Fighting H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

[soflat]

Just for those of you that don’t follow things very close.... Online Gambling is NOT illegal.

I thought it was kinda sorta already illegal, depending on who you asked, and this bill was basically going to clarify the illegality for those who thought otherwise.

Also, I saw on a stock message board about how some European countries already block access to certain internet casinos. Does anybody know about this and how it is going?

It seems like all good sources are saying it won't pass the Senate. Are you guys just getting excited over something that will blow over again?

If it gets to the Senate and it starts to gain support I'll have to clean out my Neteller acct. Good thing we have land-based casinos coming soon.

 

[Pirateofc21]

Yup

I think this amendment was designed to derail the 4411 issue and to highlight the hipocrasy within the two bills which basically try to say its not okay to gamble online, but it is okay to gamble online as long as it benefits the state coffers! It's just highlighting the fact that it's entirely a money issue dressed up in morals to make it look like they have American's best interests at heart.

Definately! Could be it opens the door to introduce in the Senate debate the idea that they would have conceded their position if the bill was amended to included all forms of I.G. A calculated risk for a better stance later on against the other interests such as horse racing etc.

Just a thought.

 

[Simmo!]

Just for those of you that dont follow things very close.... Online Gambling is NOT illegal.

Now my understanding of it was that an act was passed in 1961 that made any form of interstate betting via telephones illegal and that this was updated a few years back (2000'ish I think) to include the Internet. Although it is pretty much unenforcable, that would make online gambling illegal.

 

[tennis_balls]

interesting read on Washington state law

Link Removed (invalid URL)

 

[Pirateofc21]

Wire Act

Now my understanding of it was that an act was passed in 1961 that made any form of interstate betting via telephones illegal and that this was updated a few years back (2000'ish I think) to include the Internet. Although it is pretty much unenforcable, that would make online gambling illegal.

It is my understanding that the Wire Act is to be updated (which is what I think you are referring to) to include the internet as part of the Bill on it's way to the Senate. As of yet I don't believe it is part of the Wire Act. I will see if I can find a current reading of it.

 

[jetset]

Also, I saw on a stock message board about how some European countries already block access to certain internet casinos. Does anybody know about this and how it is going?

It seems like all good sources are saying it won't pass the Senate. Are you guys just getting excited over something that will blow over again? QUOTE]

You're talking about the Italian gambling authority AAMS blocking over 600 online gambling websites to Italian gamblers by issuing decrees to the national ISPs, which has caused a major European furore and litigation in progress. There are several stories on this in Casinomeister News.

In the post-vote reactions I have seen so far almost everyone is saying that this ban is going to be difficult in the extreme to enforce, it is going to be unpopular if it interferes with the internet and that it is unlikely to get through the Senate, where it is going to get a much more thorough examination and debate than was the case in the limited time devoted to the 10 items on the American Values Agenda.

It's also an election year and the knives will be out, along with those who are concerned about the carve-outs in HR4411. The Senate also has a heavy schedule ahead of it before this session closes in time for the November elections.

If HR4411 fails or runs out of time in the Senate, it means these short sighted politicians will have to start all over again next year, and there is mounting pressure for an investigation into all the pros and cons of online gaming first, rather than these at times very general and always unsubstantiated accusations that anti-gambling folks have been making.

 

[Webzcas]

In the post-vote reactions I have seen so far almost everyone is saying that this ban is going to be difficult in the extreme to enforce, it is going to be unpopular if it interferes with the internet and that it is unlikely to get through the Senate, where it is going to get a much more thorough examination and debate than was the case in the limited time devoted to the 10 items on the American Values Agenda.

Unfortunately, whilst I do not believe they have enough time left to enable them to get this bill through the senate. Judging by posts made by Americans on various political forums including my own, there appears to be a general apathy regarding this bill.

Many deem gambling as immoral and wrong, whilst those that don't care either way what happens, are not concerned that this bill could indeed force their isp's to censor their internet access. The posters I have come across that actually are outraged by this bill are too few and far between. Bearing in mind this is only a very small section of US Public Opinion, nevertheless it is worrying for all those who will be affected if this bill is passed.

