Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Interesting Article on the Internet Gambling mess

Reply to Thread
  1. Wayde Wayde is offline

    Hopkinton, MA
    United States

    Posts: 41
    Joined: Feb 05

    Oct 1st, 2006 (10/1/2006 10:53am)

    <TABLE id=table57 width=540 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=black12 vAlign=top width=366>Internet gambling bill passing: Republican politician suggests "no big deal"
    While the industry reels following passage of a bill to drastically curb online gambling, at least one top ranking Republican politician we spoke to offered his own take on what will ultimately transpire.

    Wishing to remain anonymous, this politician told Gambling911.com "It (the bill) will change very little."

    He went on to explain that the focus of the bill is primarily on credit card processing. Banking institutions have already made it clear online transactions are virtually impossible to stop via electronic check and bank wire.

    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE id=table58 width=540 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=black12 vAlign=top>"The bill affects Visa/Mastercard transactions and it is getting impossible to use these cards anyway (for online gambling transactions.
    "The bill is very 'watered down' in terms of language which gives ISPs plenty of wiggle room if they did not know they were enabling consumers to reach gaming sites. It is not a big deal."
    It is a big deal, however, to the online gambling sector, with a number of publicly traded firms expected to release statements on Monday.
    Andrew McIvor, the finance director of Sportingbet, which takes most of its bets from the US market, told the Belfast Telegraph Saturday night: "We have not discussed it (the bill) yet as a board and have not taken on what it really means for the company as yet. Things will unravel during the week."

    Others have suggested to Gambling911.com that countries - quite possibly the online gambling Mecca of Gibraltar - may be considering legal action against the United States with the island nation of Antigua a near sure bet to follow.

    Legal advisors for one major online payment processor have already indicated to Gambling911.com they plan on joining in on any pending litigation that might materialize as a result of this bill. A third party risk meeting is slated this coming Thursday in London.

    And the mainstream media isn't exactly pounding the pavement about an all out ban on internet gambling either. A Wall Street analyst, learning of initial failed attempts to tack on internet gambling legislation to a defense authorization bill, joked last week: "What other bills are floating around that Frist will stick his anti gambling provision to?"

    Not until Friday was anyone aware that Frist would actually attempt to attach internet gambling prohibition to a port security bill.

    Lost in all of Saturday's news is the slim possibility that President Bush may not even sign the bill into law. While seemingly important, port security languished in Congress for years before getting a last minute vote of approval during the wee hours of Saturday morning.

    "The President will sign as is," insisted the top ranking Republican politician we spoke with.
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  2. P.Mason P.Mason is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 602
    Joined: Jul 06

    Oct 1st, 2006 (10/1/2006 12:15pm) in reply to Wayde

    Yeah, no doubt F___head will sign it, but it will be interesting to see just how hard and what the Fed is going to enforce. As far as I'm concerned it's business as usual until AOL blocks party poker. Frist's actions were so visibly slimy and desperate.

    I just wonder if the US government is that interested in kicking up all that dust trying to enforce strict regulations.

    God forbid that little weasel Frist is elected president.
  3. tilterstom tilterstom is offline

    Salt Lake City, UT
    United States

    Posts: 525
    Joined: Sep 06

    Oct 1st, 2006 (10/1/2006 12:30pm) in reply to Wayde

    12 billion dollar industry. poker players, poker sites, payment processers, other nations all want this gone. think the government would like to ban somet things like cigarettes, they probably do considering the deaths that it causes (though they do tax the hell out of it.)

    But cigarette industry is too big of an industry to ban, as was alcohol which we saw during prohibition.

    simply put the online gaming industry is too big to be banned, too much money. government will smarten up and realize that their broke asses need the tax money that could be gained from regulation and they will allow it.

    i heard somewhere there is more wagered on sports in a year in the US than is spent on groceries, which i believe cus i wager probably 2-3 games a day during the week and 6-7 on weekends at 150 a pop. way too much money involved here.
  4. gamblingfun gamblingfun is offline

    Johnson City, TN
    United States

    Posts: 2,876
    Joined: Aug 05

    Oct 1st, 2006 (10/1/2006 12:42pm) in reply to tilterstom

    you could make that argument for all drugs. and the war on drugs has never been profitable and costs taxpayers millions. And I dont forsee the Govt dropping its war on drugs anytime soon.
  5. P.Mason P.Mason is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 602
    Joined: Jul 06

    Oct 1st, 2006 (10/1/2006 1:08pm) in reply to gamblingfun

    US citizens, or the world for that matter, are unlikely to ever view online gaming in the same manner as it views narcotics. I love the fact that online gaming is legal and regulated in the UK, it sends a very strong message.
  6. mscheesecake mscheesecake is offline

    Posts: 425
    Joined: Sep 06

    Oct 1st, 2006 (10/1/2006 1:18pm) in reply to gamblingfun

    True, but what is the ratio of people being truly addicted to the drugs versus the ratio of people being truly addicted to poker. I can't find statistics, but I bet you it's much higher for the drugs. And also, if you're a gambling addict, you're only out the money. If you're a drug addict, you're out the money spend on drugs, plus the possible treatment cost of overdose from drugs, and then there's rehab at 2k a day (no, not me, my sister's husband is a morphine addict who's been in rehab half a dozen times...). If they can't afford it, the government picks it up, which means indirectly we do. And I think if we were to compare the cost of the actual two, the drug addict would (on average) be more expense to cover, therefore making it a far bigger problem. That's my take, sorry if I don't make any sense I'm still sick as a dog with strep and mono....
Reply to Thread