AMERICA'S FIVE DUMBEST BANS
10 April 2009
Actions taken on Internet gambling rank right
up there
Interesting weekend reading came from the Hawaii
Reporter at
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?7070255f-67df-40c5-af64-9b4fc952db1e
, which took an op-ed look at the five dumbest bans
perpetrated by the US government - one of them involving
online gambling.
Commenting that what the free
market gives, governments too frequently take away, the
newspaper used four criteria on which to base its
assessment:
• No one can present a strong case
for marginal social harm from the product or service
banned. Consumer choice alone is good enough reason to
oppose product bans, but that aside, the bans included
herein cannot be argued for on even the most tenuous
utilitarian grounds.
• The product should provide
benefits to the general public. It should be something
that almost anybody might have a theoretical interest in
using.
• A government must have actually enforced
the ban within the recent past. Many amusingly archaic
laws remain on the books but go unenforced—but not all.
• The law in question must be statewide or national
in scope. The larger the jurisdiction, the greater the
harm it can cause when it bans a product. National and
state bans are extremely difficult to circumvent, local
bans much less so.
The Hawaii Reporter goes on to
deliver its assessment, naming a ban on the use of the
cancer drug Provenge; the prohibition in the states of
Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Oklahoma on
buying a coffin from an unlicensed dealer; the Louisiana
ban on selling a flower arrangement is not a licensed
florist and the Texas and nationwide ban on selling
horsemeat.
Second on the list was the national
restraints on Internet gambling in the United States,
about which the article commented:
"Americans
like to gamble. As of 2008, 48 states had legal gambling
in some form, and today 38 allow the operation of
casinos, slot parlors, or card rooms.6
"Nearly
all Americans approve of the activity—around 90 percent
in one recent poll. However, a 2006 federal law, the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA),
places absurd restrictions on banks in an attempt to
outlaw Internet gambling.
"The law, which the
Bush administration attempted to implement through a
“midnight” rulemaking effort in its waning days,
essentially bars banks from engaging in or facilitating
transactions to transfer money to online gambling
providers outside of the United States.
"The
absurdity of trying to curb gambling aside, UIGEA will
adversely affect activities which do not constitute
gambling at all, imposing tremendous costs on the rest
of the economy. The regulations will impose a sizeable
burden on the already struggling banking sector. The
cost, the Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, and
Federal Reserve agree—will come in upwards of $100
million a year."
The history of the newpaper's
annual look at legislative absurdity has included some
goodies in the past:
A Virginia ban on sangria
Several state bans on sex toys
A ban on the
CardioPump
A ban on selling bottled water in
Toronto.
The article concludes:
"This
catalog of absurd product bans may seem amusing, but any
clearly absurd product ban can have serious negative
consequences for freedom and consumer welfare. Nobody
can legitimately contend that a society that retracted
all of the product bans discussed above would find
itself less safe, secure, or moral. These bans simply
intrude on the freedom of individuals to live their
lives as they please. While the freedom to drink bottled
water, buy wildflowers a child has picked, or play cards
online might appear inconsequential in the grand context
of economic and personal liberty, the sheer absurdity of
these product bans makes them all the more insidious. In
total, they add to a litany of such laws that, quite
simply, ought to go."
Online Casino News Courtesy of
Infopowa
More news here.
Top of page |
Home |
News |
Forum |
Webcast |
Vortran |
Accredited Casinos |
Evil Ones |
Pitch a Bitch |
Online Gambling Resources |
Poker
|