As a webmaster who runs several gambling portals, I am glad I moved my sites to be hosted in the UK over a year ago. What has happened in Washington state recently has also set a very worrying precedent. At least with my sites being hosted in the UK, I am very unlikely to wake up in the morning and find my Host have been forced by the UK Govt to pull the plug on my server. This may seem a far fetched scenario, but I really do recommend that webmasters who operate in this industry, start planning for the worse case scenario - Moving your sites out of the US is just one area that needs to be seriously looked at.

All this said, I still do not believe this bill has the time left to enable it to pass through the senate.

 

[Simmo!]

You're talking about the Italian gambling authority AAMS blocking over 600 online gambling websites to Italian gamblers by issuing decrees to the national ISPs, which has caused a major European furore and litigation in progress. There are several stories on this in Casinomeister News.

Last I heard, someone in Malta had challenged the Italian ruling and won the right to have their websites made accessible to Italians. But the Italian government hadn't adhered to the ruling. Any update on this that you know of Jet?

The posters I have come across that actually are outraged by this bill are too few and far between

One would imagine that is because the vast majority of gamblers aren't even aware of what is going on behind the scenes

 

[jetset]

In view of Webzca's post I should clarify that the reactions I am referring to are those of business, political and legal analysts rather than those of the public at large.

Simmo, there was a case involving a sportsbook called Astrabet, but that positive finding was later complicated by some additional legal issue and I don't think it can be regarded as setting a precedent yet. There hasn't been any real news on this for a couple of weeks, and the last I heard the ban was still in place, with various gambling groups and Malta's LGA gearing up for litigation - some of it through an EU complaint.

 

[Pirateofc21]

DOJ Link

It is my understanding that the Wire Act is to be updated (which is what I think you are referring to) to include the internet as part of the Bill on it's way to the Senate. As of yet I don't believe it is part of the Wire Act. I will see if I can find a current reading of it.

Here is a link Old / Expired Link
to a particular statement made by John G. Malcolm, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, with several references to the internet and gambling.

Comments, opinions?

 

[soflat]

Unfortunately, whilst I do not believe they have enough time left to enable them to get this bill through the senate. Judging by posts made by Americans on various political forums including my own, there appears to be a general apathy regarding this bill.

If online gabling were clearly legal now and there was a good chance of the bill passing, then you might have seen a different reaction from players.

What would players gain by speaking out against the bill?

Are the casino operators apathetic too? I haven't heard much regarding their efforts to defeat the bill. But maybe it is because it won't pass the Senate anyways.

 

[lots0]

Moving your sites out of the US is just one area that needs to be seriously looked at.

If you’re an American, moving your server to another country will not stop the US law from coming after you for owning a gambling website. The US Justice Dept has gone after American casino owners living and operating offshore gambling sites before and I am sure they will do it again.


Interesting article about the new law on online gambling law in Washington State.
Link Removed (invalid URL)

 

[Westland Bowl]

Here is a link Old / Expired Link
to a particular statement made by John G. Malcolm, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, with several references to the internet and gambling.

Comments, opinions?

It would take a while to comment point by point on Mr. Malcom's speech but I'll say this for now: I've noticed that Mr. Malcolm qualifies the legality of on-line gambling for US citizens with the phrase "we believe" instead of "it IS" illegal.

 

[dominique]

It would take a while to comment point by point on Mr. Malcom's speech but I'll say this for now: I've noticed that Mr. Malcolm qualifies the legality of on-line gambling for US citizens with the phrase "we believe" instead of "it IS" illegal.

Yep. That would be because he is trying not to lie in public.

 

[dominique]

It is my understanding that the Wire Act is to be updated (which is what I think you are referring to) to include the internet as part of the Bill on it's way to the Senate. As of yet I don't believe it is part of the Wire Act. I will see if I can find a current reading of it.

The internet is NOT part of the wire act.

As a matter of fact, a year or two ago the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) ruled that the telephone and the internet were definitely distinct and unique and not the same.

This is why we go through the same thing over and over and over again. The house wants to have people believe they are there to enforce morality (which they are not)and introduce a bill that would make gambling through the internet illegal.

The senate however is unlikely to act against the wishes of the majority of the citizens. Most every family contains at least one poker player these days. Poker is an old staple for entertainment in the US.

This bill is going to stall and we will be here again next year, like so many years before.

Just my opinion here, maybe I'll eat my words.

 

[jetset]

If memory serves me right, Mr. Malcolm is also the guy who was quoted (last year I think) as saying that the federal authorities would have great difficulty in policing any ban on Internet gambling.

