and sell online lottery tickets--the biggest gamble of all--and allow horse betting due to powerful lobbyists, but playing blackjack, slots, or poker online should be banned? This is more than just a gambling issue. It's a protectionism issue. Just ask the WTO and the countries that have been affected by this ridiculous law. Ask why Antigua, Barbuda, India, Japan, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Macao, CARICOM, and the EU (not exactly a Third World country) are all seeking compensation from the U.S. for economic injury resulting from trade agreement violations. This industry was composed of London Stock Exchange companies for which I was an executive before the U.S. government sneaked in a bill wiping out billions of dollars of stock value overnight, which affected thousands of UK citizens as well as many U.S. mutual funds that had invested in this exciting and growing industry. Give me and the vast majority of posters here a break. Contrary to your belief, there is no anonymity online. We know everything about our clients--unlike land-based casinos, where cash is needed but no identity. I ran a very large Vegas casino before moving offshore, and I can tell you that land-based casinos have absolutely no regard for their clients' welfare; it's all about "extracting those dollars from the people who come through our doors," and nothing else matters (other than casino security, which only serves to prevent lawsuits)--unlike online, where, as I mentioned, every transaction is monitored. So SK and everyone else who thinks this is just about gambling should do some homework.

How many millions of people have been or are being killed in the name of God? By your logic, we should outlaw religion.

The con:
1. The U.S. government's obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product.
Truth: OK, I'll buy that. Now let's start with the Home Shopping Network. Many are addicted to shopping. We must make shoppers go to the mall, no shopping on TV and the Internet.

2. If it can't be controlled, then how could it be responsibly regulated or taxed? States already have a difficult enough time.
OK, so tell me how is it the states seem to have no problem regulating and taxing Internet gambling via AOL, MSN, and Yahoo? Games where skill/cash competitions run 24/7 are marketed next to children's games, where children are playing 24/7. Perhaps the target is not online gaming after all; the target is perhaps simply a sector deemed un-Christian or immoral. As to the Muslim countries and pornography and the WTO, they opted out of the same, as the United States could have done. Instead, the U.S. simply wrote in as an objection, non-sports. OK, just no sports betting. Why are AOL, MSN, and Yahoo cash-wagering on (ok this is too funny)?:
1. Solitaire
2. Hearts
3. Spades
4. Free cell
5. Rummy poker
6. Children's video games

Look for yourself. Please, Mr., please, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, er, the truth? Nah, too simple. Enough on the con, for now.

Every society draws lines that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable behavior. They vary a lot from nation to nation. Some countries allow the use of marijuana, cocaine, etc., while others (like the U.S.) prohibit them. Is it hypocritical for our country to prohibit some drugs, like cocaine, while allowing the free use of others, like Motrin? If we can logically make these distinctions, why is it hypocritical to make distinctions for the very most addictive forms of gambling as well?

In the original determination of the GATS by the WTO, the U.S. submitted the category on entertainment, keeping gambling out. The WTO used another schedule for entertainment and slipped gambling into our agreement without our knowledge. We signed the GATS without knowing that they had slipped that in. Gambling on the Internet was never the intent of our trade negotiators. The U.S. tried to work around the mistake, but it was obviously a flawed policy. They should have objected immediately when they found that the WTO had stiffed them, but they were trying to avoid making waves. They have recently applied to get that category corrected to exclude gambling.

And do you actually trust the WTO to set standards of behavior that can override laws in 50 states in our Union as well as statutes of the U.S. Congress?

We've heard from the anarchists and libertarians as well as some liberals and so-called conservatives. Over the past two centuries America learned that freedom is a good thing, but it's always freedom within responsibility. It was a bad idea when the online-gambling promoter predators, mostly from overseas, brought online gambling to America. That's why Congress passed the law to limit the ability of those predators to enter our homes using our phone lines. Most opponents of online gambling are not opposed to bets between friends. What I oppose is the application of the free-market idea to online gambling, thereby allowing people who are willing to use it to abuse the addicted. Probably half the money lost on gambling in our country, whether lottery, casino, or online, is lost by people who have become addicted to a game. If you create a free market for wolves, you will precipitate a slaughter for the lambs. Online gambling takes dead aim at individuals who will be the increasing number of addicted, hurting gamblers in America.

Keep the wolves behind the fence.

I will quote your incorrect assertion:

"And poker is not a game of skill. It is a game of chance with some skill involved. If it was skill, the same guys would win the big tournaments every year. There is nothing skillful about which card comes up next."

Actually, the same folks win more than they should, if luck is more prevalent than skill in poker. Skill is a greater factor than luck for poker success.

I can agree with you that there are casino games that have long-term negative expected value, but poker is not one of them. Why would anyone play the slots or any of the other table games? There is the chance that they will win short term. I don't play those games, but you have failed to answer why you should deny me the right to play if I so choose.

The issue is choice.

We are Americans, and when making decisions, we should err on the side of freedom. The argument that if you want to gamble, we have plenty of it, is absurd. I do not like scratch tickets or betting on horses; it is not my thing.

Throughout the past five years, I had different reasons why Internet poker was preferable to going to a casino. While I battled cancer a few years back, I was unable to go to a casino due to fatigue and a weakened immune system. (They do not offer couches to lie down on and play cards everywhere.) Online poker allowed me to continue to enjoy the game I love even while I was sick. It was a great distraction during a very difficult time in my life.

Today, if I want to play poker where the government says it's okay, the closest place is a two-hour drive, $35 worth of gas, one-hour wait, and then a two-hour drive home. With a 3-year-old at home, it is better to play a $20 tournament after a long day's work after he goes to bed than to be out all night.

I agree that gambling can be a problem for some, but we should help those people, not ban it for everyone.

