This is part 3 of a multipart series of articles concerning proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue the consulation of the reasons claimed to make this legislation necessary, and the facts that exist in the real world, including the Jack Abramoff relationship and the addictive nature of online gambling.
The legislators are trying to safe us from something, or are they? The whole thing seems a petite confusing to say the least.
As mentioned in previous articles, the House, and the Senate, are once again inspecting the issue of "Online Gambling". Bills have been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.
The bill being put transmit by Rep. Goodlatte, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, has the stated intention of updating the Wire Act to outlaw all forms of online gambling, to make it illegal for a gambling firm to accept reputation and electronic transfers, and to force Isps and common Carriers to block entrance to gambling connected sites at the ask of law enforcement.
Just as does Rep. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept reputation cards, electronic transfers, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal bets, but his bill does not address those that place bets.
The bill submitted by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling obligation Act, is basically a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing gambling businesses from accepting reputation cards, electronic transfers, checks, and other payments, and 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 continue thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar firm which not only hurts individuals and their families but makes the cheaper suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a car for money laundering."
There are some intelligent points here.
First of all, we have a petite misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his disregard for the legislative process. This comment, and others that have been made, supervene the logic that; 1) Jack Abramoff was opposed to these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was corrupt, 3) to avoid being connected with corruption you should vote for these bills. This is of policy absurd. If we followed this logic to the extreme, we should go back and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills that he opposed, regardless of the article 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 on behalf of his client eLottery, attempting to get the sale of lottery tickets over the internet excluded from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he was seeking are included in this new bill, since state run lotteries would be excluded. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably sustain this legislation since it gives him what he was finding for. That does not stop Goodlatte and others from using Abramoff's new disgrace as a means to make their bill look better, thus development 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 gambling "hurts individuals and their families". I reckon that what he is referring to here is question gambling. Let's set the article straight. Only a small ration of gamblers become question gamblers, not a small ration of the population, but only a small ration of gamblers.
In addition, Goodlatte would have you believe that Internet gambling is more addictive than casino gambling. Sen. Kyl has gone so far as to call online gambling "the crack cocaine of gambling", attributing the quote to some un-named researcher. To the contrary, researchers have shown that gambling on the Internet is no more addictive than gambling in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic gambling machines, found in casinos and race tracks all over the country are more addictive than online gambling.
In investigate by N. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of condition Sciences, Rmit University, Bundoora, Australia "There is a general view that electronic gaming is the most 'addictive' form of gambling, in that it contributes more to causing question gambling than any other gambling activity. As such, 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 concentration for a pet cause is to assess it to some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America". And "During the 1980s and '90s, it was a petite different. Then, a troubling new trend wasn't officially on the social radar until person dubbed it "the new crack cocaine." And "On his Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google crusade 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 crusade 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)".
As we can see, calling something the "crack cocaine" has become a meaningless metaphor, showing only that the person development the statement feels it is important. But then we knew that Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was leading or they wouldn't have brought the proposed legislation forward.
In the next article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by politicians who are against online gambling, and supply a dissimilar perspective to their rhetoric, outside the "drain on the economy" caused by online gambling, and the opinion of money laundering.
official source Politicians Want to safe us From the Evils of On-Line Gambling Part 3 official source
No comments:
Post a Comment