Political figures Want to Protect us From the Evils of On-Line Gambling Part 3
This is part 3 of a multipart series of articles regarding planned anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue the discussion of the reasons claimed to make this legislation necessary, and the facts superslot which exist in real life, including the Jack Abramoff connection and the enslaving nature of online playing.
The legislators want to protect us from something, or are they? The whole lot seems a little confusing to say the least.
As mentioned in previous articles, the house, and the Senate, are once again considering the issue of “Online Gambling”. Bills have been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.
The bill being put forward by Repetition. Goodlatte, The internet Playing Prohibition Act, has the stated purpose of updating the Cord Act to outlaw all forms of online playing, to make it illegal for a playing business to simply accept credit and electronic exchanges, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to playing related sites at the request of law enforcement.
Just as does Repetition. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Outlawed Internet Playing, makes it illegal for playing businesses to simply accept credit cards, electronic exchanges, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal table bets, but his bill does not address those that place table bets.
The bill submitted by Repetition. Leach, The Outlawed Internet Playing Enforcement Act, is actually a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing playing businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic exchanges, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes as to the is currently legal, or illegal.
In a quote from Goodlatte we have “Jack Abramoff’s total dismiss for the what is process has allowed Internet playing to continue flourishing into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only affects individuals and their own families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the united states and serves as a vehicle for the money laundering. inch
There are several interesting points here.
First of all, we have a little misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his dismiss for the what is process. This comment, yet others which have been made, follow the judgement that; 1) Jack Abramoff was averse to these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was tainted, 3) to avoid being associated with file corruption you should election for these bills. This is of course absurd. If we followed this judgement to the extreme, we should return and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills that she compared with, regardless of the content of the bill. Legislation should be passed, or not, based on the merits of the planned legislation, not based on the trustworthiness of one individual.
As well, when Jack Abramoff compared with previous bills, he did so on behalf of his client eLottery, attempting to get the sale of lottery tickets over the internet omitted from the legislation. Ironically, the defenses he was seeking are especially new bill, since state run lotteries would be omitted. Jack Abramoff therefore could support this legislation since it gives him what he needed. It does not stop Goodlatte yet others from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as an approach to make their bill look better, thus making it not just an anti-gambling bill, but somehow an ant-corruption bill as well, while at the same time rewarding Abramoff and his client.
Next, is his statement that online playing “hurts individuals and their families”. I presume that what he is referring to here is problem playing. Let’s set the record straight. Only a small percentage of bettors become problem bettors, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of bettors.
In addition, Goodlatte would have you think that Internet playing is more enslaving than casino playing. Sen. Kyl is now as long as to call online playing “the crack cocaine of gambling”, attributing the quote to some un-named examiner. To the contrary, researchers have shown that playing on the internet is no more enslaving than playing in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic playing machines, found in casinos and race tracks in every state are more enslaving than online playing.
In research by In. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia “There is a general view that electronic gaming is the most ‘addictive’ form of playing, in that it contributes more to causing problem playing than any other playing activity. As a result, electronic gaming machines have been referred to as the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling”.
As to Sen. Kyls claim about “crack cocaine”, quotes at http: //www. alternet. org/drugreporter/20733/ include “Cultural busybodies have long known that in post this-is-your-brain-on-drugs America, the best way to win attention for a pet cause is to compare it to some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America”. And “During the 1980s and ’90s, it was a little different. Then, a troubling new trend was not formally on the public radar until someone named it “the new crack cocaine. inch And “On his Vice Team weblog, University of Chi town Mentor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search finds experts declaring slot machines (The New york Times Magazine), video video poker machines (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) the “crack cocaine of playing, inch respectively. Leitzel’s search also found that spam email is “the crack cocaine of advertising” (Sarasota, Fla. Herald Tribune), and that cybersex is a kind of sexual “spirtual crack cocaine” (Focus on the Family)”.
Even as can see, calling something the “crack cocaine” has become a meaningless metaphor, showing only that the person making the statement feels it is important. But then we knew that Repetition. Goodlatte, Repetition. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn’t have brought the planned legislation forward.
Yearly article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by political figures who are against online playing, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric, within the “drain on the economy” caused by online playing, and the notion of money laundering.