Kraut,
Your argument that if poker was skill, the same guy would win every year: Does Tiger Woods win every golf tournament? There is some chance involved in poker, but your argument does not hold water.

"And poker is not a game of skill. It is a game of chance with some skill involved. If it was skill, the same guys would win the big tournaments every year. There is nothing skillful about which card comes up next."

Oh, but many of the same guys are at the finalist table year after year after year, winning hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. The skill of poker has to do with convincing people to make the decision you want them to make by subtle and not-so-subtle cues. Poker is a game of manipulating people's actions, and that requires skill.

Also, comparing narcotics production to taking money from people around the world is a classic non-sequitur. You could have an online business selling some interesting widget you made in your spare time for social-networking sites and be taking money from other people around the whole world. Taking money is not a criminal act. In fact, you do this every time you get a paycheck. In fact, according to this statement, BusinessWeek's act of charging advertisers on its site is the same as cooking meth in your basement.

Selling people a product known to be either deadly or debilitating in 100% of the cases is illegal, as it should be. Selling a game that may be seriously damaging, say, 2% of the time, is hardly comparable with any degree of intellectual honesty. It's as if anti-gambling crusaders believe that because they know or have heard of several people with a gambling problem, it gives them the right to ignore the fact that millions of people like me gamble without losing our homes, families, jobs, or more than a grand total of $100 a year.

This world is a mess because of reduced morality. One should exhibit moderation in every endeavor except acting civil to others. Gambling, alcohol, and tobacco can be enjoyed in moderation. Once they are taken to excess, we know the end result.

The biggest opponents of online gambling seem to either have an agenda or really know very little about it. I am an adult who makes his living by gambling and find it very hypocritical that if I was trading on what the price of coffee or orange juice futures would be on a mercantile exchange, I'd be a respectable citizen, but if I want to invest on who's going to win the NFC, I'm a lowlife.

George B's comments are so obnoxious that it reminds me that these types of people need to be fought to the death if they try to take your liberty away, because as usual, they are so smart and morally superior and know what's best for everyone. Give me a break.

I have had my own business for many years, and in that time, I have dealt with many "legitimate" companies. And I must say, some of the most professional, customer-service friendly, and most of all trustworthy, have been major off-shore bookmakers. George B calls these folks "swindlers" who offer nothing? Wrong. They are brokerage houses that set prices, and take a very small commission, similar to any brokerage house. The state promotes (with our money) their lotteries, which they take a ridiculous 50% cut on, and they are mostly for the poor and uneducated. Most sports wagers or poker tournaments, on the other hand, take 3% to 9%, thereby giving the player a legitimate chance.

America was built on risk-taking and an entrepreneurial spirit that says everyone deserves the right to pursue his or her dream. So the states offer "a dollar and a dream" ads that are moral with 50% takeouts, but when I want to chase my dreams through legitimate markets with very low takeouts and a variety of options, that is a detriment to society?

Oh, "but the lottery money is spent on education" goes the argument. Please, you really think all that money just goes to math and science departments, and never funds junkets to Bermuda for the executives of the teachers union or the department of education ski trips? Meanwhile, these "criminal" offshore bookmakers legitimately employ thousands who feed and clothe their children and pay their own bills.

When people say that governments should profit from businesses that private people should not or cannot, it sounds a lot like Marx and Ingalls to me.

Guy Clark seems like a man with integrity and probably truly believes in his convictions. He makes some valid points, and I respect his right to express his opinion. But when a dentist from Utah is allowed to influence my ability to put food on my table by destroying free-market trading and the erosion of my personal Constitutional and god-given liberty, something is very wrong.

Weston said: "Probably half the money lost on gambling in our country, whether lottery, casino, or online, is lost by people who have become addicted to a game."

Do you have a source to back this up? A lot of statistics are being thrown around here as fact.

Cocaine has been proven to have harmful effects and is not safe on the open market; Motrin has been approved as safe, so there is a logical choice there. Government can't claim to be concerned about our safety on the issue of gambling and then allow and actually produce games themselves. That is hypocritical. The fact is there is no benign intent with these laws. Governments vehemently oppose them, because they have a gold mine with lotteries that 99% of people would not win if they played every week for 20 lifetimes. Gambling that exists on the open market like Nevada is always more fair, because the swindlers lose out to ones producing the fairest games.

Good ideas do not need lies, half-truths, and personal attacks to sell. Mr. Clark's rant offers all three within the space of his first statement of non-fact.

If your argument is based on the prevalence of societal harm, you bear the burden of demonstrating that harm. Unsupported, unsourced, and outlandish repetitions of the same unproven allegations are simply insufficient. Anecdotal evidence of a few problem gamblers is similarly insufficient: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

So, even accepting for the purposes of argument that the government should regulate if these alleged societal harms are proven to exist in the magnitude you claim, you have failed to prove that such regulation will be either necessary or effective.

My letter to one of the lead big government social conservatives:

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Cc: President George Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; my Representative (on the House Financial Services Committee); both of my Senators; The House Financial Services Committee; The House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Ron Paul; and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with the quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc., Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a "feel good" un-Constitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker Web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Aside from the age verification software present on all online gaming sites, certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play in the same poker game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. Also fortunate for Mr. Boatman, he grew up in England, where poker is not seen as something the national government has any business trying to prevent its citizens from enjoying. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion…especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling Web sites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
TheEngineer

Sen. Bill Frist took a once-proud limited-government majority party and helped turn it into a big government, big spending, nanny-statist minority party, where Democrats look like small-government proponents in comparison. Frist's most egregious offense was in ramming the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act through the Senate by adding it to the Safe Ports Act, thereby using the power of the federal government to censor the Internet and to force banks and Internet service providers to spy on the American people in case we're--gasp!--playing poker with our own money in our own homes on the Internet. Oh, the horror. Actually, the horror is that the Republican party became the party of big government.

Frist wrecked the party and the limited government movement. I’m glad he’s gone.

To all you kind-hearted folks who wish to protect me from myself by telling me how to spend my own money, I respectfully ask you to mind your own business. It's my money, my computer, and my Internet connection. Thank you.

"If you create a free market for wolves, you will precipitate a slaughter for the lambs."

Weston, you sound like a full-fledged Communist. I honestly hate to say something so potentially slanderous, but your post smacks of protectionism and nanny-state thinking. Your reasoning for supporting this ban could be used to justify any control on individual market rights.

Why are so many so opposed to freedom of contract?

Internet Gambling is a sensitive area of society, and government has a legitimate role to play there. That is why this activity should be regulated. That way problem gambling can be addressed and those who can use the product responsibly will have a measure of freedom to do so.

If Internet gambling is not regulated, it will still exist, and all the problems that it causes will not be treated.

What's with you Bible-thumping control freaks trying to tell this conservative I can't play poker on the Net. I hope Big Brother raids and shuts down your nightly bingo games. Don't you hypocrites know that is gambling also?

I find it disturbing that we continually hear from the halls of Congress that we are a nation of laws, and now that a lawful ruling we do not like as a government happens, we choose to ignore it (WTO ruling).

What is the USTR and government's position? Well, we will negotiate a settlement with the countries we are going to violate the law with and pay them off?

The cost? The European communities want $15 billion per year, every year, in trade deals against American companies.

So, Congressman/Senator, what are you going to tell your constituent whose company will be put at a disadvantage and has to close or lay off employees?

Ah my friend, I banned online poker. Sorry, but that is a price some will pay. I am sorry you cannot pay your mortgage, but I banned online poker.

Oh, by the way, in November please remember to vote for me. I did ban online poker.

I agree with everyone's post, as we work hard for our pay check and should have a right to spend our money the way we want. I see this as, if our government can't tax us on Internet poker, it doesn't want us to play with our own money.

This has nothing to do with trying to regulate us. Funny how the government wants to protect us but keeps putting out more lottery games for us to buy. In every gas station I go, there are $1, $5, and $10 scratch-offs and Lotto. So what's the difference if I spend my $5 relaxing in my house after work playing a game, where I actually have a chance to win--unlike 5-million-to-1 Lotto.

Every argument by the gambling is bad, ban it ASAP crowd, centers on one thing: Gambling is harmful to the public.

Government sponsored lotteries are also harmful. Are they banned? No. So is horse racing. Is it banned? No. Hypocritical. At one point, dancing and rock 'n' roll were thought to be dangerous to society. Please, gambling is not harmful. I am sure there are those who take it to the extreme, but they are the exception, not the rule. They should not affect me and my right to play for pennies in my own home. Once again, the extremists have overacted, and wish to have the government baby-sit me and the way I live my life.

Please get out of my life, leave me alone, and quit telling me what I am allowed and not allowed to do. It is none of your or this government's business. It is not your moral obligation.

Those who seek to ban gambling do more harm than good. During Prohibition, alcohol became very unsafe to consume. Internet gambling needs to be regulated. People are going to do it anyway. Why not make it safe, able to keep out minors, watchful of the rare problem gambler, and taxed? Regulate it.

Debbie, Weston, et al,
Quit telling me what to do with my life and my money.

CB, I lived in Las Vegas for years. The idea that I would go to an "unscrupulous" bookie over a licensed and regulated casino is ridiculous.

I just read an article about the "obesity epidemic." I suppose you folks who wish to ban people from choosing to play poker online because you think you know what's best for everyone else will wish to ban fast food as well.

It's amazing the USA bans gambling, but not the illegals who cross our border. Folks that have money like I do, don't need government intrusion to tell me how to spend my money. It is amazing that I pay taxes and still don't own the right to spend my money as I see fit. Is the government banning subprime loans?

I think Internet gambling is a threat to the children, and we should lead by example and make it illegal. I think teaching our children how to drink and drive and negotiate with a hooker are what we should be focusing on.

The real issue here is the hypocrisy of the U.S. government. It bans Internet gambling yet allows Internet gambling on horse racing? The only reason is not some moral value that gambling on horses is somehow better than playing poker. No, it is because the lobbyists for horse racing gave a lot of money to keep horse racing legal on the Internet. So don't make this a moral argument; it is a money argument. Therefore, Internet gambling should be legal, taxed, and regulated.

We in the United States already have enough freedoms. Why add online gambling to the list?

I can buy a book in a bookstore 15 minutes from my house. I can buy a book online. I can play poker in a casino 15 minutes from my house. But it's a federal crime to play poker at home? Every objection offered in opposition to online gaming can be answered by legalizing, taxing, and regulating the industry.

Danny,
Actually I'm a dentist from New Mexico. Thank you for the back-handed compliment. I'm also a volunteer and receive no compensation. You are right that I do have an agenda. It is hugely overt: to educate and lobby to help stop the expansion of gambling in the U.S. I may know a little more about Internet gambling than you think. NCALG has worked with Congress for eight years to get an Internet gambling prohibition bill in place.

Goodness, goodness: "Constitution and God-given liberty" equated with the ability to get fleeced on the Internet. Can you actually say that without blushing?

Again, all societies draw lines of the acceptable and unacceptable. There are people in those societies who disagree with those lines. We've heard from a couple of dozen who disagree with the line Congress drew on Internet gambling last year. Many people disagree with the prohibition and criminalization of prostitution. Many libertarians argue for the right to dispense cocaine in vending machines. Danny and others in this debate seem to think that the U.S. Constitution is hanging by a thread because Congress drew a line that keeps them from Internet gambling.

