This is part 3 of a multipart series of articles regarding offered anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue the discussion of the reasons claimed to make this legislation superslot necessary, and the facts that you can get in actuality, including the Jack Abramoff connection and the addicting nature of online betting.
The legislators attempt 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 Rap. Goodlatte, The internet Betting Prohibition Act, has the stated plan of updating the Line Act to outlaw all forms of online betting, to make it illegal for a betting business to receive credit and electronic moves, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to betting related sites at the request of law enforcement.
Just as does Rap. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Against the law Internet Betting, makes it illegal for betting businesses to receive credit cards, electronic moves, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal wagers, but his bill does not address those that place wagers.
The bill submitted by Rap. Leach, The Against the law Internet Betting Enforcement Act, is really a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing betting businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic moves, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes as to what 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 betting to continue blooming into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only does any damage individuals and their loved ones but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the united states and serves as a vehicle for cash laundering. inches
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, as well as others that are made, follow the reasoning that; 1) Jack Abramoff was against these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was damaged, 3) to avoid being associated with file corruption error you should political election for these bills. This is of course absurd. If we followed this reasoning to the extreme, we should get back and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills which he in contrast, regardless of the content of the bill. Legislation should be passed, or not, based on the merits of the offered legislation, not based on the standing of one individual.
As well, when Jack Abramoff in contrast previous bills, he did so on behalf of his client eLottery, attempting to get the sale of lottery tickets over the internet ruled out from the legislation. Ironically, the defenses he was seeking are most notable new bill, since state run lotteries would be ruled out. Jack Abramoff therefore may possibly support this legislation since it gives him what he needed. That will not stop Goodlatte as well as others from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as a method 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 betting “hurts individuals and their families”. I presume that what he is referring to here is problem betting. Let’s set the record straight. Only a small percentage of players become problem players, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of players.
In addition, Goodlatte would have you feel that Internet betting is more addicting than casino betting. Sen. Kyl moved in terms of to call online betting “the crack cocaine of gambling”, attributing the quote to some un-named investigator. To the contrary, researchers have shown that betting on the internet is no more addicting than betting in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic betting machines, found in casinos and race tracks from coast to coast are more addicting than online betting.
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 betting, in that it contributes more to causing problem betting than any other betting activity. So ,, 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 isn’t theoretically on the public radar until someone called it “the new crack cocaine. inches And “On his Vice Group weblog, University of Chicago, il 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 betting, inches 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 Rap. Goodlatte, Rap. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn’t have brought the offered legislation forward.
Next article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by people in politics who are against online betting, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric, within the “drain on the economy” caused by online betting, and the notion of money laundering.