BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?

Subject: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:41 PM

Examples of sanity from Congress, the Senate, or anywhere in the vicinity of DC are pretty rare.

But I had one recently cross my plate and thought you-all might like to know such a thing is still possible.

The subject was the prohibition of gambling via the Internet, which the House in its wisdom has decided to select as its next "most important issue". From the Office of Representative Ron Paul:

Here is what Ron Paul said about the bill yesterday, please feel free to
share with the list:


   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It
is not
easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed that proponents of the
bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral
high ground in the sense that protecting liberty is more important than
passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet.

    The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure
there
were no barriers between interstate trade. In this case, we are putting
barriers up.

    I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a
bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve the problem because
it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is
increase the price. And there are some people who see prohibitions as an
enticement, and that it actually increases the demand.

    But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it
is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet, it doesn't
disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is
turned over to the criminal element. So you won't get rid of it.

    Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed
to protect other interests because we certainly aren't going to get rid of
gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance
the other.

    But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose
this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very
dangerous precedent to set.

    To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than
gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling. I think it is
pretty stupid, to tell you the truth.

    But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we
going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things worse coming from
those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil
of these bad ideas and distorted religions, and therefore we have to
regulate the Internet?

[Begin Insert]

    H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should
be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional
authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

    In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove
ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that
gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed
experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the
government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling
simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to
gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban.
In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be
members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate
Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled
by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet
gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and
resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized
crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling
will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will
raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the
profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly
ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase
organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.

    In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal
power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective in eliminating
the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that
these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my
colleagues to reject H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and
Enforcement Act.

[End Insert]

Norman Kirk Singleton
Legislative Director
Congressman Ron Paul
203 Cannon
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2831

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:46 PM

Whooo Hooo! Doesn't happen often, I agree, and I'm sort of 'in' the System ya know

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:49 PM

Here by the way is an interesting MSN article on what the Federal forces are contemplating concerning the Internet:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13808101/


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 07:37 PM

So it's not about your in-laws driving you mad then...

There is occasionally good news from Washington, if only by accident.

Remember, Govt. is a four letter word.

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 08:32 PM

Sanity in Law

The "sane" family one married into? :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 06:10 AM

There are some solutions. The easiest is to go mad now, and get married later....

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 10:41 AM

The prohibition of the expoitation of the credulous or addictive by regulating the freedom to promote gambing has never that I know of done any harm, and the legitimation of gambling has by and large done immense harm to those who become addicted, their families, those they steal from to feed their addictions, and even greater harm by encouraging an industry mostly run by organised crime.

Not only should all commercial organisation of gambling be illegal on the internet, so, too should all casino betting shop totaliser pools and similar operations, whether operating lotteries or competitions. They do no good and do immense harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Midchuck
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 11:24 AM

...the legitimation of gambling has by and large done immense harm to those who become addicted, their families, those they steal from to feed their addictions, and even greater harm by encouraging an industry mostly run by organised crime.

Meaning no disrespect, but that statement demonstrates the exact same missing of the point that the various legislative bodies are guilty of.

Gambling has in fact done all the harm that you state. No argument. But it's the gambling itself that does the harm, not the "legitimization" of it. Gambling is mostly run by organized crime because it's illegal.

You cannot stamp out an activity that a substantial portion of the population likes and intends to continue doing. The history of Prohibition in the US should have proved that once and for all. All you can do is drive it underground, so that you have no control over it at all; and no tax revenue.

What was that quote about those who will not learn from history being condemmed to repeat it...?

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 12:39 PM

I remind you of Prohibition, a virtuous effort to change the hearts and minds of alcoholics everywhere by imposing the force of the Feds on them. A failed experiment. It is notable for two reasons -- one, it demonstrates the failure of "suppressing behavior by force" as an approach, and secondly it demonstrates vividly why moral fads should never be introduced into the Constitution of the United States. This is a separate but very important lesson which the Bushites never heard. And hear I thought our C-student leader was a major in history...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sanity in Law--Still Possible?
From: Bassic
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:19 PM

Sanity in Law.........sounds to me like a Sanity clause,........

All together.....

"and we all know there aint no Sanity Clause" ;-)