Okay, you don't agree with UIGEA, but trumpeting that the Constitutional sky is falling because you can't gamble on the Internet is just plain silly. The most compelling and logical argument we've heard in this debate for Internet gambling was by the man who was too medically compromised to go to a casino. At least he didn't wrap himself in the flag to promote his argument.

The argument against online gaming is extremely weak. We can't run around banning everything that is harmful to some people, when the majority can enjoy it responsibly. It's a similar argument with freedom of speech--the principle of defending others' freedom of speech, even if you do not agree with them.

"We in the United States already have enough freedoms. Why add online gambling to the list?"

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm, Levi. If it isn't, wow, just wow.

Now personally, although I smoke cigarettes, drink socially, tried various drugs in my youth, and enjoy playing poker and an occasional sports wager, I have somehow made it to age 55 as a normal, responsible tax-paying American citizen. And I am thoroughly sick and tired of my government trying to protect me from myself.

To G Clark:
You are grossly misinformed. There was no switching of the U.S. schedules. The original panel found that the U.S. had made a commitment in the remote gaming area. That decision was later upheld by the WTO Appellate Body.

In both instances, it was based on the same schedule the U.S. spent years developing. I'm sure they had hundreds of people look it over. It was no oversight on the part of the U.S. At the time, the U.S. viewed itself as potentially one of the largest exporters of gambling services in the world, so they left it in the schedule. Many other countries opted out. You can be sure every schedule was reviewed by the U.S.

The U.S. position in the WTO matter is not based on morality; it's pure protectionism. As for states' rights, the WTO views the U.S. as one country, and if it happens in one state, it happens in all states. If that view of the U.S. didn't suit the U.S., it shouldn't have signed and ratified the treaty. Also, the treaty calls on the U.S. to abide by its decisions whether they agree with them or not.

If you are against all gambling, I can respect that opinion. I don't agree with it. I personally think adults should be allowed to choose how they spend their disposable income.

Finally, there is no scientific evidence that online gambling is any more addictive than land-based gambling. And I can't remember the last time an online sports book or casino gave a customer a free drink through its computer to distort his or her judgment.

Jay Cohen

If the government really wants to outlaw all forms of gambling, it should start with the lottery. Its odds of people winning equal those of being struck by lightning for 30 days in a row, yet the government allows this to go on. Think about how much money is wasted trying to regulate this when legalizing it would bring about so much revenue that the government and states would see a windfall they never dreamed of. If you legalize and tax gambling, you can cut back on the law enforcement keeping track of this, and you make a ton of money from the tax money brought in. People are going to gamble whether it is legal or illegal. It's sort of like speeding--posting a speed limit only has people exceeding it all the time. It's time the Jesus freaks stopped ruining this country. Just because they lead miserable and repressed lives doesn't mean we all have to. Live your boring humdrum life and let those of us who want to do what we want to do alone.

One of the worst laws the government has ever passed. Why allow us to bet on horses, sports, or poker in land-based casinos and not in my underwear in the comfort of my home?

Legalize all forms of gaming, regulate it, tax it, and learn from it. The religious right will run bingo and Monte Carlo nights and frown upon me enjoying myself at home. States will sell lottery tickets to those on welfare rolls but tell me I can't make a sports wager or play poker in my home. Repeal the law, and let us decide how we want to play with our money and free time.

Once again we have the U.S. government whining and crying because the rest of the world will not bow down and do as it says. Everything is just fine as long as the politicians in office can bully everyone else around till they back down, but as soon as the world stands up to them, they threaten to pull out of the WTO.

The United States of America is and always will be in my opinion the best country there is, but I am so sick and tired of the way it is being run and the way all those big shots in office have their heads up their ass's about trying to control my life and tell me what is best for me. It is about time they take control of their own lives; it's like the saying "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." The vast majority of them are either drunks, dopers, or cheating on their spouses. I don't understand how they can honestly think they know better for me than I do.

People think the Republicans lost the House and Senate in the elections last November because of the war in Iraq. Without a doubt, that's part of the reason, but their passage of the UIGEA bill was the kicker that did them in. Telling millions of American citizens what they can and can't do with their money and free time isn't going to get you re-elected. What they did was get millions of online gamblers and poker players stirred up who normally don't vote, like me, get up off our butts and vote in anybody but Republicans. And as a result, those extra votes were the deciding factor in a lot of these races that were decided by one or two percentage points, a mere thousands of votes. I would think these politicians have learned a lesson from this and realize that us online gamers represent a significant percentage of the U.S. population and therefore a large say in policies. As a result, I feel confident there will be regulated online gaming in the near future, particularly after Bush and his idiots leave office. Let's hope these new leaders will know better and not dictate what I can and can't do with my free time. If not, well, we'll go ahead and vote them out, too.

"Goodness, goodness: 'Constitution and God-given liberty' equated with the ability to get fleeced on the Internet."

I've been ripped off more times on eBay (twice) than by any online casino or sports book (never). I've made multiple cash-outs and have always received them in a timely manner (and paid my taxes on the income). I'm not sure who is getting "fleeced," so perhaps you'd like to edit your statement.

If what you meant to say was, "Casino table games and slot machines are always geared to give the house a greater edge and over the long-run, simply aren't profitable for the player," I would completely agree with you. It's why I play poker and bet on sports. If after saying that your intention is to ban it for anyone who still wants to play, my agreement ends.

The level of arrogance among these comments is astonishing. "We already have enough freedoms." Oh, thanks for being there to think for me. I appreciate it.

"And poker is not a game of skill." Hmm, my bank account says different.

"You could never drink or take drugs equal to the amount of money spent in a day on gambling." You've clearly never spent a day drinking and taking drugs with me.