That hasn't stopped the DoJ from trying stunts like intimidating publications and advertisers that they may be breaking the law in publicising online gambling, or continually voicing the opinion that the Wire Act covers the internet.

 

[winbig]

Not too far from topic, but did anyone catch the Daily Show with John Stewart today? The clips they showed from the debate over this in the house were hilarious. They don't know the Internet from a hole in the ground.


edit: Ooops, the clips were from the "Net Neutrality" act. But it just goes to show the mentality of the people deciding the fate of online gambling in the USA.

A brief glimpse of this is at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

My favorite quote from that is:

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Yes, They sent him the Internet, not email, but the Internet LOL...word for word, no misquote.

What's bad about this is the guy is the head of the Senate Commerce Committee. D'oh!

 

[Westland Bowl]

First of all, in his statement, I've noticed that Mr. John G. Malcolm, the US Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General, qualifies the legality of on-line gambling for US citizens with the phrase "we believe" it is illegal instead of "it IS" illegal. Basically he/they believe that various US codes support their belief in the illegality of on-line gambling and I cover that later below.

Mr. Malcolm expresses concerns about minors gambling on the Internet which can be addictive, especially to young people. Minors also drink alcohol but we don't ban alcohol (which didn't work the one time US tried to do just that). Trying to ban a whole industry for the children is not a good idea. Zero tolerance approach isn't always a good one. In any case, rarely is a minor left to gamble indefinitely because obviously parents or guardians eventually find out. Of course, the parents, after losing a few thousand dollars, would wish on-line gambling were illegal, but so we should ban automobiles because their kid died in one?? When a minor gambles without their parents' permission, it should be left to the parents/guardians for discipline.

He next says that scam casino operators appear and disappear like illicit telemarketers. But they don't ban the whole telemarketing industry. This is why we got various forums that rate the casinos. Longevity is or should be one of the criteria for evaluating the credibility of the on-line casino.

Another point he makes is casinos can manipulate odds in their favor, make unauthorized credit card charges, skim accounts, hackers can get cc and other info on other gamblers. Various software, such as Cipher's software, can evaluate the randomness of the cards and/or outcome of blackjack for instance. The other problems is typical of operating on the Internet. So what.

Mr. Malcolm continues on....If on-line gambling were regulated on a federal level, there would be difficulties with varying 50 states laws regarding on-line gambling. I say, ok, just leave the whole issue alone then!

Then he tries to make the Wire Act (USC Section 1084 of Title 18) cover non-sporting bets placed across state and international borders. Mr. Malcolm says, This statute makes it a crime, punishable up to two years in prison, to knowingly transmit in interstate or foreign commerce bets on any sporting event or contest. The Department of Justice position is the Wire Act covers "other forms of gambling" too but this is not spell out in the Wire Act. The Justice Department does not make the laws but they seem to bend it. Mr. Malcolm gives the example of the successful case against of Jay Cohen of World Sports Exchange but he didn't specify that Jay was tried for SPORTS Betting, not for accepting bets on blackjack.

Next, he mentions USC Section 1955 of Title 18 as being applicable to on-line casinos but the example he gave was a successful case against a New Jersey company that had a part of their business on US soil. A more applicable example would be a successful case against a regular non-US on-line casino.

Going on, he mentions the Justice depart has employed the RICO and the Travel Act against on-line casinos but he doesn't mention that those acts were used SUCCESSFULLY against them. He doesn't give an example of a successful case.

He mentioned that they successfully got various credit card companies and Paypal to stop the servicing of gambling-related transactions. Congrats. But four years later, Congress is still trying to make it unlawful code-wise for US credit card companies to fund gambling endeavors.

He is worried about advertisements that give the impression that on-line gambling is legal when it is not. Here he makes his strongest statement, getting closer to saying that on-line gambling is illegal without any qualifications. Reading that paragraph again, this time it reads that offshore sports books and on-line casinos is illegal!!! Wait a minute.....we know that on-line casinos ON US SOIL is illegal but US cannot judge the legality of sports books and on-line casinos to exist IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!! He needs to state clearly that US citizens placing bets with non-US based sports books and on-line casinos is illegal. But perhaps that makes it TOO clear that the Justice Department wants to over-reach their jurisdiction over US citizens.

