Do they want to protect minors from gambling? Sure, but just like with alcohol, measures can be implemented to prevent this (or at least try to).

Do they want to protect troubled gamblers and potential troubled gamblers? I think this is their strongest argument as it has been scientifically proven that gambling addiction is closely related to cocaine addiction (http://www.veteranrecovery.med.va.go...g/BrainCha.pdf). Moreover, problem gamblers can cause great burdens on society. This burdens might include:

1. Increased government expenditures on welfare programs or unemployment compensation.

2. Physical, psychological, or emotional abuse of children.

Nevertheless, problem gamblers only make up 4% of all gamblers (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neur...isiddiqui.html). Furthermore, the amount of Americans who actually participate in gambling activities is very low. How then can the Federal Govt reason their compelling interest is broad enough to deny all Americans their privacy? (guaranteed under the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments in the majority and concurring opinions of the Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965))

In my opinion, the UIGEA is clearly unconstitutional. I could probably write a lot more in depth on all of this but I need to get back to studying.