"The WTO didn't try to force pornography to be open on the Web in Muslim countries." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Muslim countries don't have government-sponsored pornography. "Babes in Burkas," anyone? (Get it? We allow online lotteries and sport-wagering; we are home to thousands of land-based casinos. We can't have a "moral opposition" to gambling.)

And on and on.

To close, I can fully understand why people are opposed to gambling. There is a segment of our society that doesn't do well when gambling is introduced. In fact, it's the same way I feel about organized religion. That being said, I'll make you all a deal: Outlaw religion in all forms, and I'll give up online poker for the betterment of society and all.

I like to support my arguments with facts. To claim that this is not a conservative moral issue is a bold-faced lie. If you were to look at the Gallup Polls numbers, you'd see the vast majority of people, 63%, find gambling morally acceptable. If you were to look at the breakdown by liberals, moderates, and conservatives, you'd see it is only the socially conservative who are in disagreement with the vast majority of Americans. I understand the poll numbers are for gambling, but the numbers for online gambling are likely to be very similar. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27757

The hypocrisy of the U.S. government is being exposed for the world to see. The U.S. government promotes the lottery but tells the WTO it is against gambling on moral grounds. What a bunch of crap. Prohibition doesn't work.

I am a UK citizen and bet online in some of my spare time (poker and casino mainly). I would like to share a perspective on the ban from outside the U.S., if I may. Frankly, we find it pretty incredible what is going in the U.S. for many reasons, but mainly for the hypocrisy of the U.S. position. Here's why:

1. The argument that online gaming is somehow evil and run by unscrupulous operators is clearly ludicrous. If that were the case, do you honestly think that these firms would have been vetted by institutions like the London Stock Exchange, had blue-chip banks and law firms advising them, and Visa and Master Card processing their transactions? Imagine if these were narcotics companies--you think they would have got the same treatment? You have got to be joking.

2. If U.S. people are concerned about the moral aspect of gaming, then why haven't they banned land-based gaming and the whole of Vegas? And why are state lotteries promoted so much? And why is online betting allowed for horse- and dog-racing? I think we all know the answer, don't we (the WTO, EU, Canada, India, and Japan certainly know the answer to name but a few major nations annoyed at the U.S. actions)? It is simply good old protectionism--not prohibition. The U.S. wants to restrict online gaming, because it doesn't generate enough revenue from it. It's as simple as that. The commentator who made the reference about some other countries trying to ban it is correct. Some countries in Europe have tried to do the same. However, what he doesn't point out is that the European Court of Justice has seen through the baloney arguments put up by these governments and is now forcing them to open their markets up to properly licensed operators in other jurisdictions.

3. The fact is that the government doesn't like the competition, and why not when the state lottery pay-outs to the consumer are around 50%, but private sites pay out on average 95% back to the player? Wow, the government must really care about the consumer, eh?

4. We always admired the U.S. for its perceived freedoms and open marketplace, the "land of the free." This action completely flies in the face of that. And actions against some of our publicly listed operators? How would you like it if we arrested the directors of Google or eBay for infringement of laws in the UK (e.g. copyright violation)? As one major UK newspaper put it recently, "...and these guys are supposed to be our friends?"

5. The best way of protecting individuals is by licensing and regulating the activity. It is obvious the U.S. action to date has achieved the opposite effect as the market has simply moved away from all the transparent operators to those who are opaque, with all the publicly listed operators having ceased accepting U.S. players once the UIGEA was enacted. In the UK, operators are now licensed and regulated, and licenses can be recognized from other jurisdictions, but those jurisdictions must have been able to demonstrate the same high standards of control that are required of UK-based operators.

6. And finally, I find it quite incredible that a legislative process can allow an unrelated piece of legislation to be tacked on to a must-pass bill in the final minutes of Congress to get enacted--particularly when polls prior to the passing of the act showed that three quarters of Americans were against such a ban. What kind of legislative process is that?

What an interesting exchange of views.

What I found very striking was the very different views of the two gambling addiction experts; Mr. Guy Clark and Mr. John Stansfield. New Zealand feels it is important to take steps to regulate gambling in such a way as to allow non-problem gamblers to gamble and create safeguards to stop problem gamblers from harming themselves. The U.S. Congress tried a quick fix in the middle of the night, burying this law into a port security bill, all without much fanfare.

Further, both the former gaming operator's and John Pappas' of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), views were much closer to the views of John Stansfield than those of Mr. Guy Clark's of the two gambling addiction experts.

A former gaming operator, the leader of the Poker Players Alliance, and the head of the world's largest gambling addiction agency all agree?

There exists the technology to identify and stop problem gamblers from gambling online while no such technology exists for real-world gamblers. Both the pro-gambling interested parties say they want all the safeguards to be enforced that Mr. John Stansfield says are required to stop problem gamblers. What is the problem here?

I did a little reading up on this UIGEA "gambling ban" Congress crafted. It doesn't ban online gambling at all. It restricts U.S. citizens from using their U.S. bank accounts to deposit into a U.S.-based gambling operation. U.S. citizens can still gamble online; they just have no protection under U.S. law in doing so online.

In fact, the net effect of this carefully crafted piece of Congressional legislation seems to be to push online gambling further away from the one problem-gambling expert's solution than ever and further into the hands of even less regulation rather than more. I think I was in civics class the day they said Congress was there to find solutions. Yes, I know that was a long time ago, and I am now old enough to know that is only an ideal very often achieved by modern legislators.

Before this UIGEA law, a U.S. citizen could at least count on U.S. banking laws, secure money transfers, and was dealing with some stock-exchanged traded companies. Now a gambler has to use a middle man to transfer his money online. All this has done is increased the cost and lessened any possible sensible regulation by U.S. authorities. My understanding, since that day in civics class, was Congress loved spending time crafting an ever-increasingly tangled web of laws and regulations. All the anarchists, libertarians, and unrestricted Internet for anything all the time won this one.