Now he comes to the money-laundering issue. He said that individuals can put their ill-gotten money into an on-line casino account, do a little betting, then request a withdrawal and ta-da!...the money is now not ill-gotten in the eyes of the individual. Another way is to have an overseas confederate (his word) do off-setting bets or have an insider transfer money or rig a game. I have no idea how much of this goes on but I believe a legitimate on-line casino would be suspiciously watching large volumes of money going in and out with funny betting patterns....always with the same people. Does he think that a person with ill-gotten money deposits a million dollars, bets a little, then request a million dollar withdrawal? Red flags should be going up at Intercasino or 32Red or wherever if this happened.

I believe the last paragraph of his speech is most telling....he says In conclusion, let me state that although the United States Department of Justice continues to believe that interstate on-line gambling should be prohibited.... You would not be saying should be prohibited if it IS prohibited.

The Justice department should be commended for pursuing money-laundering activities but to shut down the whole industry to US citizens isn't the right way to go about it.

An idea.....perhaps giving governmental ratings of the legitimacy of individual on-line casinos, clearing them for legal play, is a way to go. But if state/federal issues get tangled, then just let the federal government leave the whole thing to the states and the individual.

I'll stop here. P.S. Congrats to Pirate of c21 for your 100th post a couple of days ago.

 

[Pirateofc21]

We Believe

It would take a while to comment point by point on Mr. Malcom's speech but I'll say this for now: I've noticed that Mr. Malcolm qualifies the legality of on-line gambling for US citizens with the phrase "we believe" instead of "it IS" illegal.

I think that is a very important distinction. You can believe what you want. That doesn't make it law. I'll dig around some more as that didn't take long to find. Does anyone know when this I.G. Bill will hit the Senate?

 

[Pirateofc21]

Most Telling

You would not be saying should be prohibited if it IS prohibited.

I'll stop here. P.S. Congrats to Pirate of c21 for your 100th post a couple of days ago.

Thanks for your efforts. I know it was a bit long but you caught ( I think ) the most important points summed up in one statement as stated above in the quote.

P.S. Thanks for the congrats W.B. At least for now the cannot block my access to the cyberworld of forums where I can blab my thoughts FREELY!

 

[jetset]

Congratulations on a well thought out and logically argued post, Westland Bowl.

For me it highlighted yet again the contradictions in the attitudes of federal officials when it comes to online gaming, and their latitude when it comes to making unsubstantiated statements about the industry.

Someone mentioned earlier that many of the Washington politicians don't know online gambling from a hole in the ground, and that about sums it up imo. Many of these less informed "representatives of the American people" are probably being led around by the nose on political party positions, deals on their own leglislative interests and maybe even deals in their own interests. Typical politics, in fact. The way in which this Bill was fast-tracked to the House floor in the same broad vehicle as 9 other pieces of otherwise unrelated legislation is indicative of that in my view.

I thought this comment in your post was important, too: "He needs to state clearly that "US citizens placing bets with non-US based sports books and on-line casinos is illegal". But perhaps that makes it TOO clear that the Justice Department wants to over-reach their jurisdiction over US citizens."

I think there may be another reason as well - that they realise that criminalising the leisure activities of ordinary Americans and limiting their Internet exposure is not something a smart law maker....or enforcer....does. Apart from the difficulties of uniformly applying such a personally targeted law it could have consequences when it comes to individual officials getting re-elected for another season at the trough.

 

[The Dude]

NEWS ALERT: US LEGISTLATIVE UPDATE

World Online Gambling Law Report


NEWS ALERT: US LEGISTLATIVE UPDATE



THE UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2006


The Unlawful Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act of 2006 (the
Bill) was passed by the US House of Representatives on July 11 2006. It
will now move onto the Senate for further consideration. Hillary
Stewart-Jones, Partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner, briefly summarises the
provisions of the bill below and considers the remaining legislative hurdles
it faces.



BACKGROUND


The US House Judiciary Committee previously approved the original
incarnations of the Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-VAs HR 4777 (the Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act) and James Leach, R-Iowas HR 4411 (the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) on 25 May 2006.



THE COMBINATION OF THE GOODLATTE AND LEACH BILLS


Leach and Goodlatte combined their two anti online gambling bills in July
2006 to create a new single bill that includes the principal features of
both pieces of legislation.


The merged legislation took the number and title of Leach's original bill
and is now known as H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act of 2006.


