Political figures Need to Shield people Through the Evils involving On-Line Gambling.

This really is part 3 of a multipart group of articles regarding proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this short article, I continue the discussion of the reason why claimed to produce this legislation necessary, and the reality that exist in real life, such as the Jack Abramoff connection and the addictive nature of online gambling.

The legislators are attempting to protect us from something, or are they? Everything seems only a little confusing to say the least.

As stated in previous articles, the House, and the Senate, are yet again considering the issue of “Online Gambling” ;.Bills have already been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.안전놀이터

The bill being put forward by Rep. Goodlatte, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, has got the stated intention of updating the Wire Act to outlaw all forms of online gambling, to produce it illegal for a gambling business to simply accept credit and electronic transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block use of gambling related sites at the request of law enforcement.

Just as does Rep. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, causes it to be illegal for gambling businesses to simply accept charge cards, electronic transfers, checks and other kinds of payment for the purpose on placing illegal bets, but his bill doesn’t address the ones that place bets.

The bill submitted by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is basically a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It centers on preventing gambling businesses from accepting charge cards, electronic transfers, checks, and other payments, and just like the Kyl bill makes no changes to what is currently legal, or illegal.

In a quote from Goodlatte we have “Jack Abramoff’s total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gambling to carry on thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only hurts 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 cash laundering.”

There are many interesting points here.

To begin with, we have only a little misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his disregard for the legislative process. This comment, and others which were made, follow the logic that; 1) Jack Abramoff was in opposition to these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was corrupt, 3) in order to avoid being associated with corruption you must vote for these bills. This really is needless to say absurd. When we followed this logic to the extreme, we ought to return and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills that he opposed, regardless of content of the bill. Legislation should be passed, or not, based on the merits of the proposed legislation, not based on the reputation of one individual.

As well, when Jack Abramoff opposed previous bills, he did so with respect to his client eLottery, attempting to have the sale of lottery tickets on the internet excluded from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he was seeking are most notable new bill, since state run lotteries will be excluded. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably support this legislation since it offers him what he was looking for. That doesn’t stop Goodlatte and others from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as an effective way to make their bill look better, thus rendering it not just an anti-gambling bill, but somehow an ant-corruption bill as well, while at the same time frame rewarding Abramoff and his client.

Next, is his statement that online gambling “hurts individuals and their families” ;.I presume that what he is referring to here’s problem gambling. Let’s set the record straight. Just a small percentage of gamblers become problem gamblers, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of gamblers.

In addition, Goodlatte might have you imagine that Internet gambling is more addictive than casino gambling. Sen. Kyl moved as far as to call online gambling “the crack cocaine of gambling”, attributing the quote for some un-named researcher. To the contrary, researchers have shown that gambling on the Internet is no longer addictive than gambling in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic gambling machines, within casinos and race tracks all over the country are more addictive than online gambling.

In research by N. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia “There’s a general view that electronic gaming is the absolute most ‘addictive’ form of gambling, in so it contributes more to causing problem gambling than some other gambling activity. Therefore, electronic gaming machines have already been called the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling” ;.

As to Sen. Kyls claim about “crack cocaine” include “Cultural busybodies have long known that in post this-is-your-brain-on-drugs America, the simplest way to win attention for a puppy cause is always to compare it for some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America” ;.And “Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, it absolutely was only a little different. Then, a troubling new trend wasn’t officially on people radar until someone dubbed it “the brand new crack cocaine.” And “On his Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago Professor Jim Leitzel notes a Google search finds experts declaring slot machines (The New York Times Magazine), video slots (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) the “crack cocaine of gambling,” respectively. Leitzel’s search also unearthed that spam email is “the crack cocaine of advertising” (Sarasota, Fla. Herald Tribune), and that cybersex is a type of sexual “spirtual crack cocaine” (Focus on the Family)” ;.

As we can see, calling something the “crack cocaine” has changed into a meaningless metaphor, showing only that the individual making the statement feels it is important. But we knew that Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn’t have brought the proposed legislation forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *