Poker Legislation Post

Like most things in politics, the devil is in the detail.  I have no clue if what they are proposing will actually be effective on any level.

that being said, I think, on the surface, this could be a good thing for the passage of the Frank bill.  The government loves to have safety nets for everyone.  So perhaps by having this bill in place, it could make the notion of expanding gambling more palitable to moderates or those opposed.  Now government will be able to save the lives of the thongs of ppl who will become instantaneously addicted once online poker is fully legalized and regulated.

Good question. The article does say that Frank is on board, so he must believe it will work as a compliment to his bill. Obviously, much of the resistance to full acceptance and regulation of online gambling hinges on the belief that easy access to gambling will produce problem gamblers. I'm fairly certain that if someone is likely to become a problem gambler, they will seek it out no matter where they are, local casino, state run lotteries, bingo, or internet.
My wife is a problem gambler and would not even consider the internet as an option. She needs the alure of the casino with the funky lights, smells, etc. Online play lets me play without adding to her addiction. When I go to a casino to play I feel guilty for leaving her behind and I know it's only a matter of time before she starts bugging me to take her. If I don't, she'll sneak.
IOW, problem gambling needs to be addressed, but I don't think it needs to concentrate on internet gambling. I don't think I could oppose any bill which addresses the problem unless it specifically is prohibitive in nature.

Problem gambling/gambling addiction is real. I have personally represented a few folks who suffered with that addiction. To those who have it, and those who care about them, it is truly a terrible affliction.

That said, the amount of problem gambling out there is no where near as big as our opponents would like the voters to think. And even less of a problem in the poker subset of the "gambling" population.

I like the approach of the group mentioned in this article: to try and understand and help problem gamblers without taking a political stand on the legality of gambling. That is worthy of respect in and of itself.

And, of course, one of the points we make in legislative circles is that it is far easier to identify and help problem gamblers in a legal regulated environment than an underground illegal one. I suspect this is why Frank is supporting this bill.

I can support this bill as written too, but I also think it is important to keep an eye on it and make sure that our opponents dont try to play politics with the issue and somehow use this legislation for something it is not intended to do: i.e., take a political position on legal gambling.

I think the bill will enjoy wide support across the gaming community.

I think the real point behind this is increasing the infrastructure that many anti gambling lobbyist argue would be needed to handle legalization. I think its good, but we always have to be careful with how things are worded, an evil of politics I'm afraid.

whenever your negotiating\argueing a point the most important thing to do is put yourself in your opponents position, so you can know what objections you would have if arguing the for the other side. If you can find your opponents objections before they are made you can either proactivly answer the question or be prepared to respond knowledgeably and rationally to those objections when raised. I think that we can view this bill as a preimptive strike.

TY folks... awesome replies, as usual.