The only people who lost out were the reported 15 million Americans who play online poker. Well, and the poor people who seemed to have missed out on the reported $3.5 billion in annual uncollected tax revenue. As a businessman concerned about what the WTO, GATT, and the EU trade sanctions might do to my service business by allowing foreign access to currently protected markets and ones now regulated mostly on the state level, I am appalled at the possible ramification to my business. But I'm almost close enough to retirement. I do have about 350 employees who are not so lucky.

What a way to run a country. It seems Congress' solution is at least three steps in the wrong direction. What a shock. My personal bottom line? The RNC will not be getting any money out of me this cycle. Nor if I can help it will they get any from any of my friends.

Mr. Pappas, the check is in the mail.

Oh, Mr. Clark...

Why oh why would you reply to these comments? Aren't you aware that a demagogue should never try to face the people, because his replies will never be logical or coherent enough for a solid argument?

"Again, all societies draw lines of the acceptable and unacceptable. There are people in those societies who disagree with those lines."

Hence you can just ignore them and draw that line yourself, right? Because obviously not being paid to conduct your own personal crusade makes you morally superior and having a few authoritarian types who think that the government should police what people do in the privacy of their own homes gives you the support to dictate your will. Right?

"We've heard from a couple of dozen who disagree with the line Congress drew on Internet gambling last year."

Actually you've heard a very small sample of those who disagree. Don't pretend that just a couple dozen people in America don't agree with you. I don't see Americans thrilled by a government that pries into their private lives and personal choices. Or would you like to suggest that when it comes to gambling, Americans overwhelmingly prefer a nanny state?

Your claims that you're an expert on online gaming is equally preposterous. You worked for eight years to ban gambling, not study it. You're not some sort of gambling scholar who studies the phenomenon objectively. You're an activist who's only goal is to ban, crush, and destroy what catches your ire. After all, you don't trust gambling site owners because they have a vested interest in their agenda and incentive to be dishonest. Why should we trust you since you also have an agenda and incentive to be dishonest?

"Many people disagree with the prohibition and criminalization of prostitution."

And what does that have to do with gambling? The prohibition of prostitution is a religious law that has stalked the West for the last 300 years. Oh, and were you aware that brothels were okayed by the church in the 1300s and 1400s as a way to "keep men from homosexuality"? You might want to do some research.

"Many libertarians argue for the right to dispense cocaine in vending machines."

That's an outright, slanderous lie and you should be ashamed to sink to this sort of level. It's disgusting to see a grown man have to go so low in a pathetic attempt to prove his point by accusing people of something like that, with no proof whatsoever. I know that it's beneath a demagogue to seek proof for his words, but such slanderous commentary only makes you look like a maniacal liar who would stoop to any level to insult his opponents.

Don't talk about societal standards if you're not even willing to follow the basic societal norms for civilized debate. People will not bend to your whims or admire you if you smear them with filth. All you have done with your reply to these comments is confirm the initial impression I and many others got from your article; that you're an ignorant demagogue with a superiority complex, and incapable of making an argument without an ad hominem.

I find it extremely ironic. I was watching TV (one of those poker shows) the other day, and these folks came on this one ad encouraging me to know my limit and to keep gambling entertainment.

And I used to play online for dimes and quarters until my state turned around and decided to tell me that my daily risk of about the price of a nighttime movie was dangerous, and that I needed to be protected from myself. I was also told that I was being kept from being a good family man by playing online poker, despite the fact that I could jump on for just half an hour or so.

But they told me that they weren't really prohibiting me from playing poker, because I could either:

(A) Play for free on the Internet, where the lack of an effective wagering system is similar to playing poker without any chips. "Uh, we can't bet, so just go ahead and turn another card." "But how do we fold?" "Uh..."

(B) Play for $3 and $6 down at my local casino, playing way above my limits and easily exchanging hands sums in the three and four digits. I thought this was about entertainment?

Not to mention that the former really truly does keep me away from family--that is, unless I bring them to the casino with me.

You really have to question whether any of the beauracrats who makes these laws think about the practical effects of the laws that they make, and how they influence Joe Everyman, who finds out about them and tries to abide by them.

Stop controlling what we do, stop taking away our rights and liberty, and give me back the good old USA. Internet gambling will never die no matter how you ban it.

To anyone who say poker is not a skill game, you're the world's dumbest person, and I will prove it by playing you one on one, and let's see how I will beat you using skills instead of luck.

It is just disgraceful that a few politicians would ignore the will of 93% of the American people who in poll after poll say the U.S. government should not make online gambling illegal. A few deeply conservative politicians decided they could get a few extra votes on this issue from uninformed conservative voters, so they press it. The continuing war on Americans' personal freedoms by the current government is an utter disgrace.

And I am a Republican who aligns with conservative beliefs. The position of the U.S. government on Internet gambling is complete idiocy.

I am Communist and support those who want to prohibit everything that is not red. Gambling is green as a dollar, so let's dump it.

The use of laws against rape and murder as a justification for banning online gaming is bone-chilling hypocrisy, since it is the prohibitionists who are trying to force their will on others. I am a hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen. How dare you violate the privacy of my home and tell me what I can and cannot do there with my own money?

Your conduct is predatory and perverted. Shame on you. Fall down on your knees and repent your wickedness.

This isn't about protecting people. What about the people who eat fast food four times a day and are obese? Are we banning fast food? What about the people who are addicted to shopping and have thousands and thousands of dollars in credit cards debt? Are we banning credit cards or shopping? What about the people who like to drive fast (the fastest speed limit I have seen anywhere in the U.S. is 70)? Why do we keep allowing cars that can go faster? There are people addicted to the Internet social networks. Are we banning them? No.

The bottom line is a small percentage of the population can be addicted to anything you can think of. You won't help these people by banning something but rather by identifying them and getting them the help they need. The only reason online gambling is a big deal is because the government can get a piece of the pie.

I don't gamble online. Even though I enjoy playing poker online, I have never wagered any money. I do it for entertainment purpose only.

I am a Republican as is my wife. I wrote to the National Party and expressed my extreme displeasure with what has happened to the party. I am now an embarrassed Republican and will be voting for Democrats in the next election. My God forgive me. I think that the tens of thousands of loud-mouthed right-wing extremists will be put in their place by the hundred of thousands of quiet Republicans in each state. I was for business, low taxes, freedoms, and liberties. The unbelievable UIGEA Frist/Kyl bill was the last straw. I am at this time frightened for our country and the direction it is headed. Fight for your freedoms, people.

Joe was concerned that I did not footnote my statement that "Probably half the money lost on gambling in our country, whether lottery, casino, or online is lost by people who have become addicted to a game." Lots of documentation is available of studies showing such figures. In 1999, Philip Cook, co-author of Selling Hope, probably the best objective study done on lotteries, cited a study at the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in Washington to the effect that some 5% of players in a given lottery game were buying more than half the tickets. Similar studies exist on casino play.

People opposed to Web gambling are not trying to stop people from playing poker. It's about commercial gambling--whether businesses ought to have the right to use the Web to put an addictive product in every home in America.

"The U.S. government's obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO."

Appease? Once you sign a treaty, you don't "appease" people; you fulfill a responsibility. Your bosses don't "appease" you by paying you; they honor the contract that they signed. The "protection" has to occur before signing the treaty, and not after, and not in limited circumstances that you choose. Again, your bosses can't protect themselves by asking you to work on Sunday unless it's in the original contract, can they? The bottom line is that once you sign something, you honor it--unless you lack the moral integrity to do so.

Jay, NCALG had a couple of meetings with the U.S. trade representatives to WTO regarding the positioning of gambling in the entertainment category. They disagree with you. You don't even seem to blink when you point out that the WTO can override state laws. Are you really comfortable with that? Actually, there are studies that show Internet gambling is much more addictive than most forms of gambling. A 2002 study by the University of Connecticut of outpatients in its medical and dental clinics found that about 70% of those who gambled on the Internet would be classified as problem or pathological gamblers. Online poker wasn't a big thing then, so the results aren't an exact picture of conditions today, and the patient pool was not perfectly representative of the population at large, being mostly college students, but the study is certainly alarming. For those who claim there are no studies documenting the increase in crime, bankruptcy, drug addiction, and spouse and child abuse caused by gambling, log onto our Web site at www.ncalg.org and surf around a bit. There are dozens of scientific studies documenting our statements.

I'm a hard-working, voting member of this great country, who happens to enjoy playing cards on the Internet. I will retain my freedom to choose what I will do with my money in the freedom of my home on my own Internet connection. I must give credit to the right-wing religious groups; they have organized and used the governmental system to advance their views. I don't like the way the UIGEA was forced upon us, but that's our system. The religious right isn't the majority, just for the moment better organized. In response, I'm motivated to fight them, tooth and nail, on this issue, and I must add on many other social issues that they espouse that I don't agree with. There are many of these nanny-state, big government, better-than-thou issues and I won't open those cans of worms here. Those of us who wish to stop the erosion of our rights need to organize and use the system to our advantage. I agree with TerryK, that our voice was heard in the last election and our voice can become much louder. People: Get up, fight the religious fanatics, and take control of your rights. Vote, talk to others about registering to vote. Write your representatives and join in with organizations who support your views. There are grass roots campaigns that can be significant. Contribute some cash support, and we can do it.

"For those who claim there are no studies documenting the increase in crime, bankruptcy, drug addiction, and spouse and child abuse caused by gambling..."

I claim it. You can't prove these issues were "caused" by anything but the person who committed the crimes. Liberals like you always blame outside factors, like guns, media, bad parenting, and gaming, rather than blaming individuals. Anyway, most of us don't subscribe to big-government control over Americans to keep them from committing future crimes. We trust Americans to do the right thing.

Mr. Clark, you claim to have scientific studies backing you, but when you say that a 2002 study finds a 70% addiction rate in online gamblers, forgive those of us with deductive skills to frown and point out that these numbers can't be correct. Or sane.

How come standard gambling legalized in the U.S. has an addiction rate of about 14%, but online gambling has a 70% addiction rate? A two-fold or even a three-fold increase is believable. A little high, a little surprising but somewhat believable. But a five-fold jump? That's beyond suspicious.

Your entire theory relies on how you categorize pathological gamblers. Since you can manipulate what you call or classify as a problem gambler at will (the studies you try to present on your site don't present your exact definitions or other vital details for confirming a study's objectivity), you could call someone who gambles more then once a month on a $10 lottery ticket the equivalent of someone who flushed his entire life savings down the drain in Vegas. Other studies simply examine the behaviors of people who already have a gambling problem and as a result have nothing to do with your point in a classic example of a red herring.

I find the fact that you've tried to jam supposedly viable scientific studies only after demeaning, insulting, and lying about the intentions of those who find your overreach into people's choices disturbing and based on shoddy evidence and questionable motives, quite telling. You're using outdated and very purposefully vague and misleading stats as a last resort. If you had viable data that prove your exact words, you would've put it front and center with all the information needed to verify objectivity and accuracy.

The U.S. government makes the rules for everyone to follow, but it doesn't have to follow them.

Why are people talking about "studies"? Why do people think that their study trumps my rights? It doesn't. Also, if we are to talk about the addictive side of gambling, maybe a study on how the states are addicted to the revenue generated from gambling would be useful.

Studies with samples so flawed that even Mr. Clark has to acknowledge their problems have no usefulness in this debate.

A little calm reflection would do much better: Internet gambling has been available in the U.S. for almost 10 years, if it were as addictive as Mr. Clark would have us believe, why can he find no evidence of tragedy beyond a handful of individual cases? Equally so, Internet gambling has been available in Europe for just as long and continues unabated there--so where is the evidence of wide scale social problems that must have occurred if Mr. Clark is correct?

That is not to say there is no negative impact from legal online gambling, as others have noted there are people who develop problems for anything. Yet Mr. Clark has at no time ever even tried to debate the merits of regulation vs. prohibition with regard to these people. That's because prohibitionists never do that; they know full well they will lose that debate so obviously that the only way to advance their argument is to make emotional appeals based on the hurt of the unfortunate few. That is indeed the debate tactic of a demagogue, and it is also stupid social policy.

This debate goes to the gamblers, no question.

I went to college years ago, and the debt from trying to do that almost put me under, and certainly limited my life in many ways, but just because my life got messed up from trying to go to college doesn't mean I think going to college should be illegal. I am well aware that many, many people go to college and have no financial problems because of it at all. It would have been great if the government had tried to protect me from myself, but I take responsibility for making the choices I did, for trying to buy something I had no business thinking I could afford.

Gambling, on the other hand, has only made me money in life. Maybe not a huge amount, but gambling has been a positive force in my life financially, while college almost ruined me financially.

I find it interesting that Republicans want to save people from themselves in areas where intelligence matters, such as poker and sports gambling, but feel no desire to try to save people from themselves in areas where intelligence is irrelevant, such as lottery gambling. The only conclusion I can make from that, which is supported by my anecdotal observations in life, is that the reason Republicans want to ban gambling where intelligence matters is because Republicans lose their money in that kind of gambling, whereas with pure-luck forms of gambling, they are not at a disadvantage.

Mr. TheEngineer,
Several contributors to this debate have accused us of being Communists, right-wing fanatics, and religious bigots, and now you define us in the "liberal" camp. I guess being hard to pigeon-hole is a good thing.

If you look around, I think you'll find liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are opposed to Internet gambling, as well as many who are in favor of it.

Except for calling the bureaucrats at the WTO "gnomes," I have resisted calling anyone in this debate names. I have no animosity toward anyone who gambles on the Internet or elsewhere. However, I think the purveyors are predators who care not a whit for the damage they cause countless numbers of people.

random,
For fear of boring everyone in this debate, I didn't want to spend a lot of time on the methodology of the University of Connecticut study on gambling, or on the intricacies of gambling addiction categorization, but you can examine all those details by looking up the study in the Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Journal:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/adb16176.pdf

Is that "front and center" enough? You asked for it.

From Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter's Web site, at http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

13. Gambling:

I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

What a joke. He's limited government until he finds something he wants. Then, the sky's the limit.

First of all, his position is foolishness. Drugs are very addictive. Gaming is at most addictive to 1% people, and technology can be used to keep those 1% offline via various exclusion and detection programs. Unfortunately, this won't work under Hunter's big-government prohibition plan (which involves snooping in people's bank accounts and Internet usage histories).

The money laundering charge is equally ludicrous. This is easily controlled, and it's proven. Check out http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx and http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml . It's nothing but a red herring. Hunter simply doesn't like Internet poker, so he thinks it should be banned for everyone. That's not my definition of a small-government conservative.

Mr. Clark,
First, let me thank you for your patience. I'm sure that the overall response to your statement has been somewhat overwhelming.

But I am curious as to at what point you believe that government should cease from getting involved in a private, contractual arrangement in which the purveyor is potentially a predator who doesn't care about the damage caused. Is there any such point in your mind?

Nice one, GClark. You cited a study that evaluated all of 31 people who had gambled on the Internet.

Dr. Clark,
I don't know what the U.S. schedule said before I was involved with this WTO matter. I have been intimately involved with it since 2002. (Google my name and Washington Post.) I can say with 1,000% certainty that the U.S. schedule that was one of the foundations of Antigua's case was the same schedule in 2002 as it was when the case was filed in 2003 and when it was appealed in 2004.

Does the WTO treaty trample states' rights? Yes, it does. The WTO views each country as one entity. If it happens in one tiny corner of a country, it happens in that country. It doesn't matter whether or not I think that is a good idea. That's what the President and Congress signed off on when they agreed to the treaty.

As to the studies, I am not a study collector. It doesn't surprise me that you can pull out some study. I am sure if I looked I could find another. It doesn't matter.

The point is, if gambling is so harmful, why not ban it everywhere? Maybe that's what you would like to see? It's just hypocritical to point to one type of gambling as evil and another as good because the state gets a piece. How about this, why do they allow alcohol to be served within 100 yards of gaming? Not only do they serve it, they give it away free.

Sports gambling holds less than 5% of the amount wagered year after year. Blackjack holds less than 2%. The state lotteries hold between 20% and 50%. The higher holds tend to be in states that offer no other gaming.

What about gambling on the stock market? That's gambling too. Don't believe me, fine. What about those people who trade options and futures? How about cash settled S&P 500 Futures? Don't tell me that's not gambling.

If you don't like gambling, that's great. But it's not right for you to try to impose your choices on everyone else.

Antigua won the case. The USTR has finally stopped trying to spin it otherwise. Now it's just a matter of time before the U.S. allows Antigua some sort of access to the American market or faces billions in intellectual property sanctions. It's their choice.
--JC

"If you look around, I think you'll find liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are opposed to Internet gambling, as well as many who are in favor of it."

Not really. The opponents of Internet gaming are primarily big-government social conservative Republicans. Check out my analysis at https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=237.