WWW
I am going to tell you a secret. I don’t think it makes me a bad man. I play online poker. There, I said it. And now I have to rant on the issue because I may not be able to do it because I live in the United States.
Here is the link to the story.
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html?id=892607ab-2b6d-470c-8fcc-08aada8dcbaf&k=97496
Am I hurting anyone by anteing $3 and spending my time trying to make $400? I guess I am if I win the jackpot and win other people’s money, but that is the risk you take. I am investing in my self, my brain and my skill. I can see how people get addicted and lose all of their money. But couldn’t they do the same thing playing in a live game, or at a casino, or on the lottery?
I guess I get mad when people try and infringe on my rights without asking me. If I had a gambling problem, what I write might be different. I can see the quotes, “I lost my children’s college tuition!” Or, “My house was foreclosed on.” Those who are not addicted would say, “Stop.” Or, “Don’t bet so much.”
Sadly, there are addicts for many things. Food, alcohol, drugs, etc… There are also many people who can eat sensibly, gamble sensibly and drink sensibly. Do we go back to Prohibition? Do we have to start back alley poker halls?
I don’t know the answer, but the idea they are talking about doesn’t make sense. Next thing you know they’re going to take away my Fantasy Football because it is hurting the output of the economy. Just leave it alone!
A friend sent me this today and as scary as this is for me to say, I agree with a politician.
BARNEY FRANK OPPOSES BILL TO BAN INTERNET GAMBLING (H.R. 4411)
U.S. House of Representatives
July 11, 2006
“Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the
gentleman from Iowa with whom I often agree. I don’t disagree with him
entirely. I will stipulate that there is nothing in the Bhagavad Gita
about gambling. But other than that, I don’t think he got much right.
He says that gambling on the Internet does not add to the GDP or make
America competitive. Has it become the role of this Congress to prohibit
any activity that an adult wants to engage in voluntarily if it doesn’t
add to the GDP or make us more competitive?
What kind of socio-, cultural authoritarianism are we advocating here?
Now, I agree there is a practice around today that causes a lot of
problems, damages families, people lose their jobs, they get in debt. They
do it to excess. It is called drinking. Are we going to go back to
Prohibition? Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol; it doesn’t work for
gambling.
When people abuse a particular practice, the sensible thing is to try to
deal with the abuse, not outlaw it.
By the way, this bill allows certain kinds of Internet gambling to stay,
so apparently the notion is that those few people who are obsessive and
addicted will not take advantage of those forms which are still available
to them.
But the fundamental point is this. If an adult in this country, with his
or her own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how
dare we prohibit it because it doesn’t add to the GDP or it has no
macroeconomic benefit. Are we all to take home calculators and, until we
have satisfied the gentleman from Iowa that we are being socially useful,
we abstain from recreational activities that we choose?
This Congress is well on the way to getting it absolutely backwards. In
areas where we need to act together to protect the quality of our life, in
the environment, in transportation, in public safety, we abstain; but in
those areas where individuals ought to be allowed to make their own
choices, we intervene. And that is what this is.
Now, people have said, well, some students abuse it. We should work to try
to diminish abuse. But if we were to outlaw for adults everything that
college students abuse, we would all just sit home and do nothing.
By the way, credit card abuse among students is a more serious problem, I
believe, than gambling. Maybe gambling will catch up. But we have heard
many, many stories about young people who have credit cards that they
abuse. Do we ban credit cards for them?
But here is the fundamental issue. Shouldn’t it be the principle in this
government that the burden of proof is on those who want to prohibit
adults from their own free choices to show that they are harming other
people?
We ought to say that, if you decide with your own money to engage in an
activity that harms no one else, you ought to be allowed to do it. And
once you say, oh, no, but that doesn’t add to the GDP, and that can lead
to some problems in families, then this is hardly the only thing you will
end up banning.
The fundamental principle of the autonomy of the individual is at stake
today.
Now, I have to say, I understand a lot of the conservatives don’t like it
because there are people on the religious side who don’t like it. Some of
my liberal friends, I think, are being very inconsistent. We are for
allowing a lot of things. I mean, many of us vote to say, You can burn the
flag; I wish you wouldn’t, but you can. It shouldn’t be a crime.
You can look at certain things on television that maybe other people think
you shouldn’t. You can do other things but you can’t gamble. There is a
fundamental inconsistency there.
I guess people think gambling is tacky. They don’t like it. Well, fine,
then don’t do it. But don’t prohibit other individuals from engaging in
it.
People have said, What is the value of gambling? Here is the value. Some
human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn’t that be our principle? If
individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them
to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do.
And it is, of course, likely to be ineffective. The best thing that ever
happens to illegal gamblers is when you do a measure like this.
I hope the bill is defeated.”