The original Leach bill sought to combat remote gambling with unauthorised
offshore providers by restricting the use of credit cards, cheques, wire
transfers and electronic fund transfers to fund gambling accounts, subject
to exemptions for horseracing in certain areas of the US.
Goodlatte's original bill focused on updating the Federal Wire Act 1961 to
explicitly prohibit unauthorised remote gambling activities.


The Bill somewhat clumsily amalgamates these two approaches by modernising
the wording of the Federal Wire Act to explicitly cover internet gambling
while also restricting various payment methods to online gambling
businesses.


As the Bill currently stands, individual states retain the right to regulate
Internet gambling if they so choose. However, it is thought that such
regulations would only be for intrastate gambling and, given that supporters
of the bill do not believe technology exists to verify a Web users
location, they effectively consider the Bill to be an all-out prohibition.
Conversely, opponents of the Bill have noted that its only real effect is to
target the operating of online gambling businesses, which are already based
outside the US and ostensibly out of the reach of US authorities.
The Act was approved in the US House of Representatives on 11 July by a vote
of 317-93. It will now be referred to the Senate for further consideration.



PASSAGE OF THE ACT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


During the House debate, the Acts promoters repeated the long-standing
arguments against on-line gambling, notably that it siphons billions of
dollars away from the American economy, is highly addictive, causes family
problems and serves as a vehicle for money laundering.
A large part of the Republicans' argument for placing such high priority on
Internet gambling prohibition has been the fact that the disgraced lobbyist
Jack Abramoff helped prevent a previous prohibition bill in 2000 on behalf
of a client looking to legalise online lotteries.
An amendment to the bill was introduced towards the end of the hearing, the
aim of which was to "eliminate the exceptions to the bill's general
prohibition against online gambling, thereby establishing a complete ban on
all Internet gambling-related activities". Those behind the amendment
claimed that the bill was inconsistent as it did not ban all forms of online
gambling. They alleged that the bill only exempted horse racing because that
industry would oppose the bill were it not exempted. The proposed amendment
therefore added remote horse race wagering to the Bills prohibited
activities.
The horse-racing amendment was introduced by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
Nevada has by far the most liberalised gambling laws of any US state, and it
was alleged that it is for this reason Berkley introduced what amounted to a
poisoned pill amendment. The Bills supporters claimed Berkleys amendment
was disingenuous and she was in fact aiming to take advantage of the
vociferous opposition that the amended Bill would face from the horse-racing
industry. The amendment was ultimately voted against.



THE NEXT STEPS


The Bill will now pass to the US Senate, where it will have to follow a
process identical to that of the House of Representatives. Once the Bill
has been introduced to the Senate floor, it is passed to various
committees/sub-committees, where it is discussed and amended as necessary.
The Bill, with any amendments, is then sent to the Senate floor where it is
debated and voted upon. The two versions of the Bill, (one from the House
of Representatives and one from the Senate), are then sent to the conference
committee, resulting in a compromise bill which is sent back to each chamber
for final approval. Once approved, the President signs the final version
into law.


Midterm elections take place on 7 November 2006. According to the published
schedule for the 109th Congress (Congress being the House and the Senate),
summer recess will take place from August 7 to September 4 for the Senate
(31 July to 4 September for the House). The Senate and House reconvene on 5
September 2006, at which point both chambers will need to act quickly if
they intend to agree on what will be in the final version (that is, if the
Senate has already voted on the bill but made its own changes from the
version passed in the House on July 11).


Congress target adjournment date is 6 October 2006, approximately one month
before the midterm elections. If members of Congress intend to put real
pressure on the President to make an affirmative action to either sign or
veto the bill, they will, therefore, need to pass a final version in both
houses by Friday 22 September 2006 (10 business days before 6 October) or
Tuesday 26 September 2006 (10 actual days before 6 October). Otherwise,
President Bush may allow the bill to die after Congress adjourns on the
sixth without taking any action. Alternatively, the adjournment date may be
changed by House and Senate leaders. Ultimately, any veto handed down by
President Bush while Congress is in session must be overridden by a
two-thirds majority in both chambers.

 

[Peaceful1]

Let's make bets on whether it passes fully in time

 

[kmartinusa]

Let's make bets on whether it passes fully in time

Thanks for cracking me up!

Kevin

 

[Simmo!]

Let's make bets on whether it passes fully in time

LOL. Okay I bet you $1 million that it doesn't pass.

