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

New proposed state poker bill, gg california?

Reply to Thread
  1. poguemahone68 poguemahone68 is offline

    United States

    Posts: 322
    Joined: Feb 07

    Feb 24th, 2011 (2/24/2011 5:21pm)

    It's been all over the news here in Northern Cali. I searched and couldn't find a thread on this.

    From what I can tell so far it looks like this has a really good chance of passing and may just be the beginning for all states. I went to the california PPA page on facebook and there was a meeting in sacramento lately and it seems FT and PS were named specifically as sites that would not be allowed, as they ignored the UIGEA.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=83620

    Cliffs:

    1. New proposed california poker legislation
    2. Backed by indian casinos
    3. They want to keep it local, licencing only companies that already provide poker in California
    4. Specifically ban sites like FT and PS that have not complied with UIGEA
    5. Make it a crime for someone to play at above non-licenced sites

    This is just insane!
     
  2. tizzle26 tizzle26 is offline

    Indianapolis, IN
    United States

    Posts: 334
    Joined: Feb 08

    Feb 24th, 2011 (2/24/2011 5:40pm) in reply to poguemahone68

    SMH
     
  3. poguemahone68 poguemahone68 is offline

    United States

    Posts: 322
    Joined: Feb 07

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 5:51am) in reply to tizzle26

    LOL at the only response in 12 hours is someone telling me to suck his whatever...
     
    Thread Starter
  4. Ugotdonedirty Ugotdonedirty is offline

    Williamsport, PA
    United States

    Posts: 393
    Joined: May 08

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 6:59am) in reply to poguemahone68

    i believe smh is shaking my head lol
  5. Cabo Cabo is offline

    Cumming, GA
    United States

    Posts: 2,027
    Joined: Feb 05

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 3:39pm) in reply to Ugotdonedirty

    "licencing only companies that already provide poker in California"

    what does this mean? B&M casinos?

    what about party poker and companies like them that obeyed the piece of shit UIGEA?
  6. hs1nergy hs1nergy is offline

    Cupertino, CA
    United States

    Posts: 68
    Joined: May 07

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 3:40pm) in reply to poguemahone68

    oh boy, thanks for the heads up.
  7. RI Tony RI Tony is offline

    RI
    United States

    Posts: 157
    Joined: Apr 07

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 4:59pm) in reply to hs1nergy

    Love how one of the commenters on the article lumped online poker in with marijuana and prostitution. It is ironic how the federal govt is trying to prohibit online poker with the UIGEA. But once a state govt is desperate for money, they decide they want to tax something the federal govt is trying to deem illegal.
  8. sheila12 sheila12 is offline

    Posts: 357
    Joined: Nov 06

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 5:46pm) in reply to RI Tony

     
    Originally Posted by RI Tony View Post

    Love how one of the commenters on the article lumped online poker in with marijuana and prostitution. It is ironic how the federal govt is trying to prohibit online poker with the UIGEA. But once a state govt is desperate for money, they decide they want to tax something the federal govt is trying to deem illegal.

    The marijuana comparison is fair in that cities are taxing dispenseries to fill budget gaps although federal law does not recognize them as operating legally.
  9. RI Tony RI Tony is offline

    RI
    United States

    Posts: 157
    Joined: Apr 07

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 6:32pm) in reply to sheila12

    I could understand that comparison, but the commenter was lumping online poker as being such a disgusting sin as doing drugs or prostitution. I think the person's point was something like "Why don't we just legalize and tax everything then?" Definitely agree that politicians are hypocritical, wanting to say how disgusting eating cake is, but also wanting to take a big bite.
    Edited By: RI Tony Feb 25th, 2011 at 06:33 PM
  10. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 7:50pm) in reply to RI Tony

    somehow I picture the "respondents" coming out of the casino and getting hit up to take a survey
     
  11. AMARTIN1181 AMARTIN1181 is online now

    New Haven, CT
    United States

    Posts: 10,693
    Joined: Nov 08

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 9:04pm) in reply to poguemahone68

     
    Originally Posted by poguemahone68 View Post

    LOL at the only response in 12 hours is someone telling me to suck his whatever...

    hahhaaa
  12. poguemahone68 poguemahone68 is offline

    United States

    Posts: 322
    Joined: Feb 07

    Feb 25th, 2011 (2/25/2011 9:40pm) in reply to Ugotdonedirty

     
    Originally Posted by Ugotdonedirty View Post

    i believe smh is shaking my head lol

    oops? lol

     
    Originally Posted by Cabo View Post

    "licencing only companies that already provide poker in California"

    what does this mean? B&M casinos?

    what about party poker and companies like them that obeyed the piece of shit UIGEA?

    ya, B&M casinos that are already operating in Cali is what it sounds like to me. Sounds like the indian casinos want in on this big time, as they have opposed it up until lately.

    I would imagine Party would be allowed in the california market, but that contradicts the local piece of this.

    I'm not sure what will happen, but it's been all over the local news here in the bay area for a week now. It's getting exposure for sure and California is in such a finacial mess right now I think this has a good chance of passing.

    This really needs to be done on a national level and allow for off-shore competition, but the feds move so slowly that the states wil probably beat em to it.
     
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread