BS: Banning online gambling

Subject: BS: Banning online gambling
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM

Is GWB's move to ban online gambling for the good of Joe Public or for the protection of the US gambling industry? Which he doesn't seem to be so anxious to ban, or to control.
The two largest companies in the industry just happen to be UK based, which I find a bit too much of a protectionist coincidence!
Not that I want to see gambling proliferate any more than it already is!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM

I just suspect that the real reason for this is because gambling payments might be a good money-laundering system for terrorists or organized crime.

Secondary reason: Appealing to the religious right's votes.

Of course the pretext is in the name of "family values". Whatever that means.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 07:14 PM

How can internet betting be banned in the US? Just go to www.williamhill.co.uk and place a bet. What will happen when the pratt realises this? War on the UK?

Oh-oh...

Just realised that is probably true. Any room in Canada?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 07:36 PM

Does seem a little odd that family values aren't threatened by the US based internet gambling sites, or in fact Las Vegas, but is by those damn foreigners we can't trust....

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM

Banning internet gambling as such is obviously futile.

BUT! International transfer of gambling payments is another matter, and probably will be much more effective.

Please don't read this or my previous post as saying I'm in favor of this prohibition.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:20 PM

How anyone can regard any form of gambling as a legitimate industry is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:28 PM

Me too, but governments just LOVE it, because it's a huge source of money. It's a form of organized crime, but then so is a great deal of the stuff governments do, so why be surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM

Aside from the state run lotteries, and Las Vega etc., the largest lobbying group in the US associated with gambling probably consists mostly of "Tribal Gambling."

Most of the states have had anti-gambling laws for decades, and the "Independent Nations" of Native Americans provided an out to allow casinos and bingo parlors "on foreign soil" right in the middle of the US - without state politicos having to face up to whether it was something large numbers of people wanted.

The Tribal casinos have been a very effective barrier to legalized gambling of all kinds in many of the states. They contribute heavily to buying the appropriately connected politicians, via their lobbyists and PACs, and are extremely protective of their "exclusive offerings."

Any attempt to enforce existing laws and/or to shut down internet gambling most likely comes from existing gambling operators in the US, and largely is a matter of who pays the politicians best.

Recent attempts to approve "Indian casinos" in Kansas have been stonewalled by opposition from the "Indian casinos" in Missouri and Oklahoma, and it has been impossible (or simply not necessary), thus far, for Kansas to offer citizens a chance to participate in the debate.

It's the money - same old refrain.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 09:35 PM

Yeah. Pretty sad to see Native Americans falling into such blatant corruption, isn't it? This is not what Crazy Horse was fighting for, to put it mildly.

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:02 PM

LH -

Most of the legal gambling in the US, other than in Nevada and Atlantic City where they just didn't have much else to offer and actually got to vote on it, is sort of an accident resulting from the argument that the "tribes" retained some sovereign authority over their own people, and hence, in some cases, were exempt from local, state, and even US laws that prevented anyone else from legally starting up a floating crap game.

The simple fact that most gambling centers are "Indian casinos" (the term commonly used here) is just due to that "loophole" being apparently available only to the tribes, so anyone wanting to run gambling has had to create and maintain at least the appearance that "there's injuns" in control. Whether there's really anything "Indian" about those who actually control the gambling now is, in many cases, questionable, and whether most of the "profits" go where they're nominally supposed to, or go elsewhere, is something few Native Americans could tell you, even if they're involved in operating the casinos.

Calling them that is just a shorthand for "gambling places operating under 'the usual' special rules." It says nothing about any "value judgement" about Native Americans, or tribal law, culture, or custom, about how well their neighbors get along with them, and especially nothing in particular - at this point - about who's pocketing most of the profits.

All that is known, IMO pretty clearly, is that that money is what's doing the talking to/for those who "administer" the laws on gambling - locally, in the state legislatures, and in the US Executive, with respect to local/internet/international or other kinds of gambling.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: 282RA
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:17 PM

The Bush administration are not moral crusaders, they are crooks. If they want a ban on online gambling it's because they're doing what Ralph Reed did, push for it so that Indian casinos won't have competition. There has to be something in it for the Bush people. That's how it is with them. They're making money from it somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:28 AM

"How anyone can regard any form of gambling as a legitimate industry is beyond me."

How right, Richard.

Before the "Indian Casino" we had the Bookies. We started out with the horses & the dogs, cock fights, etc. Then we evolved/invented, the policy or numbers game, commonly known as the "nigger pool" which was given birth in Harlem back in the roaring 20's. Dutch Schultz spotted it & took it away from & out of the hands of Harlem & figured out how he could rig it. It went into the hands of Big Crime Business. It's main appeal was always towards poor to lower middle working & non working class people & the dream of hitting it big is addictive & the worst the economy the better the betting. Betting palors sprung up but when off track betting became an enforceable crime (off track betting never became a crime but that's a different thread) & a ression hit the bookies went into the bars & other legit establishments & set up shop there. Then came along the federal stamp. As long as you paid for the stamp, a form of a tax, it was ok to take bets. No one ever cared about the gambler, now or then. The feds would not & did not share any info to the state authories who the stamped bookies were. If the feds raided a "booking joint" any one with a stamp was released on the spot the reast had to pass go. With the coming of the state lotteries most of the bookies & their bankers or backers went bust. The state was now getting their fair share of the pie. So I guess from the 20's to th 60's illegal gambling was in it's heydays. Todays online gambling is just the start of another unregulated heyday period where the government isn't getting their fair share & until they figure out how to get it will become illegal & stay that way until these new computer wise bookies have to pay into the system. Sam, will have his due.

Gambling is addictive to many!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 06:57 AM

It's because Gambling is addictive, it's better to have it out in the open. The single best way to make an addictive habit more destructive is to make it illeagal. The US proved it with Prohibition and most of the world is proving it right now with various other drugs.

If it's illeagal, it doesn't stop people gambling, it just places it firmly on the hands of criminals. Instead of employing people at the bookmakers on the high street, or looking after the horses on the race track, it just creates more work for the police, and more people working in the black economy, paying no taxes. Legal gambling is harmless for most people, and slightly the lesser of two evils for the rest.


( Azizzi, before you complain, Black economy is a recognised term for hidden, informal business like this. Black in this case means in the dark. Well in the UK it does anyway....)

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM

Bunnahabhain:

I think it would be better not to capitalize "Black" if what you mean is "in the dark", or "hidden", "secret", et cetera.

Capitalizing it suggests that it's a proper noun, not an adjective, and the first thought of many is that you're talking race. "Black" as a racial term, is often thought of (though I don't) as a proper noun.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:23 PM

Good point. I'd not actually meant to type it with capitals....

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: skipy
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:45 PM

Bet you are wrong!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 04:12 AM

Having just gotten around to reading some of the newspapers that piled up while I was at festival, the only article in my newsrag relating to this discussion doesn't say anything about banning gambling. The legislation passed merely makes it illegal for any US bank, credit union, or credit or debit card operator to transmit money from the US to "foreign gambling" addresses.

So we're not prohibited from gambling - only from paying up if we lose. ... (?). (Or collecting if we win ;>(

John

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 12:08 PM

John, the effect of it is to prevent a group of UK online gambling companies, which currently have US revenues of several billion dollars annually, operating in the US. It doesn't affect the US based companies, of a similar size. Clearly online poker is a clear and present danger to the coutries morals, but virtual horse racing isn't....

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Rasener
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 02:18 PM

Gambling is a mugs game.
Online gambling is even more of a mugs game. However once started, I would imagine it would become very addictive.
They should ban it in the UK as well.

How can people in the Uk afford to gamble anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Banning online gambling
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM

The US companies based in the US (by the way the "UK" companies in question are not really very UK, UK, UK, if you get my drift) are subject to US law and regulation on gambling. Non US companies aren't which is why the UK cos are as they are, and why the US gov't wants to shut them out of its market if it can't regulate them. For once the USA sems to be doing something right even if its regulation of terrestrial gambling is a laughing stock the world over (except in Sicily).