Terms & Conditions: You must be living in a jurisdiction where gambling is legal at the time you request a withdrawal of any winnings from Simmo!'s betting parlour. Simmo reserves the right to withhold payments to individuals who knowingly break the laws of their country, or to people with less than 3 legs who find a loophole in the terms to exploit. All legs must be flesh and blood and attached to the claimant. Just so we're on the same wavelength.

I don't accept Neteller by the way...bank wire for that amount only! But I promise to tell your bank it was for buying a poker chip from Ebay with the image of Senator Goodlatte mysteriously etched into the surface...should they ask Oh...and if you lose, you have to change your name by deedpoll to CynthiaHR4777

 

[dominique]

Toooooo funny!!!!

 

[Tester]

Three questions

1) what says the new law about Neteller?

2) The law passed with a strong majority of about 400/100 was this the majority in the previous two rounds? Because if this time it passes the congress with a stronger majority thatn before it may be an indication for the Senate.

3) As a know nothing. What is the different between congress/senate that makes everyone thinking it would not pass in senate?

 

[Macgyver]

I think you mean to ask about the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate, since both make up the U.S. Congress.

 

[jetset]

The timing of the Carruthers arrest by the DoJ is certainly fortuitous for the likes of Goodlatte and Kyl, both of whom were quoted in US media yesterday applauding the efforts of the DoJ and linking it to their legislative attempts to get internet gambling banned - with a few exceptions as always, of course.

Nice timing to focus the general media spotlight on the industry, and judging by the huge amount of press this arrest has generated, it's working.

Kyl told the American press he would be pushing his proposal vigourously in the Senate this year.

 

[Chatmaster]

I am truly concerned about this after seeing these two movies. Is this guy really a senator? Nevermind that I understand he is actually in charge of something

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[AussieDave]

I am truly concerned about this after seeing these two movies. Is this guy really a senator? Nevermind that I understand he is actually in charge of something

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I'm not one for American humour but that feed above, man that was soooo funny I nearly wet myself.

All jokes aside though, this sheds light on the BIG problem, that is that 99% of these politicans know "Jack" about the internet and much less about online gaming.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

That was very funny also, thanks for brightning my day!

On another issue though related to gambling per say, a found an article by a journalist regarding the increase of addictive gambling. There was also a piece referring to eCogra who has mentioned the implementation of a piece of software that could be used by casinos to veto gamblers playing styles.

Basically it would allow operaters to identify problem gambling and take steps to assist any playersd of their casino who may have a gambling problem.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Peaceful1]

Let's make bets on whether it passes fully in time

It was anticipated that this would have been brought to the Senate floor for vote this past week...they went out for recess yesterday without covering this thus far, and not back till September.. so at the very best the most nervous of us can breathe freely for a month.

"Target adjournment date" - simply a guideline/goal of when they would ideally like to go out ... IMO maybe too extreme to compare to a New Year's resolution, but basically they try as best they can but have missed the "target" adjournment date in the past

We should really stay alert though in September as both H.R. 4411 (which was anticipated to have been debated in Senate by now) and H.R. 4777 (anticipated to be under Committee review until approximately Sept. 15) should be issues once again brought to the forefront once Congress reconvenes.

 

[toofast4u]

I am all for this act, internt gambling has done a lot more harm than good to this country.

 

[lots0]

I think it is safe to say now that HR4777 is now DEAD and we won't see its ugly head again this year.

The Repub leadership have abandoned the idea of using online gambling as a 'hot button' issue, they have bigger problems (and bigger hot button issues) on their hands right now.

Another small victory for FREEDOM in America!

I am all for this act, internt gambling has done a lot more harm than good to this country.

You know what, I am all in favor of outlawing Stupidity, we if were to make being Stupid against the law only outlaws would be Stupid... Stupid people have caused far more harm to America than a little gambling ever did... just look at the Bush and his followers.

 

[Simmo!]

...internt gambling has done a lot more harm than good to this country.

That's possibly true. But only because of the head-in-the-sand attitude of US politicians and the Bill's supporters. If they looked up and considered regulation, they could actually use it to do more good than harm.

 

[lots0]

I don't usually do 'me too' posts but I have to say I agree totally with Simmo.

If they looked up and considered regulation, they could actually use it to do more good than harm.

Yup if they regulated online gambling they could use some of the taxes and fees collected to help fund things like GA (Gamblers Anonymous) and other information and services to help Compulsive Gamblers.

Maybe even fund some math and statistics classes in schools so kids graduating will know the facts and won't think they will be able to get rich gambling...

 

[jetset]

Whilst I hope you're right Lots0, I wouldn't say this is off the books yet. Just before Congress went into recess last Friday house majority leader Frist said that the online gambling bill was on the roll for the start of business when the politicians are back from the break around 15 September.

The chances of this bill running out of time are good, but we can't be certain of that yet.

 

[lots0]

Whilst I hope you're right Lots0, I wouldn't say this is off the books yet. Just before Congress went into recess last Friday house majority leader Frist said that the online gambling bill was on the roll for the start of business when the politicians are back from the break around 15 September.

Your right, Frist did say that, however, after the primaries (yesterday) the political landscape has changed quite a bit.

The Repub strategists (like Karl Rove) are all now saying that the Republicans had better focus on 'real' issues like gas prices, the war in Iraqi and Lebanon and let the 'hot button' issues like gay marriage, abortion and gambling prohibition sit on the back burners for a while.

Also one of the biggest Dem supporter of HR4777 in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, is no longer going to be a dem senator after November, no matter what, he lost the Primary election...

 

[Darem1]

More to worry about than banning internet gambling

Newt Gingrich (R) visited our area this morning and he relayed to those in attendance that we could be on the verge of World War III. Add to that today's thwarted attempt to explode planes flying from Britain to the US in mid flight, (good going Scotland Yard - I hope our FBI is taking a lesson)
I think that this internet gambling thing will simmer on the back burner until it has evaporated. We all have a lot more to worry about these days, it seems.

 

[Simmo!]

Newt Gingrich (R) visited our area this morning and he relayed to those in attendance that we could be on the verge of World War III.

Jeez - nothing like reassuring your public Was he pertaining to the Israeli conflict?

We all have a lot more to worry about these days, it seems.

Too right

 

[lots0]

Was he pertaining to the Israeli conflict?

Unlike Europe, here in America the so called news coverage is rather one sided and filled with doom and gloom...

 

[kmartinusa]

Jeez - nothing like reassuring your public Was he pertaining to the Israeli conflict?



Too right

Newt isn't an elected official, and in any case, it isn't his job to reassure the public. It seems to me that he is simply telling the truth.

IMHO, the Isralei conflict is simply a distraction, or rather a symptom.

I can say without taking an obvious stand that there is some chance that the world as we know it will soon change. The question, at least assuming that this is right, is how quickly and how will you personally be affected.

I say look at Iran, Syria, Venesuala, and perhaps North Korea. I won't go into details, but I believe that these are the real roots.

I hope that the dark clouds that I see gathering can be disbursed peacefully. However, the clouds must be cleared somehow.

Crap, I came here for a distraction from the real world and here I go.

Kevin

 

[Simmo!]

Crap, I came here for a distraction from the real world ...

I spot an interesting cross topic link

 

[kmartinusa]

I spot an interesting cross topic link

Hi Simmo,

I thought as I wrote my reply that I might be changing subjects, but for the life of me I can't understand why you took it to the thread that you did. Perhaps your link was not what you intended it to be?

I do agreee with you that a discussion as to where the world is headed and how it will affect those here on a personal level is an interesting topic.

In any case, I am selfishly glad that the regulation or banning of online gaming for US citizens might have been yet again stalled within our congress. I'd trade my hobby for stability anytime, but in this case the distraction serves all of our purposes. Not politically correct, or nice, nor does it feel good to say this, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Kevin

 

[Simmo!]

I thought as I wrote my reply that I might be changing subjects, but for the life of me I can't understand why you took it to the thread that you did. Perhaps your link was not what you intended it to be?

LOL...yes it was a tad tenuous I guess but you eluded to using gambling as a distraction from real life which the corresponding link was also concluding to a degree, that it is often used as an escape route from real life if only for a temporary time

 

[kmartinusa]

Ahh, thanks.


Take care,

Kevin

 

[toofast4u]

That's possibly true. But only because of the head-in-the-sand attitude of US politicians and the Bill's supporters. If they looked up and considered regulation, they could actually use it to do more good than harm.

There has never been any instance in history where gambling has done anyone more good than harm other than the few handfull of people that actually won money. Most people who lose are those who cannot afford it, I don't care if it goes to state or national budgets, its still never a good thing overall.

