Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LisasLuck
Here is an email response I received from my congressman:
|
I'd send him a polite email back, with something like:
Dear Mr Lewis,
Thank you for your swift response. I can understand why state authority is a concern of yours, however as an elected congressman, I'd like to question whether in fact this should be the driving force behind your support for the Bill.
My understanding was that we elected you to represent our opinions on US law rather than to take a personal view on what is wrong or right for us. That aside, what also strikes me as odd, is that 126 congressmen prefer to simply ban something rather than look at ways of controlling it. This strikes me as penalising everyone to protect a few.
By way of example, we would never consider banning driving so that the few that drink-drive, or drive carelessly, can no longer do so. And we are happy as a nation to allow firearms in the home on the basis of regulation, yet we are not prepared to enter into agreements with other nations regarding the emission of greenhouse gasses, which has a far greater effect on our lives, and those of future generations, that internet gambling ever could. So why is online gambling so much more of a threat to us?
I struggle to see why I should be banned from spending my hard-earned money on a form of entertainment I enjoy, simply because a few people oppose morally, or others cannot follow a passtime in moderation. Education is a far better solution than prohibition. Our 20th Century History has taught us that.
I'd seriously ask you to consider whether your support for this Bill is indeed in the interests of the majority of your electorate, or whether it is simply politically, or morally, motivated.
Kind regards
<me>
------------------------------------------------------------