But online gambling is never going away, so the least we can do is make it safe and secure for those who do use it. It went from being not only a game of chance by playing the game to also being a gamble if you were going to get paid even if you do win.

Having a casino in your room if you are a compulsive gambler is like living in a crackhouse if you are a crackhead.

 

[Peaceful1]

I'm thinking what Simmo! was referring to in it doing more good than harm is doing more good in the aspect of online gaming itself (not moral or "self-control" issues) in that if it were prohibited completely, like anything else, may potentially make room for the "shady" to use "underhanded tactics" to simply get around the law. Being regulated would at least allow to try to filter out some of those outlets, and protect the customer/consumer.

Like anything else, IMO, if someone has such a heavy addiction, not having it allowed in their household will not prevent or put an end to any detrimental behavior. I believe that the heavy addiction to where it leads to personal/financial demise is a separate issue altogether. Even if it's not in their house, you have the lottery, so one can still overspend on that or other venues. We have liquor stores, and it is up to the individual to not go out of control or seek help if they have a problem...but such things are not put to an end completely because you have many that will not go overboard and follow the laws. We can't put a stop to everything for everyone because of the group of those who are compulsive or need individual help. Such is the case for online gaming..like any other vice.

 

[toofast4u]

Addiction also has a lot to do with convience, if you have a liqour cabinent in your front room you are more likely to drink than if the only way you can drink is to drive to the bar, or drive to the liqour store every time. Now, I understand the power of addiction, and gambling is a very powerful one, having that computer in your room calling out to you can be very very bad to some people. Addiction is something that grows, it doesn't manifest itself overnight, when i was heavily into gambling I didn't do it overnight, it started slow, and over the course of months/years you get deeper and deeper, and the internet is a very BAD place for it to manifest itself, because the internet is everywhere around you.

IMO, its wayy to easy to gamble online, I get tired of being bombarded with online casino ads everywhere I turn. No matter which way you look at it, gambling especially the high risk type such as casino gambling, is very dangerous. I know very few people who are addicted to lottery games, casino games are much worse. Its a lot better to have to go through the trouble of driving somewhere and knowing that you can cut yourself off from your money supply by leaving your credit/debit cards at home. There is a big percentage of people that have compulsive tendencys when it comes to any vice, and with that sort of behaviour, its important to put as many roadblocks in the path to making poor choices. Now, at home you have pretty much full access to everything you have, no roadblocks, and potentially noone there to slap you across the face if you are being an idiot.

It spells disaster to some people, its not worth a few cheap thrills for those who are not like that to make matters worse for those that do. Like I said, we are better off as a whole without it. Its bad enough that every indian tribe in america has casinos infiltrating more and more states now. What I am talking about is a breakdown of the moral majority, next thing will be video poker machines in every gas station like you see in some states even now. Funny thing is, those states also have an abundance of cash title loan places, check cashing places, bankruptcy lawyers etc. You see what I mean? The home should be a calm, unthreatening, safe place, where you can at least escape temporarily from stuff trying to suck you in and ruin your life.

If anything at least have some sort of gov't regulated program that watches for compulsive patterns of behaviour etc. Its a pretty crappy feeling to know you just spent your paycheck and you hadn't even left your house. Now, for me, that was years ago, but there are new people taking that dive every day.
I vote cut them off, I will not miss them, and I am sure that many others feel the same way.

 

[lots0]

Addiction also has a lot to do with convience, if you have a liqour cabinent in your front room you are more likely to drink than if the only way you can drink is to drive to the bar, or drive to the liqour store every time.

Lawmakers in the State of Utah think all you have to do is just outlaw it and it will go away, the law makers in Utah have all but outlawed Alcohol, yet they have the highest percentage per capita of Alcoholics in the USA.

The law makers in Utah have also completely outlawed Gambling, yet they still have a problem with compulsive gamblers in Utah, they keep going to states that border Utah to gamble, now that is perdy inconvenient, yet they still Gamble ... and I see a lot of IPs from Utah on my gambling sites...

So I guess what I am trying to say here is that history has PROVEN over and over again that you cant legislate morals and you cant stop people from doing what they want, even if you outlaw it.

Maybe if the law makers in the US were not so busy sticking their heads up each others asses they would seriously regulate Gambling in the US and use the fees and taxes collected to fund gambling support/cessation groups for those that have problems and put in place a self banning program in the US that really will work.